text:
What should I prepare for a Star Wars X-Wing tournament?
Next week I am participating in my first Star Wars X-Wing tournament. The tournament will be from 10am with up to 16 participants and three to four games. I have played Star Wars X-Wing with a friend for a couple of weeks now and collected a considerable amount of Empire ships. I have planned to bring the following things:

Ships plus cards required for my build plus tokens
Five printed copies of my build
Bottled water and snacks
Good mood

Additionally, I want to prepare the following things until the day of the tournament:

Fly my build a few more times
Read the FFG rules used at the tournament

Do you have any additional tips or did I forget anything?

According to the current X-Wing Tournament Regulations (as of now, that's Version 1.2.1, effective November 1, 2016), you must have the following items:

Ship models
Bases
Pegs
Pilot cards (all from the same faction)
Ship tokens (all from the same faction)
Maneuver dials (matching your ships, but not necessarily from the same faction)
Upgrade cards
Tokens (other indicators are allowed with certain restrictions)
A complete damage deck
Sufficient dice for attack and defense rolls
A full set of maneuver templates
A range ruler
A squad list (or arrive early to fill one out)
Three unique obstacle tokens
Any bomb tokens (in a reasonable quantity) required for your list
ID tokens (or an equivalent way to distinguish your ships from each other and from your opponent's ships)

You should bring the following tokens not specifically listed above:

Shield tokens (unless your list only contains ships with no shields)
Focus tokens
Evade tokens (unless your ships do not have a way to get evade tokens)
Pairs of target lock tokens (unless your ships do not have a way to acquire target locks)
Weapons disabled tokens (if any of your ships can perform the SLAM action or if you want to indicate Corran Horn cannot perform attacks this round)
Stress tokens (even if your ships have no red maneuvers on their dials)
Critical hit tokens (many players do not worry about these, but it's a good idea―and good sportsmanship―to indicate which ships are affected by face-up damage cards)
Ion tokens (players often only bring these when their is list capable of dealing ion tokens to enemy or friendly ships)
Tractor beam tokens (like Ion tokens, usually only brought when their list is capable of dealing tractor beam tokens)

You cannot use the following during a tournament round:

Notes
Third-party materials or information (reformatted versions of information available in official products are allowed)
Third-party playmats not provided by the venue
Third-party ship tokens
Third-party obstacle tokens
Third-party bomb tokens
Third-party tokens or indicators that obscure significant component information, are not resistant to accidental modification, or do not have a purpose of use that is clear to both players
Third-party or altered cards
Non-identical or altered Damage card sleeves
Third-party ship bases, or ship bases modified to alter their size or shape
Custom "setup" templates designed to aid players in ship deployment
Third-party ship models
Ship models modified in a way that would create confusion about which ship the model represents
Asteroids, debris fields, and bomb tokens altered in any way except marking to indicate ownership
Third-party or altered dice (unobtrusive markings to indicate ownership are allowed)
Movement templates or range rulers that do not match the dimensions of official maneuver templates, range rulers, or sections of an official range ruler
Official products which are not yet legal (unreleased, or―for Premier events―not released 11 days before the event)

Refer to the following headings/subheadings of the tournament regulations for more information:

Playmats
Player Materials
Squad Building
Squad Lists
Multiple Faction Ships
Component Modifications
Lost and Damaged Components
Tokens
Legal Products
Game Setup (step 2)
Taking Notes and Outside Material

UPDATE: So I finished my first tournament last Saturday (1:3 W:L, Place 9 out of 14). Here is my experience regarding the things I brought:

Too much copies of the build, three are enough (one for the TO, one for the opposite player, one backup)
More bottled water
Pain killers (lack of oxygen after the third round got me head aches)
Pen is always useful
Marked my tokens on the evening before (there is some chaos on the table sometimes and I am sure I lost 1+ tokens regardless)

Additional things I should/could have brought:

One guy broke his K-Wing, so next time I will bring glue to help out

One guy forgot his damage deck, but I think that would be too much to bring more than one for these cases (he played with an old damage deck from somebody else's collection).
Additionally, there is a good collection on tournament things on reddit:

Tournament Prep
Tournament Etiquette

You can't accept your own answer if you like, or another answer if you feel it better answers your question.


text:
How to handle late game tile drawing in Tsuro
The rules in Tsuro are very vague about what happens once the players start to run out of tiles.  What's the best way to handle how titles are drawn in Tsuro when a player goes out, and other players are lacking tiles.  I know the dragon title is placed at the end of the deck, and signifies that a player who draws the dragon tile should received a card once one becomes available, but what happens if more then one player has less then three tiles?
It's conceivable for a player to go out to take out more then one player, possibly freeing multiple tiles.  Should all player lacking tiles go back up to three if they can?

I agree - this has always bugged me about the Tsuro rules. What we've done is:
Whenever a player is eliminated, if there are players who are short tiles, then starting with the player holding the dragon, go around clockwise and give each player who is short one more tile.
I think that works best and spreads out the influx of new tiles on a player death. My concern with giving all the new tiles to whoever's holding the dragon is that it's not fair to the other players who may also be short tiles.

You say you don't like the rules and made your own rule instead, but you are actually following the rules. You just forgot to mention that you need to put the dragon tile on the bottom of the deck before you start dealing out tiles.

The rules in my copy and on the official site are quite clear:

If the active player has the dragon tile, he or she places it at the bottom of the draw pile and draws a tile from the top. If the active player does not have the dragon tile, he or she draws a tile from the top of the draw pile.
Starting with the active player and moving
  clockwise, each player with fewer than three path
  tiles draws a tile, continuing around the board
  until all players have three path tiles or the draw
  pile is empty.
When new tiles become available later in
  the game, the first player to draw a tile will
  be the player with the Dragon tile instead
  of the active player. That player sets aside
  the Dragon tile when drawing a path tile.

That said, they are quite wordy. So let me rephrase them:
Let's say the draw pile is empty and tiles are added to it because one or more players were eliminated. If someone has the Dragon Tile, take the Dragon Tile from whoever has it and place it at the bottom of the deck. Deal one tile to them, one to tile to the player next to them, one tile to the player next to that player, and so on until everyone has three tiles or someone draws the Dragon Tile.

What about buying extra tiles, and stacking them atop placed tiles, when all the first tiles have been placed? This would give a more 3 dimensional aspect to the game, like UpWords gives a 3 dimensional aspect to Scrabble.

This doesn't really answer the question and your idea would drastically change the game and make it pretty much a different game.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
Decision Trees in board games?
I'm trying to design a new game, where one of the key mechanics of the game is to make decisions (or let the dice make them for you). I'm trying to figure out how best to design this into a card, and make it look understandable, and not require too much space. Essentially what the players have is a decision tree, for those not familiar this would be an example:

I expect to have many of these tree (1 per card) and I need to figure out how to present them. I can think of two options, I can either:

Provide a visual representation of the Tree like above. My tree would most likely just contain numbers rather than captions on it and would have a textual section to accompany it.
Just provide a textual representation which for the example tree might be:

1) Is the picture clear? Yes (goto 2), No (goto 3)
  2) Is there sound? Yes, No (goto 4)
  3) Is the Screen Blank? Yes (goto 5), No
  4) Check the mute button
  5) Is there sound? Yes, No (goto 6)
  6) Check power cord

So to try and keep this on topic, have you seen any other games that provide a decision basis like this and how've they accomplished it? Additionally do you think one of these is better than the other (and why)?
EDIT
Freekvd raised some good questions so I'll incorporate these in:
What kind of tree complexity are you considering?: Generally I'm trying to keep them simple, sharing nodes as much as possible. Nodes would normally converge (I wouldn't really expect more than 2/3 at the same level).
Does a node always have two branches? Yes, essentially success or failure.
Do you have a maximum tree depth in mind? – A maximum of 5 items (including a terminus deep), although they tend to be quite narrow.
Here's an actual example of one of medium complexity at present:

Thinking about your question raises a lot of other questions. What kind of tree complexity are you considering? Does a node always have two branches? Do you have a maximum tree depth in mind?

@freekvd: great questions, I've tried to elaborate a little

For your information, the actual example you just added is a digraph, not a tree.

Maybe cards are not the right medium for the amount of information density you want. You could maybe consider putting the trees in a rulebook, or at least large cards(at least as big as the ones in Dixit, or maybe even as large as race cards in Cosmic Encounter)

I don't know any games that use decision trees, at least not visually. The only game I can think of that lets you manipulate rules to reach a certain goal, is fluxx.
To keep with the visual decision trees, you could use a single card per node:

Cards could be decision nodes and terminal nodes, and you would need a starting node for each tree.
Alternatively
You could use concentric pie charts to visualize the type of directional graph you're describing:

Just start at the center and follow the labels.

Thanks, this is a really interesting answer. Someone suggested something like this to me once - I need to carefully consider if it would work (as each set of decision points is supposed to go together to tell a story), so I'd need to work out if the story telling aspect could be kept, spread across different cards.

You've provided some really good alternatives so I'm going to accept as the answer. I like the 2nd idea (bit of out the box thinking). Thanks

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Non-team variants for four or more players in Mille Bornes?
Has anyone come across variant rules for Mille Bornes where the players don't play on teams?  I've seen rules for 2 player, 3 player, 2 vs 2 and 3 vs 3, but nothing for four or more solo players.
For whatever reason, sometimes we'll have a group of four or more who feels like playing, but all playing solo.  The problem is, someone always ends up running out of fuel or getting a flat tire, and then never seeing a Petrol or Repair card for the rest of the game.  They end up just sitting there, which is pretty non-entertaining.
It is quite possible that the deck just isn't suitable for more than three players, and playing with two decks is the only way to have more than three solo players, but I'm open to suggestions.

