text:
Getting rid of Conditions when blessed
To get rid of a negative condition, you have to role a 5 or a 6.  If you are blessed, where 4 count as successes, does the condition disappears on a 4, 5, and 6?

The first unwritten rule of cooperative games is if a rule can be interpreted in several ways, the right one is the least helpful to the players.  Therefore conditions only disapear on a 5 or 6 regardless of other effects.
This is the answer from the official FAQ:

Q. Is every roll considered a test?
A. No. An effect that tells you to
  roll a specific number of dice, such as the flare effect on a Cursed
  Condition, is not a test. These rolls cannot be re rolled or modified
  by effects that affect tests.


text:
What is the winning position in Monopoly Empire?
In Monopoly Empire what is the official winning position for a player?
The rules seem ambiguous by stating that the winner is the first person to build the tower to the top, but that raises two questions:
1) Can the tower 'spill over' the top?  For instance, if you need to fill one space can a 4-space billboard be bought to win the game?
and
2) Do the billboards have to fit in the tower spaces perfectly?

First off I don't see much of a difference between your 2 questions.
The rules state:

If you’re the first to hit the top, you win!

This means you have to fill the entire tower with billboards, including "spilling over". No, you do not have to fit the billboards in the tower exactly. Anything beyond the top point doesn't matter anymore since you've already won.

Once a person has reached the top of the billboard they have won, no cards such as ‘you're fired’ or any other cards to counter act that persons win as they have already won.

Hey Dan, welcome to B&CG ... mind including a link or some quote of the rules to give your answer some backup?

If the person has filled their tower, the other people play their turn before the opponent can win the game.

Could you add some citation from the rules to back that up?

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Becoming better at sideboarding
One of the keys to tournament performance in Magic is proper sideboarding. This seems to be a point of failure with many Magic players that want to move up from casual play and compete in tournaments such as Star City Games Open, Grand Prix, TCG Player MaxPoint Series, and even large Friday Night Magic tournaments.
The basic concept is easy: Take out cards that are bad and put in cards that are good. This basic advice relies on three important prerequisites:

You were able to correctly identify the metagame to determine which decks you would likely face
You were able to competently build a sideboard that fits with your deck
You correctly identified which cards to add and remove during sideboarding

Obviously, there is no canonical answer to the first point, but the second and third points should be able to be strategized in a general manner.
How do you approach the sideboarding conundrum?  Are there any shortcuts or rules of thumb that have served you well, or resources that you refer to? Do you build sideboards with different goals for the different archetypes you play such as aggro, control, midrange, or tempo?

After reading a million articles on the subject I think one could write a whole book about the subject.

This is a really juicy question! Hopefully we'll get some really juicy answers. :) (Working on mine... slowly.)

Commenting this since it's not really content of value I am personally adding, but: Even as much as one may or may not loathe "net decking", taking top tier decks, with side boards, and sideboarding guides written by pros, and playing them extensively, does lead to gaining appreciation and understanding of why and how it was done the way it is. (At least if you already have a solid grounding in the fundamentals of the game.)  (Of course for a lot of truly dominant decks, it's really just about what kind of ninja tech you've cooked for the mirror!)

This is a tricky question. I've half-written four answers about it and scrapped each one.

Come on Alex, just put it out there. You can always edit it!

In my experience, the hardest part of sideboarding is to know what cards to take out. There are some obvious cases like removing creature removal against a deck without creatures and such, but they're not the most common case. Sometimes you change one card for another with the same function (swapping Terror for Diabolic edict against a black deck), that's easy too. But what do you take out when you need grave hate against a deck with no obvious bad cards in your own?
Focus on what cards will make you win the game?
It really helps to know your deck well when you're going to sideboard. What cards are the core of your game plan. How many creatures/disruption cards/mana sources/sacrifice outlets/etc. do you optimally want? And how many can your deck still manage to play well with. How is your mana curve? Can you manage that 4-cost spell that's better or do you need the cheap one. Make sure not to focus too much on hampering you opponents game plan so that you ruin your own!
No matter what cards you decide on, don't forget to playtest! That's what really shows you how the deck plays after you've sideboarded.
Tip: A common test strategy when you don't know which of 2/3 cards you want to bring in is to play them as split-cards when you playtest. You get to chose which one you play during the game and after a few games you have a good idea of what you want.