This happened in my gaming group as well, we fixed it simply by having a remedy 'timer' which is once you've been stuck for 3 turns, any GO card would suffice to move again.  Likewise, if stopped for three turns, you could simply play mileage cards.
The other variant we tried, which you might like is that remedy cards (and go cards) were played into a face-up draw stack, and instead of drawing normally, you could draw from any used card in the stack, so once someone had fixed their flat tire, anyone could spend the turn to draw the remedy the second time.

Excellent answer, thanks!  I had considered something like a timer, so that's good to have that reinforced.

We play 5 and 6 player Mille Bornes without teams.  Our solution was to buy another deck of Mille Bornes cards and use those and play as you usually would.  You now have 220 cards instead of 110 cards.  We play five games.  1000 miles per game.  But we also stipulate that you must get exactly 1000 miles.  For example.  If you are at 975 miles you would need a 25 mile card to win.  Also, you must shout out Mille Bornes when you reach 1000 miles.  Hope this helps.  --- Mike

Did you play that one person can play 2 of the specials (puncture proof, ace, etc.) and the second one is just redundant?

We ran into this problem tonight with 5 players and began developing a variant that seemed to have some promise:
A player is given the option of offering an exchange of one of his cards for a desired card.
For example, if a player is stuck and really needs a spare tire card, he may announce that he is willing to offer to trade his    "extra tank" card (or whatever card he thinks might entice a trade) for a"spare tire" card. Any other player wishing to complete the proffered trade indicates as such and trade is made. The trade completes the players turn. If no one is willing or able to make the trade, the player's turn is forfeit.
We only played a couple of hands this way as it was getting late, but, as I said, I think it solves the basic problem of everyone being stuck, and makes for interesting game play.
I'd love to hear if it works for others and is further developed.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Can multiple Thorncaster Slivers grant multiple copies of the same ability?
If I have two Thorncaster Slivers, does their effect stack? That is, do the other slivers I have get the "1 damage" ability twice?
If not, why? What rule makes it so they can't have the ability twice?  If I had a different card with same ability would they get it twice? What if the different card had a slightly different wording? Or caused 2 damage instead of 1?
In what situations would a creature be allowed to have two copies of the same ability (if ever)?

Yes, they will have two copies of the ability:

112.2c An object may have multiple abilities. If the object is represented by a card, then aside from certain defined abilities that
  may be strung together on a single line (see rule 702, “Keyword
  Abilities”), each paragraph break in a card’s text marks a separate
  ability. If the object is not represented by a card, the effect that
  created it may have given it multiple abilities. An object may also be
  granted additional abilities by a spell or ability. If an object has
  multiple instances of the same ability, each instance functions
  independently. This may or may not produce more effects than a single
  instance; refer to the specific ability for more information.

Two copies of the triggered ability will mean two damage whenever a sliver attacks.

As others have said, yes, the ability will exist twice on each of your Sliver creatures, and each of those creatures will trigger it twice upon attacking.

In what situations would a creature be allowed to have two copies of the same ability (if ever)?

There is no limit to the number of copies of the same ability a creature can have. They are each added to the list of things that creature can do, and triggered abilities will each trigger separately. If you have 4 Thorncaster Slivers on the field, each sliver's attack will cause it to deal 1 damage 4 times. Notably, this allows you to distribute your damage however you like--you are not limited to dealing damage in packets of 4.
This doesn't mean that multiple copies of the same ability are always useful. For example, it's stated in the rules that multiple copies of flying, haste, lifelink, and many other keyword abilities are redundant, so a creature that gains flying twice doesn't have any advantages over a creature that has it once, and a creature with two instances of lifelink doesn't gain you twice as much health (although cards like Armadillo Cloak, which don't use the keyword but have similar effects, will stack with lifelink). See this list for which abilities stack and which don't.
Also worth noting that in cases where the duplicated abilities have a cost, such as Prodigal Pyromancer being enchanted with Arcane Teachings, it doesn't simply increase the effectiveness of the ability. Prodigal Pyromancer will have 2 copies of the "{t}: deal 1 damage" ability, but each of those costs must be paid separately--tapping once will allow you to activate either the innate ability or the one granted by the enchantment, but not both. Triggered abilities which have a cost (e.g. "When X happens, you may pay Y. If you do, Z.") must also be paid for separately.

Yes, you get two instances of the ability.
You can also reference the _Gatherer page for Thorncaster Sliver which has official rulings.

If you control multiple Thorncaster Slivers and a Sliver you control attacks, each ability will trigger separately.

If you change the creature type of a Sliver you control so it’s no longer a Sliver, it will no longer be affected by its own ability. Its ability will continue to affect other Sliver creatures you control.

Abilities that Slivers grant, as well as power/toughness boosts, are cumulative. However, for some abilities, like flying, having more than one instance of the ability doesn’t provide any additional benefit.


text:
Are there 5/5 Beast Token cards?
There are at least two cards that I know of that make 5/5 Beast tokens (Spawning Ground and One Dozen Eyes).
Yet I can't seem to find an actual token card that is a 5/5 Beast.
Does such a card exist? I know I could use a die that has a 5 on it, or take a 3/3 and write 5s over them.  But this question is for someone who is into the real token cards.
If they do exist, how would I find some?

I'm glad to know I wasn't the only one wondering about this!  I was looking for a 5/5 beast token for my cube, and while I suspected there wasn't one I wasn't 100% sure.

Here's a pretty comprehensive list of official MTG tokens and similar cards. I can't find a 5/5 Beast on that list.
As a rule of thumb:

Putting tokens in packs only really started around Tenth Edition, and has been done consistently since. The cards from before that are special promos.
In the modern day, sets sold in booster packs have tokens and emblems as some of the inserts (typically mixed with ad and rules tip cards). Pre-built sets like Commander products and Duel Decks may or may not come with token cards.
Wizards of the Coast does not make "copy" tokens (how would you?), but they do print specific tokens with abilities listed on the cards, as well as tokens with variable P/T.

In this case, the cards that produce 5/5 Beasts are from Mirrodin and Commander 2013. Mirrodin came before Tenth Edition, while Commander 2013 is a non-randomized set that didn't include tokens.

I would rather say that it's only with (roughly) Tenth Edition that Wizards started making tokens for all cards that produced token creatures; while the ones before that were promos, there really were quite a few of them (as they were used for player rewards promos).  For instance, I have several of the 4/4 beast token from Odyssey.  Mirrodin more falls in the 'dead zone' in between the two different styles of token production.


text:
How do you set up ports when you don't use the new "frames"
I received a new Catan Board and we attempted to setup the 5-6 player game.  I realized that I had forgotten how to setup the ports, but since I had also got a new copy of the game, it didn't say how to set them up without the new "frames" that are included.
How do you set up the ports in Settlers of Catan if you don't use the frames?

In the 3-4 player game you start with placing a port on the hexside at the end of a long (5 piece) row.  You then place a port every other space around the map.  Each port is placed oriented towards the hexside of the longest row it is next to.
In the 5-6 player game it is more complicated.  Here is a snapshot of the rules so you can see how to place the ports correctly:


text:
Programme to help with face to face diplomacy
Can anyone suggest a programme or website that will allow playing diplomacy with all players on one computer.  Ideally this should not involve logging in and out, or having a window open per player.  I would like to use it purely as a movement judge, so once all orders are submitted on paper, then they can be copied onto the screen, and the "Go" button clicked to show the results (ideally with nice arrows showing where units bounced, convoyed etc.).  I have found many programmes and websites that provide great interfaces for play-by-email or play-by-web for a single player, but nothing for helping with face-to-face games.

I am not sure if you aren't looking hard enough, or I am misunderstanding how an online web version wouldn't work for you (is logging in really a problem?). It sounds like you only want a hot seat software recommendation. Hot Seat will have some problems with what you said you don't want. You cannot keep each players orders secret from each other (before hitting "Go") without having different windows for each player (if this isn't true, how would you accomplish the secrecy?).

@user1873 Sorry for not being clearer. The idea is to maintain secrecy by submitting all orders on paper, and then once all have been revealed use the software to play out the moves quickly.

The software I know of is Realpolitik.
I know that at games Dan Burgess has hosted in Chicago, they've used this program (eg see his comment here), but I believe not in lieu of ordinary analogue adjudication over a board. The general setup as I understand it is that a non-playing host loads the moves into Realpolitik and adjudicates, which is synced up to a computer screen in a different negotiation room(s), so that players in that room can see the current position of the board while negotiating. I've never actually see this in progress, if you want more information, I'd contact one of the Windy City Weasels.
Call me skeptical, but I'm not convinced of the advantage of using automatic adjudication (perhaps if I see it in action I'll become convinced, maybe cutting down on errors is one possibility, but not the one mentioned in comments). The orders still needed to be read, and the results assimilated by the players, so I don't see a major time saving (since assimilation usually occurs simultaneously with hand-held adjudication).

+1 Thanks, this is useful.  I am also planning to use computer screens in negotiation rooms.  I am playing with a group that are all new to the game (and I've only played a handful of games), so I think it will cut down the mistakes too/save us time.  If we adjudicate positions manually we will either spend longer over it (e.g. arguing over bounces and convoys), or we will make more mistakes.

We actually ended up using jdip (http://jdip.sourceforge.net/), along with vnc to relay the screen to the meeting rooms and a game timer I wrote to mimic the behaviour of http://www.ellought.demon.co.uk/diptimer.htm, but without needing to be full screen.  The order resolution was great - I didn't have to work out why other player's orders had failed - I could just read out the results from the screen.  Anyway - the suggestions in these answers were great, so thanks!

jDip is an exact fit for that. It is a free java program so can run on any platform.

Hi dsas!  Thanks for the suggestion - in the end I did use jDip, and it was perfect for my needs.  We then used VNC to relay the map to other computers in conference rooms.

The kind of software you are looking for exists.

Diplomacy Games Manager - Stewart Cross.
Diplomacy for Windows XP - With Local Area Network support, internet, e-mail.

MSN - Gaming Zone used to support Diplomacy, but something must have happened between Hasbro and Microsoft to change this.
Stewart Cross has an interesting article on the difficulty in creating the Diplomacy GM. If you are looking for reviews of the PC game, you might check GameSpot, or AllGame (although it looks like this site is a data farming site like Answers.com). I would normally use GameFAQs.com, or MobyGames.com, but both don't seem to have much useful information on them.

+1 Thanks, the first of these looks like it's what I want.  I'll have a look for more details about the second.


text:
Which computer board game designer works best for card games?
I've heard of a few computer board game designers, such as Vassal, Cyberboard, and Zun Tzu. Which would work best for building a custom card game? Note, I am willing to use one I haven't heard of, so long as it meets my needs. Things of note include:

I need 2 decks of cards
Each player has their own private hand, but will have some cards in play in front of them that can be seen by all users.
Each card will have several characteristics, basically several integers tied to the value of the card.
I want this to work with Windows 7 and XP.
It would be nice to play over a LAN or the internet, but this is not required.
I would prefer to not have to have any graphics at this time, I want to just have some text labels on each card for the time being.

A few other things about me.

I'm am intermediate Java programmer, with some knowledge of C and C++ as well. I know scripting languages like Python at an intermediate level as well.
I would prefer to have something relatively easy, but this is not required.

Battlegrounds Gaming Engine is one that you don't seem to have considered, but perhaps you should. It sounds like it fits all your criteria except for #6 - you need to supply images of each card; however, I believe there are free card-creation apps that can create such graphics for you, pulling the info for each card from a database or Excel spreadsheet.
One nice thing about BGE is that you won't have to do any programming, scripting, or XML-editing.

ZunTzu meets your requirements providing players do not need to save their decks between games.
You would have to provide your text labels as images - easily done with Paint.

You should definitely keep track of CardForest.
It lets create card games by simply specifying the rules in an online code editor.
You just write your rules in CoffeeScript or JavaScript (see reference) and get a working online multiplayer game.
note 1: It is in closed beta. You can submit a request to join on the website
note 2 (Disclaimer): I'm building this

Please could you add some detail, summarising something about why this site would help answer the question? As it stands, such a short answer is borderline product spam.

Hey @ire_and_curses. I added some details. I hope it's clear that this project is very relevant to the question. I any case, I'll be happy to answer any questions :).


text:
In Midway, would it make sense for the U.S. player to save his "punch" for the arrival of the Atago on Day 2?
In the Avalon Hill board game, the cruiser Atago is the flagship of a fleet of eight transports carrying 5,000 soldiers for the occupation of Midway. As such, it "represents" the transports and sinking the Atago is tantamount sinking the transports.
This move is worth some 20 points, four for the Atago itself, and 16 for each turn (on days 3 and 4) that the Americans hold Midway. Moreover, it deprives Japan of the chance to earn 15 points for capturing Midway, for a total swing of 35 points. For comparison, sinking a large carrier such as Japan's Kaga or America's Yorktown is worth 10 points.
Japan cannot defend the Atago against an all out attack. The only way to (indirectly) defend it is to (greatly) weaken the American airforce on the first day. As a practical matter, if the Americans lose their carriers but preserve 30 squadrons on Midway, it can sink the Atago.
As discussed in a previous question, the Americans maintain their advantage only by staying within range of Midway-based planes. If they go outside this range, they will be at a disadvantage. Might it therefore make sense for the Americans to wait for the Japanese to "come and get them" with the Atago? (This was NOT the strategy used in real life, where the Americans aggressively, and successfully went after the Japanese carriers early on the second day.

The drawback of such a strategy (I've tried it as the US player in the 1960s edition, and responded as the Japanese player) is that you can, in fact, prevent the Atago from being sunk - unless you happen to roll very, very poorly as the Japanese player.
All Dive Bombers have to be placed atop the target ship.
All Torpedo Bombers are placed in sectors surrounding the target ship.
But all of any given type of aircraft in any given sector (5 possible total sectors - atop, starboard, port, aft, bow) attack as one for that attack wave.
It's not all that hard to properly space your vessels, as the Japanese player, to [nearly] guarantee the attack fails.
And if you're playing the advanced game, with the addition of Fighters and CAP, it becomes easier yet.
The only way this method can work, in my experience, is to attack pretty much everything in the board unit that holds the Atago - presuming, of course, you "know" which unit that is. That way even if you fail to sink the Atago, you may be able to inflict serious damage to the carrier groups, allowing the possibility of preventing the Japanese occupation of Midway itself.
The 60s edition, which I've played most, reflects well the relative strengths of both sides in that battle - and I've only seen the Japanese player win twice (both of which were when I was playing as the Japanese): and this is in dozens of times through the game, will various aspects of official (and occasional house) rules used, against both novice- and highly-seasoned players.

That's certainly a consideration. But I'd put 15 dive bomber squadrons atop the Atago, at 3-1 odds against the antiaircraft fire of a battleship (5). Then 5 torpedo squadrons on either side of the ship, that's 1-1 odds against a single battleship, or cruiser. Assuming minimum hits (2, 1, 1), that should provide the four hits needed to sink the Atago.  One issue is to identify which cruiser is the Atago. But I'd introduce a "house rule" to "asterisk" it. Because it is really a proxy for a bunch of transports, that can be identified separately.

@TomAu - that presumes you haven't carefully aligned the battle groups and surrounded the Atago better :)

The only way around this is to wait for the fourth wave of Yamato, Nagato, and Mutsu at the end of the second day. The four "medium" battleships (Hiei, Kongo, Haruna, and Kirishima) all have an anti-aircraft factor of 5.

@TomAu - since you can't get all your firepower to bear until then, it's not an unreasonable strategy ... or go "hide" the Atago somewhere else, disguising its location, making it, therefore, very hard to hit


text:
Can a "crippled" aircraft carrier launch airplanes in Midway?
In Midway, a large aircraft carrier (all of the Americans and two of the Japanese) can take five hits. If a ship has received one less hit than the critical number (four in this case), it is deemed damaged, to the point where its firepower capabilities are reduced to 1 (vs. ship) and 1 (vs. air), down from x y where it started, (where x and y are usually greater than 1). And I believe its movement factor is also reduced from 2 to 1.
In the Q & A of the 1960s version, a question was asked, that given the fact that an aircraft carrier with "ready" (fueled and armed) planes  would require one less hit to sink it, would getting planes "ready" after an attack sink an aircraft carrier? The answer was no, the ship would not be sunk, because the "readying" of the planes would not happen simultaneously with the bombing.
But a more important question is that would a crippled aircraft carrier be able to launch or retrieve planes, or would a carrier on its "last legs" have a ruined flight deck or crippled launching mechanism that would prevent this?
I don't remember the 1960s version of the rules addressing this point. Did the 1990s version do so, or were the 1960s rules clearer on this point than I remember? And if the answers were no, would the above be a reasonable interpretation that is in the "spirit" of the game?

I don't think this idea is a valid simulation. The two most critical tasks of an aircraft carrier, in order, are staying afloat and launching/retrieving it's planes. Provided the crew is not fully dedicated to staying afloat (ie there remains one or more hit points), the crew will continue to launch and retrieve plans.
Remember the reaching of zero hit points may not be a simulation of actually having sunk - but rather of having become unoperational as a carrier.
Of course these classic TAHGC games simulate in very broad brush strokes - it is common now to improve the simulation with more complex rules. I have not played Midway specifically, but at the cost of additional complexity I would consider slowing a carrier's launching and retrieval of planes once it had only one or two hit points left. This would simulate the difficulties of continuing operations a damage built up. However a carrier that cannot launch and retrieve at all is a sitting duck. Somehow, someway, some planes will be launched until the crew is forced to abandon ship.
Additionally, as a simulation of the different national characters and cultures of Japan and America, I would constrain damaged American carriers to only launch planes that could reasonably be expected to be retrievable - but make this optional for the Japanese captains.  An early kami kaze option if you will.

+1 for comment on differences between Japanese and American cultures. Maybe one "handicap" for  Japanese players is that only they are allowed to launch suicide attacks.


text:
Do Crawlers get an extra activation, when all figures are in play and attack on Skinner has a 1?
In Zombicide Season 3: Rue Morgue, you have Skinner zombies that turn to Crawlers, if the attack that would have killed them had a 1 in any of the dice.
However, if the Crawler can't be added, since all the figures are already in play, do the Crawlers get an extra activation as per the usual spawning rules? Or is this an exception, like splitting?

The rulebook of the Rue Morgue expansion, at page 25, includes crawlers in the extra activation rule when running out of miniatures.

The Zombicide Season 3: Rue Morgue box contains enough Zombies to invade a city. However, players may still run out of miniatures of the indicated type when required to place a Zombie  on  the  board  through  spawning (including  Crawler spawning!) or populating a building. In this case, the remaining Zombies  miniatures  are  placed  (if  there  are  any),  and then  all Zombies  of  the  indicated  type  immediately  resolve an extra Activation.

A few pages before, on page 12, the rulebook uses Crawler Spawning to refer the way Crawlers appear when killing Skinner zombies rolling "1s".

1 – Crawlers can appear each time Skinners are eliminated. After removing Skinner Zombies, whatever the type (Walker, Fatty,  or  Runner), and earning  experience points for the kill(s), add a Crawler for each “1” rolled on the attack roll. If you own Zombicide-themed dice, the “1” is replaced with a Zombie head. Read only the dice results: the +1 to dice roll Skills have no effect on Crawler spawning.

So crawler spawning refers to this way of adding figures. Anyway, when adding them through the bed card, extra activation rule activates too, as it's said in page 25, right above the "Running out of miniatures" section.

It's been a while, but I think the question was, does it count as a "spawning" if the Crawler comes from a dead Skinner.

I've edited my post to add a quotation which specifies what a Crawler spawning is, sorry for not including it before.

In addition, when not having enough miniatures does not active the extra action is specified in the rulebook too, and this only happens when splitting.

I belive we did find the same mention of spawning as you pointed out. I think we found the single mention of spawning to be a bit too vague to be sure. But thanks for the detailed answer. I think it's as good as one gets from the rulebook alone.


text:
Are creature effects considered an Instant?
I played Magic a long time ago, and I remember activated abilities on creatures were considered instants. Reading through the rules today, it isn't quite clear to me. The reason I am wondering is for the combination of Prodigal Pyromancer and Fire Servant. The does the Fire Servant's doubling apply to the Prodigal Pyromancer's "{T}: Prodigal Pyromancer deals 1 damage to target creature or player."?

No, the doubling does not apply. Creature abilities are fast effects, a class which includes instants. But instants, like sorceries, are a distinct spell type.

This is substantially correct, though the term "fast effect" was dropped from Magic a loooong time ago.  Most creature abilities do happen at the same speed as an instant, but that doesn't make them instant spells, not by a long chalk!


text:
How is the die for Cat Tower configured?
I just bought Cat Tower yesterday and the die came unlabeled with the stickers to be applied to each of the 6 faces. Unfortunately, it gave no indication as to how to apply the stickers.  Based upon a picture on the box, I was able to apply 3 of the faces, but am stuck on the remaining 3 faces.  Is there any indication as to how the faces should be arranged (for example I might guess the 2 one cat faces might be on opposite faces of the die).
Pictures or instructions appreciated.

A comment from the publisher on their Kickstarter page answers your question perfectly:

This is their answer, but I'm also seeing complaints about unevenly shaped dice. If this is the case for your game, you should try to get your dice replaced.
If you can't get your dice replaced, make sure you don't put duplicates on opposing faces. You want dissimilar vales to oppose each other (eg 2 and 5 on a 1d6) to negate the effect of having a flattened dice.

DareMachina seemed to have the same sense of me as to put the duplicate label on opposite faces, but yes thank you for the definitive answer from the creator.

And yes, I have heard others mention that the die might not give 1/6 results for each face due to the manufacture of the die, so I will see how it goes

@demongolem I'm not too familiar with the sides of the dice but duplicates on opposite faces sounds like a bad idea if the dice is flat. If a 1d6 is flat, a possible result could be that both 1 and 6 would be rolled less often and this would not affect the average outcome. If you put identical images on opposing sides, this will double any effect you get from having an uneven dice.

As long as the die isn't poorly manufactured, the propablility to roll any given side is close (for a perfect die - identical) to 1/6. The actual placement of faces changes nothing.


text:
Is there any good cure in Midway for Japan's lack of search capabilities?
In Midway, the Japanese player gets only three (airborne) searches per turn. What's worse, he only only gets to search "areas" within 12 zones of his ships, while the American's Midway based planes get four searches per turn, across the whole board.
That means that the Americans can track the Japanese player's progress from the beginning of the game (first day), while the Japanese player doesn't have a chance find American ships until the middle of the first day at the earliest. And only if the American player isn't any good at hiding his ships.
One proposal was to give the Japanese player a fourth search. A second rule of the game is to allow "ship" searches. That is to say, that the Japanese player can search any area in which he has ships. Late the first day, he receives a reinforcement of four weak cruisers that are almost useless for defense, but can be used the second day (and later) for ship searches. That's potentially four more areas that can be searched by ships, to complement airborne searches.
A house rule that I played with years ago was to allow area searches by combat squadrons, that is one torpedo or dive bomber squadron per area searched. These units had to be put in a separate group, and could not be used for combat the same, or the following turn. And they were subject to the seven square distance rule. Nevertheless, they afforded the Japanese player the chance to "blanket" a portion of the board with searches.
What means have players used to compensate for the problem of the Japanese player having so few searches? Or are the better players so good that three searches is "enough?"

I assume there must be a reason for the differences in search. Maybe there's a way to benefit from another Japanese skill to compensate for the lack of search.

@Npst: The difference in search reflected relative historical capabilities. The Japanese had the "option" of using their less valuable ships for "ship searches" but failed to do so. "Enhanced" air search (within the limits of the seven space rule) makes the most sense, since the Japanese have more airpower after the second day.

There are some differences in play between the original (60s) and updated (90s) editions of Midway - not least of which is where ships come into the game from (the newer edition uses hexes instead of a uniform grid, too). Based on this question mentioning the 7 squares rule, I'll assume (and answer as if) you're looking at the older edition.
There's not really a "need" to compensate for the Japanese player's fewer searches. Using a T1 or D1 (or F1) to search, I suppose, could be done, but you should be able to extend those out to 14 squares (the limit of a plane's range) - and allow a kamikaze attack by that plane (or squadron, if you sent more than one) if they happen to find anything .. might even consider upping their AF by 1, reducing their die roll by one, decreasing the DF by 1 of the ship, or a combination of the three. Of course, if they find nothing, you've lost those aircraft.
You might cut the number of American searches to 3 from 4, but that's not a big difference either.

The Japanese are likely to have inferior search capabilities. That's just based on a historical reality that can only be partially overcome by suggestions made in the question. What can be affected are the consequences of Japan's search inferiority by giving her a compensating advantage.
In the game, the maximum range for planes is 14 "squares," which imply 7 squares each way. In theory, both the Japanese and the Americans can "launch an attack from so far away (8-14 squares), that the planes cannot return to their bases."
But as Pieter Geerkens pointed out in his answer to another question, this option was far more acceptable to the Japanese, with their samurai culture, than to the Americans. So the equalizer could be: Only the Japanese are allowed to launch such "suicide" attacks. This would give them a "first strike" capability to compensate for their inferior search capabilities. Specifically, the American fleet would be within range of Japanese "suicide" attacks for three or four turns before they could launch air attacks on their own, assuming that the Japanese can find them during one of those three or four turns.
So if the first day Japanese strike force encountered the American fleet within "suicide" range, it might launch an attack as follows:
1) 15 torpedo squadrons against each of two of the American carriers. (Japan has 31, thanks to 3 extra squadrons on the Kaga.*)
2) 15 dive bomber squadrons against the third American carrier.
3) 12 dive bomber squadrons against the light cruiser Atlanta, with its superior anti aircraft capabilities (6 versus 3 for all other American ships.
The Atlanta can save one American carrier by applying her 6 anti aircraft factor to the 15 squadrons attacking that carrier, resulting in an air-ship ratio of 2 to 1 (round in favor of the defender).
The other two American carriers are automatically sunk by the application of 15 to 3 (5 to 1) odds.
The 12 dive bomber squadrons attack the Atlanta at 4 to 1 odds. (Since she has used her 6 firepower to save a carrier, some other ship has to use their firepower of 3 against 12, leading to air-ship odds or 4 to 1.) This means that the Atlanta receives three or more hits, and is sunk.
If she wishes, the Atlanta can use her anticraft fire to save herself (12 vs. 6, or 2 to 1 odds), at the sacrifice of the third carrier but that is an unwise choice.
The Americans lose two carriers and the Atlanta. If the Americans are smart, they will have stashed some of their carrier planes on Midway, and lose only the equivalent of one, not two, carriers worth of planes. The Japanese would lose all 57 squadrons in a suicide attack, leaving her to escort the Atago to Midway, using mainly the seven battleships. The Japanese carriers are basically "in the way," without planes.
*The historical capacity of the Zuiho (wave 3) was seven torpedo squadrons and four fighter squadrons (instead of only four torpedo squadrons). The "difference" provides three extra torpedo squadrons to the Kaga, allowing the "strike force" 31 torpedo squadrons instead of 28.


text:
Should the "Atago" be identified as such in Midway during "search"?
The Atago is a Japanese heavy cruiser. Ordinarily one cruiser can't be told apart from another during a "search." (This is a reconnaissance mission by planes or ships that locates enemy ships for your bombers.)
In fact, the game rules conceded that ship type identification was often erroneous. In the game, Japanese ship types are (aircraft) carriers, battleships and cruisers, while the Americans have only carriers and cruisers.
What gives the Atago its importance is that it is the flagship of the transports carrying the Midway invasion force. Within the parameters of the game, the fate of the transports (sunk or surviving) is "represented" by the fate of the Atago.
In the interests of a better simulation, the Atago can be characterized as "the cruiser surrounded by eight transports," or "the flagship of the transport fleet." Should we give the Japanese a fourth ship type, transports, and use the word "transports" in reference to the Atago, even though the rules call her a "cruiser?" Are transports, in fact, sufficiently distinguishable from cruisers for this to work?

What's your goal? Are you looking to achieve better simulation, or improved pay balance, or handicapping, or some combination and/or other goal? A short summary of the mechanics of "search" in the game might also allow non-experts in the game to weigh in.

@PieterGeerkens: Re-worked the question incorporating your suggestions.


text:
Did the British employ a reasonable strategy in "Bismarck"?
This is a reference to another Avalon Hill Board game, this time the chase of the German superbattleship Bismarck.
The British put out "hunter groups" of two surface capital ships, for instance, the battleship Prince of Wales and the battle cruiser Hood, the battleship King George V and the battle cruiser Repulse (supported by fleet aircraft carrier Victorious), the battleship Rodney and the battle cruiser Renown (supported by aircraft carrier Ark Royal), etc. This reflected their "real life" strategy.
The dynamics of the game were such that the British could win if they sank the Bismarck at the cost of one ship, but would lose if it cost them two or more.
Was this an adequate strategy that would give the British a chance to win? Or should they have used a different strategy (groups of three battleships instead of two, etc.)?
(I played one indecisive game, and therefore have the experience of playing, but not winning.)

I'm not clear. Are you asking about the British strategy in real life, or in the board game?

@ire_and_curses: Board game. But references to "real life" would be helpful. One is supposed to reflect the other.

@Jeffromi: I rolled-back your edit and improved the tag wiki. Not to be adversarial, but to suggest that the tag is actually meaningful beyond being the name of the publisher.

@PieterGeerkens http://meta.boardgames.stackexchange.com/q/1360/409

Given the assumptions they were working under, yes.  Those assumptions proved incorrect,  but in real life you don't get to check the rulebook and the numbers on the counters before you decide on a strategy.  The assumptions, roughly speaking, were:
Crippling the Bismarck was as good as sinking it.  This is roughly the equivalent of the victory conditions; losing a battleship was acceptable provided that the German ship was damaged enough to be finished off by reserve forces, aircraft, or submarines, and the British remained in contact so those forces could reach her.  One battleship obviously could not guarantee this, but two or more probably could, assuming that
One battleship is much like another.  That's obviously the heart of the strategy; how many ships are necessary in a group? To be completely safe, you would need all your ships in one group, which would mean you would never actually have a battle.  The assumption that any two battleships would be enough to destroy any one was not unreasonable, given that a series of treaties in the 1930s had ensured that every battleship should be on the same displacement, and so should be of roughly equal ability. Actually, the Germans had built a heavier ship than allowed, and lied about it; but that isn't something you can ask an Admiral to decide, and in any case the final showdown, between a Bismarck with steering damage but unimpaired fighting ability and two normal British battleships, ended in success.  The unexamined, and flawed, assumption here was that
One British capital ship is much like another.  The Prince of Wales was admittedly not the best-trained ship in the fleet, (she went to sea with dockyard workers still working on the turrets), so the Admiralty teamed her with the 'Mighty Hood', heaviest and most prestigious ship in the Navy.  A good plan, except that Hood wasn't a battleship at all. There was a clear distinction when Hood was built between 'Dreadnought battleships' and 'battlecruisers'; the latter, the same size as the former, had better engines but less armour, in order to support friendly cruisers and catch raiders.  'Jane's Fighting Ships' (1908 edition I think) welcomed the idea, but warned of the danger that battlecruisers would be treated as battleships and asked to face enemy battleships, which they would not be able to do.  Sadly, this proved prophetic.
If you're asking purely in game terms, the obvious answer is that each hunting group needs to be strong enough to sink or cripple the Bismarck while losing no more than one capital ship, but no stronger (since you need as many groups as possible).  How many ships is that?; you're the player, you tell me.

Excellent analysis; even better written than I could have done myself. +1.

I WAS the player. About 45 years ago.


text:
In Midway, how do I manage the "inferior" Japanese fleet on day 1?
This is a reference to the Avalon Hill board game.
Historically, the Japanese fleet approached Midway in four waves. The first wave (a strike force of four carriers and supporting ships) was slightly inferior in power to the American forces (three carriers, cruisers, and a "fourth" carrier on Midway). On the second day, the Japanese receive two more waves of reinforcements of surface ships that give them a decisive superiority over the Americans at sea (but not in the air).
As the Japanese, how do I hide/avoid combat on the first day until my reinforcements arrive, given the Americans' full board "search" capabilities?  Or should I accept the possibility of combat, hope for a more or less even result, and then hope that my second-day reinforcements can overwhelm the Americans?
Would your answer change between the Basic game (air combat only, on more or less even terms) and the Advanced game (which allows ship-to-ship combat that favors the Japanese)?

I'm sorry I don't have the knowledge to answer your question.
I assume you're asking about the original 1964 edition, as
opposed to the 1991 "Smithsonian Edition"; unfortunately, I'm not
familiar with either one.
Have you looked for answers on www.boardgamegeek.com?  Each game
has its own web-page there, with a (usually very useful) forum
section:
1964 edition
     http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/2250/midway#forums
1991 edition
     http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1373/midway#forums
You might also find useful information on the forum at
talk.consimworld.com:  Boardgaming, INDIVIDUAL GAMES . . ,
Era: World War II (INDIVIDUAL GAME), Pacific Theatre,
Midway (AH) .
Good luck!

-1: Referring someone to another site when you don't have an answer isn't really appropriate as an answer. The idea is that we should be providing answers backed up by references, not simply referring them to another site. See here: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/faq#deletion

The other answer got me to look up the game again, and here's what I found.
If the Japanese player is worried about the balance of power on Day 1, he should stay out of the range of planes based on Midway (about half of those of an American carrier, although Midway has a greater CAPACITY than any carrier). This means the normal 7-square "round trip" range, and even the 14-square "suicide bomber" range (the rules provide that if some of an attacker's planes are making suicide attacks, and he suffers combat losses, he can count those losses against the "suicide" planes first).
For the Japanese players, that means staying in columns "A" and "B" near the western edge of the board on Day 1, close to Day 2 reinforcements. If the Americans want to attack beyond the range of Midway based planes, they will do so at a disadvantage. This is particularly true in the advanced game, where Midway would have to send additional fighters to bring the American carrier groups to parity with the Japanese, meaning that the carriers would have room for fewer dive bombers.
On the other hand, the Japanese player may want to seek aerial combat on almost even terms on Day 1, in order clear the way for later waves. With their (future) edge in ships, "attrition," provided that it is balanced, favors them. On Day 1, they enjoy "draw odds," that is if they "draw" on the first day, their reinforcements make them likely to win.
On Day 2, the focus of the game changes with the arrival of the Atago, a cruiser whose importance is as the flagship of the transport fleet bound for the invasion of Midway. (The way to attack the transports is to attack the Atago.) The Americans can try to prevent the invasion of Midway by sinking the Atago. or follow the historically-based strategy of sinking the Japanese carriers, but they might not be able to do both.
One way for the Japanese to win is to "take out" enough American air power on the first day so the Americans can't prevent the invasion from the Atago. The other, safer way, is to concentrate forces on Day 2 in order to maximize the chances of a successful retaliation against a "first strike."


text:
Was I unlucky or outplayed in Afrika Korps?
This is a reference to an Avalon Hill game I played decades ago as "Rommel." My opponent, "Chuck" was one of the best players in our group, I was considered above average, but an underdog compared to Chuck. (This evaluation applied to chess, monopoly and other games, not just AK.)
Playing England, Chuck left a token force in Tobruk, and dared me (Rommel) to capture it. I did so in June, 1941 (basically the first opportunity), using my whole force. He then besieged me in Tobruk, counting on the mountains to double the defense value of his forces. I had two turns to roll for resupply. I would fail only if I rolled a one or two (on a six sided die) BOTH times, one chance in nine. I failed, lost the Afrika Korps, and the game. We had discussed the possible outcomes during the dare so I went in with eyes wide open.
Do you like those (presumed) 8 to 1 odds for Rommel? Did Chuck know what he was doing when he made the dare? Even if this is the case, was my strategy a reasonable do or die strategy that gave me the best chance to win against a better player?
I would give the most weight to answers from people who have actually played the game, but would consider answers based on real life. E.g. "Tobruk was such a major objective historically that it's worth staking everything on it, if the game mirrors real life." Or, "you needed to do something before England receives reinforcements in November."
More tidbits about the game. 1) The British have more combat factors overall. 2) The Germans have more combat factors until November, 1941 when the British receive heavy reinforcements. 3) The Germans have fewer, but more powerful units (e.g. tank divisions with a value of 7, versus a maximum of 4 for British armor, and 3 for British infantry. 4) The British have "automatic" supply, the Germans have to roll for  supplies.

Both actually.

You were unlucky to not roll for a supply in time to avoid supply death;
but the first supply to arrive was only keeping you alive, not allowing you to  use the greater mobility of AK to effect.
I have never seen, and have difficulty imagining, a situation where a "token force" in Tobruk would have prevented you from using one or two 2-2-4's to restrict the Brit from bottling you up.
Even if you rolled supply at better than the expected rate, I suspect the loss of time you suffered from this escapade was sufficient for the Brits to land their November '41 reinforcements and wall up Alexandria.

Great game - I played it extensively in High school, and occasionally in the many years since. Have you checked the archive of The General for the many fine articles on this game and its strategy and tactics? The General Archive
Update:
The key advantage that the Axis have early in the game is speed. A successful Axis player must use this to compress the British maneuverability early on to ensure a win. Allowing yourself to be bottled up in Tobruk is an anti- pattern for the Axis player, regardless of the importance of Tobruk.

I agree with Pieter, you were both unlucky and outplayed.  You were outplayed in that Chuck knew he had a chance (no matter how slim) to destroy the entire DAK in one fell swoop early in the war.  If you had succeeded in rolling your supply, DAK would have survived and with Tobruk in hand early in the game you had a fair chance of winning the game.  However, I presume Chuck still had his 4-4-7 and perhaps his 2-2-6 intact, and he could have still given you a run for the money at Halfaya or in a last stand at Alamein.
I have actually used this same gambit as the Brits with mixed success.
But, like Pieter, how did you let yourself get bottled up in Tobruk without a supply unit?  When I play the Germans, I almost always keep at least 2 supply units on the board.  The only time to risk being without supply is when you are going for a no kidding game winning option.  I probably would not have gone after Tobruk with only one supply unit on the board.

You were unlucky to run into sudden death. But Chuck knew what he was doing when he offered you the proposition.
The key to the game is that Britain receives reinforcements in November, 1941 for Operation Crusader that are almost equal in strength to your Afrika Korps. As a result, you need to do as much damage as possible to the earlier British forces before then. Ideally, you would have them on their "last legs" with one small force in Tobruk and another small one in Alexandria, with yourself having the "run" of the board. Chuck's "gambit" ensured that would not happen.
Chuck had forces two and three deep in the hills around Tobruk. Even with better supply rolls, it would have taken you all summer (through at least September) to break Chuck's siege grip around Tobruk, and you have taken heavy casualties doing so. He would have had two further fallback lines at El Sollum and Mersa Matruh confronting you in October. By November, when the reinforcements arrived at Alexandria, he'd be in fine shape, with a good balance of power between the survivors of his original force, his reinforcements, and his depletion of your force through casualties.
Britain's "lifeline" lies between Tobruk and Alexandria. The way for the Germans to win is to hammer at the line, taking out "stepping stones" like Sollum and Matruh, stretching the line to the maximum, and forcing the British to defend it, fighting on your terms, not theirs. They will experience heavy casualties against your more mobile concentrations, and then be forced into last-ditch defenses in Tobruk and Alexandria (ideally, you would have captured one of them before the reinforcements arrive). If you can "equalize" or better against Britain's Crusader force, moderately greater reinforcements in 1942 may give you chance to win at that time, if you haven't won already.


text:
Should you ever deploy your blank at a position other than an edge in Epigo?
During the deployment step, should you ever place your Blank Epigon at any location other than an edge?

Ultimately, in this game you want to push off 3 of your opponents pieces and prevent your opponent from doing the same. Keeping your pieces off the edge just seems to be prudent. Is there ever a reason to place your Blank in the center of the board?

Short answer: No.
Longer answer: Unless I was playing a variant, I would never consider placing my blank epigon anywhere other than on a board edge.  Having 2 sides that can be attacked at the start of the game seems like a bad way to start things off to me.  I am sure there are some variants where it would be acceptable to have your blank somewhere in the middle, but not for the base game.


text:
Do physical implementations of single player board games have any advantages over their electronic counterparts?
While multiplayer board games can give you the enjoyment of hanging out with your friends and family, and all the social benefits you reap from those kinds of interactions face to face, instead of being in front of a computer screen...
What benefits does a physical implementation of a board game offer a solo player, that cannot be better implemented in software? (Is there something that software cannot implement better?)
For all those single player game enthusiast, what reason would you play a physical version of a solitaire game, if a computer implementation existed?
(Note: Please no "It doesn't require batteries" comments)

This question seems to me to be overly broad and perhaps not "based on actual problems you face" ... and based on the last note, it's perhaps more of a game design question (What features should I include in a computer implementation of a board/card game?), which would make it seem out of place here.

@DaveDuPlantis: "If a given game exists in physical and computer versions, why might I choose the physical one?"

@Jefromi, if it were worded that way, I would use that as the basis for my vote ... but with that wording, it would seem to be a form of shopping recommendation, and thus I would vote to close as off-topic.

@DaveDuPlantis: The question doesn't have to be precisely worded that way for that to be a clear example of the "actual problems" that the question addresses. And either way, it's a great example of a good shopping question. See http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2010/11/qa-is-hard-lets-go-shopping/ The usual problem is that shopping recommendations aren't valid everywhere or at all times (product availability). That's not at all the case here - this is the kind that's valid forever (or at least until computers become full virtual environments).

@Jefromi, to me there are two clear differences: the Photography question asks about a specific task (taking low-light photos) and has reasonably objective criteria (photo quality). This question is not as narrow in scope and doesn't focus on an area that provides objective criteria for us to use. Still, that is just my personal view; the community seems unlikely to weigh in on either side (no close votes/few upvotes since I weighed in), so I doubt the question will be closed.

A lot of this really applies to all games, not just single-player ones.
Computer versions have limited interfaces: small screen, limited controls.
This is the biggest reason for me. It's pretty much impossible, with current technology, for a computer game to provide a comfortable view of a table-sized board and components, or for it to make it really easy to grab a small object out of that landscape. It's a bit of an extreme example, but take a game like Arkham Horror (which can be played solo in various ways). Imagine dealing with that on a computer screen, even a huge one. (There's actually a Vassal module for it - the interface definitely could be improved a lot, but it still gives you an idea of the issues faced.)
Physical versions are more intuitive and satisfying.
Even when things are of a size that's possible to fit on a screen, I usually find that "physical interfaces" much more comfortable. There's just something about physically seeing and moving objects, and having at least a little bit of a third dimension to them, that makes it a lot easier on my mind. I'm often frustrated by a feeling that things are somehow trapped in two dimensions on a screen.
Physical games are easier to customize.
If there's for whatever reason an issue with a game, it's a lot easier to fix it by drawing on a card or adding some more tokens if it's a physical game, or just changing the rules in a way that a computer version might not let you.
Board games have been optimized as board games.
There's a bit of a circular nature to the question. These games were designed to be physical, trying to take advantage of everything there is to offer in the format, and to minimize disadvantages. Electronic games are a different format, and hypothetical optimal games in that format (even confining ourselves to a similar category, turn-based things, and so on) will not end up being the same games.

I'm not trying to suggest that these reasons always justify choosing a physical game - there are a lot of things computers can do that physical games can't (e.g. instantly shuffle an enormous deck) - but that seems to be outside the scope of the question.

A very articulate explanation.  I will emphasize, just as you say, that some of these factors are somewhat subjective.  I often prefer the computer interface since there is no set up or teardown, no pieces for my cat to knock off, and no storage.  But there is soemthing to be said for playing physically, with the tactile aspects, especially for something like Go.

Another small comment on the interface size. Board games in their physical version are easier to encompass, but only when you port them 1to1 to the screen. For example, if you would like to display all the cards built in 7 wonders on a screen, you would need a enormous monitor. But if you would just show the money/military/production/knowledge/etc with some symbols and numbers, allowing in-depth analysis/display  with a simple click, it would be actually easier than manually checking what resources and at what price can you buy from your neighbours

There are three things that physical solo games have that computer implementations don't:

The larger interface
tactile interaction (the feel of the bits, the ability to handle them
the ability to houserule as seen fit

Further, if you have ever seen children with boardgames they don't know or don't like, they will gleefully repurpose the pieces... and create new games from them.

I can't help but feel that you've essentially summarized three of my paragraphs as bullet points. I've gone ahead and emphasized those points in my answer, since there is certainly value in quick-to-read answers. Hopefully you don't see that as copying.

I didn't bother reading yours. For something so simple, the wall of text is a turn off.

@Jefromi aramis has a point.

@dwjohnston Well, okay, I went ahead and edited it to be even more clear. But I still believe it's worth explaining one's answers, and strongly prefer my answer to this one. Other voters seem to as well, which would seem to suggest that "I didn't bother reading yours" was not the most constructive attitude to take about my answer, reasonable points or otherwise.

@Jefromi I think your edit good.

In addition to the other answers given, I'll offer:
Physical board games don't require a computer, or electricity.
This can be advantageous if you are travelling or camping.

A small board game will be more portable than a laptop computer. (Though perhaps not a smartphone)
A board game will never require electricity, which is good if you are camping in an area without electricity, or at an airport where you can't find a powerpoint.
Board games can be used in areas where computers aren't allowed. eg. high security environments.


text:
What are those magic symbols?
Having found a nice vector graphics for magic symbols, I wonder what the symbols on the second-to-last row are:

I recognize tap, untap, infinite and half, and the last one as the earlier white, but what are the others?

I voted to close this question because the link appears to be dead, and the question makes no sense without it.

@murgatroid99 I found a working link (looks like it matches the full list in ikegami's answer) and added a copy of the image.

They are old versions of the tap symbol.
As it is explained in this article posted on Daily MTG, the symbol with the T is the tap symbol from Revised through Fallen Empires and the one with the rectangle is the tap symbol from 4th Edition through Scourge.
The article includes an image with old versions of Royal Assassin making it pretty intuitive that they're tap symbols:

Do you know what the ones are between the phyrexian mana at the end and 100?

@CrazyJugglerDrummer The first is the chaos symbol from the planechase dice, and the half-mana symbols were on some Unhinged cards - Little Girl and Mons's Goblin Waiters.

1st row:

Generic mana costs (0..9) (and for smaller numbers, colorless mana in mana abilities on cards before the colorless mana symbol was added in Oath of the Gatewatch)

2nd row:

Generic mana costs (10..19)

3rd row:

Generic mana costs (20)
Generic variable mana costs (X,Y,Z)
Colored mana symbols
Snow mana symbol (from the Ice Age block)

4th row:

Hybrids mana symbols

5th row:

Monocolored hybrid mana symbols
Phyrexian mana symbols (from the New Phyrexia set)

6th row:

Tap cost (Current, e.g. M12's Royal Assassin)
Untap cost (from the Shadowmoor block, e.g. Crackleburr)
Colorless mana amount (from the Un- sets, e.g. Mox Lotus)
Generic fractional mana cost (from the Un- sets, e.g. Cheap Ass)
Old icon for tap cost (e.g. Revised's Royal Assassin)
Old icon for tap cost (e.g. Fourth's Royal Assassin)
Old white mana symbol (e.g. Alpha's Blessing)

7th row:

Generic mana cost (from the Un- sets, e.g. Gleemax)
Generic mana cost (from the Un- sets, e.g. Mox Lotus)
Chaos symbol (Used in Planechase games, e.g. Llanowar)
Colored fractional mana symbol (from the Un- sets, e.g. Little Girl)
Colored fractional mana symbol (from the Un- sets, e.g. Mons's Goblin Waiters)
Separator used in the power/toughness box of creatures
Phyrexian mana symbol (e.g. Rage Extractor)

What's a card that has an untap cost?

@nornagon, They're all in the Shadowmoor block. Added example to my answer.


text:
What order do triggered abilities happen in if multiple things trigger at the same time?
I had several humans on the battlefield.
On turn three, I played Triumph of Ferocity. On turn four, I played Descendants' Path. On turn five, during my upkeep, this question came up.
At this point, I need to draw/reveal three cards. If I reveal a human, Descendants' Path will allow me to cast it without paying its mana cost.
So, does it matter when I draw the human?
The static abilities state "at the beginning up your upkeep..." which leads me to believe that those two draws/reveals would happen before my normal draw. If that's the case, does the draw order happen in the same order that I played the enchantments?
In the end, that's how we decided to do it. I drew first for Triumph of Ferocity, then I revealed for Descendants' Path, then I drew for my turn. Did we do it right?

I should add that Descendants' Path says "reveal the top card" rather than "draw", but since the card is either going to be cast or placed at the bottom of the library, I was treating it as the same thing.

In a casual game, it's usually not going to be a big deal, of course, but do keep in mind that technically "reveal the top card" is not at all the same thing as "draw." There are cards that care about the difference.

@DavidZ, Are there examples of these cards in Standard?

@Pacerier Chasm Skulker, Fate Unraveler, Keranos, and probably more (I stopped looking).

@Pacerier at the time of the question they were standard.

@Pacerier If you don't have any cards in your library, "reveal" does nothing. "Draw" causes you to lose the game.

"At this point, I need to draw/reveal three cards" I'm confused as to why this is.

When multiple abilities trigger at the same time (as Path and Triumph did, in this situation) and you control both of them, you can choose to put them on the stack in any order you like.

603.3b If multiple abilities have triggered since the last time a player received priority, each player, in APNAP order, puts triggered
abilities he or she controls on the stack in any order he or she
chooses. (See rule 101.4.) Then the game once again checks for and
resolves state-based actions until none are performed, then abilities
that triggered during this process go on the stack. This process
repeats until no new state-based actions are performed and no
abilities trigger. Then the appropriate player gets priority.

Both Descendants' Path and Triumph of Ferocity trigger at the same time, at the beginning of your upkeep. Because you control both triggers, you have a choice of how to put those two triggers on the stack, meaning you can draw a card from Triumph of Ferocity first (put Triumph's trigger on the stack on top of Path's) or reveal the card for Descendants' Path first (put Path's trigger on the stack on top of Triumph's).
Afterward, when you proceed to the draw step, you get your normal draw.
So, your actions were perfectly game-legal. But you could have changed the order and that would be correct as well.
Note that you are not drawing three cards in this situation. Descendants' Path tells you to "reveal" a card and do something with it. This does not count as "drawing" it for abilities that reference that.

For reference, "APNAP order" just means that, if both players have to do something, the player whose turn it is makes the decisions first:

101.4. If multiple players would make choices and/or take actions at the same time, the active player (the player whose turn it is) makes
any choices required, then the next player in turn order (usually the
player seated to the active player’s left) makes any choices required,
followed by the remaining nonactive players in turn order. Then the
actions happen simultaneously. This rule is often referred to as the
“Active Player, Nonactive Player (APNAP) order” rule.

Thanks @Alex P. So, just to clarify: I can choose the order in which I want to draw and/or reveal. But, do I have to "declare" which order I'm using? Obviously, in the scenario above, I want to draw/reveal a human, but it doesn't seem fair for me to decide which order I was drawing/revealing until after the fact.

@BrendonCheves Yes. It should be unambiguous to all players which trigger's action you're doing when you do it.

@AlexP, But wouldn't APNAP order actually benefit the non-active player in some cases?

@Pacerier yes, there are situations where AP/NAP benefits the NAP.


text:
North Star and Fist of Suns
A discussion on Reddit about bad combos mentioned combining the following two cards (Oracle included here):
Fist of Suns

You may pay {W}{U}{B}{R}{G} rather than pay the mana cost for spells that you cast.

North Star

{4}, {T}: For one spell this turn, you may spend mana as though it were mana of any color to pay that spell's mana cost. (Additional costs are still paid normally.)

The idea being that by activating North Star you could pay {5} to play anything instead of the usual {W}{U}{B}{R}{G}, due to the oracle wording. The total mana cost would be 9 mana thanks to the {4} required to activate North Star of course.
Does this combo work?

Without looking at the Reddit thread, I am almost certain the entire reason for posting the combo was to make a "Fist of the North Star" joke.

You could do a Celestial Dawn / Fist of the Suns to make all spells cost WWWWW though.

I do not believe it works due to the wording of the rules regarding costs.

202.1. A card’s mana cost is indicated by mana symbols near the top of the card. (See rule 107.4.)
601.2e The player determines the total cost of the spell. Usually this is just the mana cost. Some
spells have additional or alternative costs.

Fist of Suns has a static ability that creates an alternative cost for all spells that are played. This alternative cost if {W}{U}{B}{R}{G}. However that alternative cost is not the mana cost which is still the original printed symbols.
For this reason when both are out if you attempt to pay the alternative cost of {W}{U}{B}{R}{G} you are no longer paying the mana cost, so the ability to pay mana as if it were mana of any color no longer applies.
Thus after activating North Star with Fist of Suns in play you can either pay {W}{U}{B}{R}{G} or the CMC of the spell, but cannot choose to pay {5}.

This is correct. It does not work as NS doesn't affect the alternative cost created by FoS.


text:
How do SBAs interact with the sacrifice of a creature enchanted with Gift of Immortality?
I am not very au fait of how state based actions work, so I'd like to understand an interaction. Say I have Brindle Boar enchanted with Gift of Immortality. There are basically no simple ways (barring graveyard hate or Stifle-like effects) to prevent both permanents from returning?
I mean, if they target Gift or Boar with removal, I sacrifice the boar, but (this is the part I'm not sure) SBAs will send the Gift to the graveyard before the removal can hit it, right (and same if they target in response to my sacrificing the boar)?

Well, the simplest way to prevent both permanent from returning is to wait for the enchanted creature to die, then kill it again while the Gift is still in the graveyard. Its trigger will then fizzle because it has nothing to be attached to.

My question is really about the second paragraph: whether or not it's possible to keep the enchantment from going into the graveyard in the first place (since that's the main relevant part for standard).

I wouldn't put a '?' after, "There are basically no simple ways (barring graveyard hate or Stifle-like effects) to prevent both permanents from returning?" It reads as if it was a question, not a statement of fact (an incorrect one at that).

@Circeus Out of curiosity, why do you feel 'that's the relevant part for Standard'?  Can you describe a specific situation you're concerned about that you believe the provided answer and comments aren't covering?

Well, in standard (I don't play the older formats), graveyard hate (e.g. Serene Remembrance or Rest in Peace) isn't played ATM, and Stifle is obviously no an issue (Viper's Kiss might be, but not in the scenario I offer up). I'm well aware of the "double removal" aspect, so the part I'm wondering about is whether enchantment removal can affect the resolution, and that's where SBA timing becomes involved and I get confused and unsure.

@Circeus That's fair; the two things I will note (on the broad, not directly to your question) are that (1) there's one very relevant piece of graveyard hate in Standard, namely Scavenging Ooze, which prevents the creature from coming back in the first place - and (2) even without that hate, right now a recurrent effect on the order of 'reanimate a Brindle Boar once per turn' is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the format; the things people are doing are just Bigger than that. (But the technical question here is a fine one and I don't want to sell it short.)

You are entirely right about the Ooze, which I'd forgotten about (since at the moment it's not played for the graveyard hate much)! FWIW, I was asking because I was thinking of comboing off brindle, gift and Angelic Accord (mostly for a casual thing).

Yes, SBAs will result in GoI going to the graveyard. Yes, there are simple ways to prevent both from returning.
State-Based Actions
If you sacrifice the boar before your opponent targets it (or the Aura enchanting it), then Gift of Immortality is attached to an object that no longer exists. Before any play receives priority, Gift of Immortality is placed in its owner's graveyard. Your opponent can no longer target Gift of Immortality on the battlefield, because it is no longer there.
If you sacrifice the boar in response to your opponent targeting it (or the Aura enchanting it), then Gift of Immortality will still be placed in the graveyard, because the object it was enchanting no longer exists. The spell that originally targeted it (or the boar) will be countered on resolution, because the boar and the aura will be new objects when they return to the battlefield.

116.2d State-based actions happen automatically when certain conditions are met. See rule 704. They’re dealt with before a player would receive priority. See rule 116.5.

303.4c If an Aura is enchanting an illegal object or player as defined by its enchant ability and other applicable effects, the object it was attached to no longer exists, or the player it was attached to has left the game, the Aura is put into its owner’s graveyard. (This is a state-based action. See rule 704.)

Playing Around Gift of Immortality
There are at least a few other ways besides graveyard removal and Stifle effects:

Use two removal spells: Gift of Immortality returns the Brindle boar to the battlefield after it is sent to the graveyard, but GoI doesn't return to the battlefield until the beginning of the next end step. You can use the first removal to force the sacrifice, and before the GoI returns, you can use the second removal to send it to the graveyard permanently.

400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence. There are seven exceptions to this rule: [...] 400.7e Abilities of Auras that trigger when the enchanted permanent leaves the battlefield can find the new object that Aura became in its owner’s graveyard if it was put into that graveyard at the same time the enchanted permanent left the battlefield. It can also find the new object that Aura became in its owner’s graveyard as a result of being put there as a state-based action for not being attached to a permanent. (See rule 704.5n.)

Sudden Shock/Krosan Grip: Split Second prevents your opponent from activating Brindle Boar's activated ability while it is on the stack.

End the Turn: Sundial of the Infinite or Time Stop prevent the "at the beginning of the end step" from returning either.

Sorry, but although that does cover the other basic ways to keep the combo from working, those're completely irrelevant to my actual question (see my answer to AlexP's comment)

@user1873 actually - the end the turn effects can be used to prevent it coming back all together. it is returned by a delayed trigger, which must go on the stack, when the turn ends early all triggers and spells are exiled from the stack. this means you can end the turn above the trigger on the stack and prevent the GoI returning at all. It has triggered, and it doesnt say "each end step"

If there is no end step in the turn and the ability is supposed to trigger at the beggining of the next end step, it will trigger as soon as the next end step begins, whether it's in the same turn or not. But you can end the turn during the end step when the abilities are already on the stack, which is a completely different situation (all the abilities and spells are removed from the stack at this point).

Thanks for confirming my hunch. I get my questions wasn't super clear, but I couldn't figure out a good, clear way to ask it.


text:
Can I tap fewer than 7 creatures with Lullmage Mentor?
With Lullmage Mentor's ability:

Tap seven untapped Merfolk you control: Counter target spell.

Can I attempt to tap less than 7 creatures with his second ability? I know it would not activate his second ability, but can I at least make the attempt to tap 7?
Basically can I intentionally fail to tap 7 creatures and those creatures still get tapped?

No you can't.  due to rule 117.3

117.3. A player can’t pay a cost unless he or she has the necessary
  resources to pay it fully. For example, a player with only 1 life can’t pay a cost of 2 life, and a permanent that’s already tapped can’t be tapped to pay a cost. See rule 202, “Mana Cost and Color,” and rule 602, “Activating Activated Abilities”

the text: "tap 7 merfolk" is before the :, and therefore it's a cost.  You can't pay or attempt to pay that cost unless you are able to pay it fully.

authors: Сергей Вдовин


text:
Big or small team members in Heroclix?
So, there seems to be two schools of thought when it comes to creating your standard team:

Go big or go home. Get all the biggest, most powerful guys you can to fit into your allotted points
Swarm them with small, efficient guys averaging about 50 points each.

What are the pros and cons of these methods? Is there anything to keep in mind for either scenario? Is one method significantly better than the other (in theory or practice)?

From my experience, I would lean towards the "Go big or go home" school of thought on this. Here's why:

Most of the expensive figures have a higher defense value. Most of the less expensive figures have a lower attack value. You may be able to direct 2 or 3 figures towards attacking your opponents costly Superman or Hulk, but they will have a harder time hitting it. It also works the other way: the higher cost figures will be able to hit your figures more often. Which leads me to...
Damage. The same idea applies for damage output, hit points, and defensive abilities. Your lower cost figures may have great stats on the first click, but as soon as they take any damage, their stats will degrade very quickly. The stronger figures will do more damage, making your figures less effective than you have bargained for. (This is especially true if your figures get hit before they have a change to attack.)
The higher cost figures tend to have higher damage output as well. If an expensive figure is doing 3 or 4 damage with a single hit, most 50 point characters will not last long.
Lower damage output also makes a costly figure's defensive bonuses better. If they are Tough or Invulnerable and you're only doing a couple of points of damage which each figure, you're not going to make much of a dent.
Swarming seems like a good strategy, but most of the time a higher cost figure will have enhanced defense or defensive abilities that keep you from doing a lot of damage to it and removing it from the game.

Well, aside from special abilities affecting this, wouldn't 50 point average cost allow you to use all of your actions each turn without pushing? This would be in opposition to 2 150 point guys on a 300 point team only able to use 1/3 of their actions per turn. I think that was the basis of the idea of a small agile team

You would certainly get more actions without having to push anyone. In my experience, the actions from the 50 point figures aren't as efficient (in terms of hitting and causing damage) as those of a high cost figure.


text:
Can you use a planeswalker ability even if the planeswaker doesn't have enough loyalty?
For example Tamiyo, the Moon Sage. Can I use the -8 ability even though she only has 4 loyalty? I understand it would kill her. Or would I have to get 8 loyalty first with the +1 ability?

Wizard's wording on the matter is thus:

606.5. A loyalty ability with a negative loyalty cost can't be activated unless the permanent has at least that many loyalty counters on it

It doesn't specify how those counters get there. It could be through +X abilities, proliferate, or even cool things like Doubling Season. But they must exist on the planeswalker in order to pay the cost.

606.5 is a specific case of 117.3: "A player can’t pay a cost unless he or she has the necessary resources to pay it fully. [...]"

So, does this mean that it's ok to kill off your planeswalker by using, for example, a -7 loyalty cost ability when it has 7 loyalty counters on it?

@cdeszaq Yes, but keep in mind that he will consider that to be the "last straw" and leave you since he has no more loyalty to you. (And apparently, he goes and hangs out with your dead creatures and old memories. I'm not sure why he'd do that...)

First things first - planeswalkers don't have "life", they have "loyalty counters".
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on the side of the table you're sitting on), you can't play an ability with a negative loyalty cost unless the planeswalker has at least that many loyalty counters on it.
See here for this and other official rules for planeswalkers in Magic.

I was wondering, can you use the ability twice? or do you need a spell to make that happen?

@james As the official rules state "You can play one of these abilities only at the time you could play a sorcery, and only if none of that planeswalker's abilities have been played yet that turn."

You can play only one of the planeswalker's abilities on each of your turns, and as far as I know it's currently impossible to get around that restriction... but if you have enough loyalty counters, you can definitely play the -8 ability twice on two consecutive turns!  (That's a lot of loyalty counters though.)

@thesunneversets Two Doubling Seasons in play. 16 loyalty counters when it enters the battlefield. Done. ;)

This works in the same way as casting a spell/ Activating an ability. In order to do so you must pay its cost. If you don't have the manna for the cost, you cannot cast the spell.
The abilities of a Planeswalker require the costs next to them to use them. Even the +1 abilities are a cost. (However, it would be very rare/ impossible to be unable to pay that cost.) -1, -2, -10, etc... costs act the same way but you would require that specific amount of loyalty counters or higher to use them:

606.5. A loyalty ability with a negative loyalty cost can't be activated unless the permanent has at least that many loyalty counters on it.

Could you cite any Planeswalker rules to back this up?

@doppelgreener Ive added the closest rules I can see but in the comprehensive rules i cant see anything other than if the Planeswalkers loyalty drops to 0 the permanent is destroyed. but there may be more on the activated ability rulings to suggest that the loyalty counters should by available before activating a loyalty ability.

Actually scratch that found the exact rule its already quoted above... haha

Cool beans. I've given it a small revision and an updoot. :)

Think of it this way: No store that's selling a 5 dollar sandwich is going to accept 2.50. or a 1.00 sandwich for .50 cents. When a Planeswalker ability says "-2' do this action" you need to pay 2 loyalty, no ifs, ands, or buts. If you have 1 loyalty on the walker and you want to use the -2, no dice, you need at least 2 loyalty since the minus two is the cost of activation. So if you want to activate a minus ability but lack the funds, you need to find some way to get that loyalty up, whether it be activating a +(#) ability or blinking/flickering the walker itself to reset to base loyalty.

Game rules could easily override real-life spending logic if they wanted to, so I don't think the analogy is all that helpful.

I know its an extremely old thread, but I figured I'd help those that didn't understand. ;)

But that's not how the game works ATM, GendoIkari. That's just not how resource games work. In magic you need the proper rescources to use a walker ability unless something else, like a card says otherwise, and that's not part of the question, so I don't think your comment helps.

I'm not saying that your answer is wrong or anything. Only that an appeals to the rules themselves means a lot more than an appeal to how buying things works in real life.

That's fair, but again, magic is a resource game, MTG R&D already know how game breaking loyalty abilities can be, if the rules committee said that you can ultimate a Planeswalker without a doubling season or something else by only paying 2 instead of the needed 10, I would quit magic entirely. I understand what you are saying: "The rules of Magic: the Gathering is different than economics." But at its core it isn't, if I can't pay 2 loyalty to pay for a -10 ultimate then no store would let me only pay 2.50 for a 5 dollar sandwich.

What he's saying is that you should cite the rules, to back up the fact it really does work the way that analogy describes. Since we're not a discussion forum, answers don't have a linear relationship with each other, and it's best practices for each answer to tackle the question independently, which means also making their own relevant citations to back themselves up as accurate & correct. (Check out our [tour].)


text:
What is a "Dual-Color OW Battle"?
I've come across the incredible Arkham Horror Statistics spreadsheet that fans have contributed to. I have played a few expansions and I understand most of what is on there, but I'm confused with the "Dual-Color OW Battle" under the "Special Events" header of the Miscellaneous tab. What is this? I know that OW stands for Other World, but I'm not sure what it means otherwise.
I haven't found anything about it on the Arkham Horror wiki or a general Google search. The only thing I can think of that would be two colors is Gloria's ability letting you draw two cards in an Other World, which might or might not be different colors. But that doesn't really make any sense in the context of a battle.
So what exactly is a "Dual-Color OW Battle"?

"Dual-Color OW Battle" refers to three other world encounter cards from the Curse of the Dark Pharoah expansion (both the original and revised versions) that are actually two colors - they'll match either color. The "Battle" part, and the reason they're worth keeping statistics on, is that if you're in a certain location and draw the card, you'll have to fight an Ancient One. (If you're somewhere else, you get something much less scary.)
If you don't care about spoilers, here they are: one two three. They're linked from the Curse of the Dark Pharoah section here.


text:
On-Going / Long Running Game
Are there any Board or Card games that can be played where not players are not required to be there at the games start in order to play? I'm thinking a game that runs similar to an MMORPG where anyone can pull up a chair, play for awhile, and leave again without upsetting the flow of the game and still enjoying a decent, well-thought-out game.

Is the intention that it's a long-form game, rather than something short like President or Uno where you can add or remove players between hands?

I would like to find a game that I could setup for a large party where people can join in or take off without disrupting the flow of the game...


text:
Can I use Lingering Souls' flashback ability the same turn I cast it normally?
For Lingering Souls once the spell is played on my turn it is put into the graveyard. However if I have enough mana can I instantly play the flashback ability or do I need to wait until my next turn to take it out the graveyard?

If the card is in the graveyard, you have the mana to pay the flashback cost, and  priority to play the spell, you can play it. Note that you have to wait for the spell to resolve before you can play it again, because that's when you put the card in the graveyard.
There is no rule specifying that you have to wait until your next turn.