In my humble experience I have seen two fundamentally distinct sideboarding strategies:
1) sideboard made with targeted cards, for example targeting a particular color or a particular style of playing (mill, discard, land destruction, aggro, etc.) in order to trouble the opponent and disrupt his/her strategies.
Overall basis of this strategy is adaptation after you have seen the opponent's deck on the first match.
2) sideboard made with alternate-strategy cards, for example you play the first match with a discard deck, then on the second match (when your opponent adds the cards that disrupt discard decks from his/her sideboard), you turn your deck in a land-destruction deck and make a big part of the opponent's deck useless. If you ever get to play the third match, you can decide which "face" you want to present, leaving your opponent guessing and, probably mixing up the options, making both of them less effective.
Overall basis of this strategy is catching the opponent off-guard, a more aggressive approach.
Personally, I think that option 2 is funnier and shows more personality/flamboyance.

PV makes a very important point about the transformational sideboard: "The one thing you must avoid is transforming into something that loses to whatever it is they were boarding anyway [...] Yet another example are the people who were boarding in Splinter Twin and Exarch in their Grapeshot/Pyromancer decks, since they theoretically take out creature hate, but that I don’t like -- you still lose to counterspells, discard and enchantment removal, all of which they will board against you no matter what."

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


text:
What rules were used wrong in Tabletop's episode for "Fortune and Glory"?
In the opening of the Tabletop episode for Fortune and Glory, a tabletop gaming series with Will Wheaton, there is a disclaimer in the opening saying that many rules were used wrongly. I liked the game, but I'm wondering: what was done wrong?

I tried to ask them on Twitter but they said they'll never tell: https://twitter.com/tabletop/status/440634747640098816

From my experience of playing the game I think they may have got something wrong in the camping down/press on phase of Dangers. That or they made a mistake when you fail a danger to do with cliffhangers.
The full rulebook is published on Flying Frog's website if you want to check while watching the episode.


text:
What brand of card sleeves are most reliable for Magic the Gathering?
I use Dragon Shield, KMC and Ultra-Pro.
The reviews and forums don't seem to have a consensus on the question, "Which brand is the best?"
But have there been any quality control tests that show statistically one brand is more reliable than the others?

I have not seen any independent quality assurance tests comparing the various sleeves, and I sincerely doubt there is a comprehensive one to be found. It's probably not economical for anyone involved, since QA comparisons like that can be quite expensive.
From anecdotal evidence at my local shop, which has ~80 player FNMs every week, most players seem to agree agree that:

KMC sleeves (matte or normal) are generally the most durable.
Dragon Shield will start split during shuffling.
Ultra-Pro Pro-Matte will become dirty fairly quickly.

These are the three most popular sleeve types at the shop.

I've had Ultra-Pros split on me like crazy.

That's the problem with anecdotal evidence: I have a totally different experience. I agree Ultra-Pro get dirty quick, but never have I split a Dragon Shield. Their problem, for me, is the fact they start "arching". Durability wise I think they are the best.

Strangely, I've never had any trouble with anecdotal evidence!

Wow, talk about mixed experiences. I have never been able to split a dragon shield, but they get dirty and stuck VERY quickly, while ultra pro (-matte) never get dirty but split all the time. KMC in my experience get sticky. I end up using ultra pro because splitting is way less annoying than dirty/sticky cards. Could be I just have sweaty hands, but its interesting to me that everyone has such different experiences.

There is a YouTuber https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7-hR5EfgpM6oHfiGDkxfMA who compares different brands by doing different tests with them, pretty good source IMO

I'll share my experience on sleeving matter.

KMC : I use the black matte KMC. And, It's thick, so if you are a double-sleever guy (like me), don't choose it, since it would be super thick, and hard to shuffle. But, easiness in shuffling is subjective, so, if you wanna try, go for it. Anyway, it's unarguably durable and really smooth to shuffle though (0 break record so far).
Ultra pro : The first "serious" sleeve I use (the rugged-back one). And it's frustratingly breaking apart a lot. BUT, I think they improving their sleeve quality later on, so, when I try it several years later (looking for cheap sleeve for my edh), it's surprisingly durable. So then, when I buy them later (the non-glare one) for my modern deck, it turns out really good and the most "fit" generally for double sleeving. I love it very much. (10-ish break record the old one, 0 out of +-200 for the new one)
Dragon shield : I never use them (don't quite like the color selection). But, one of my friend (old player) use it, and I dislike it since it doesn't have a rugged back (harder to shuffle for me) -never try to find the rugged back one. But it seems a good amount of player satisfied with it, so, it may be decent too.

Conclusion :
While the sleeve quality is important, but your sleeve durability also greatly affected by your shuffling technique. So, if you shuffle correctly (i guess), then at least ultra-pro (I specifically recommend the non-glare one) is decent enough. not to mention it's somewhat cheaper than KMC.
I personally loves ultra pro, since I am able to double sleeve it without being too thick. There's a non-glare variant too, which is I use to double sleeve my modern deck. So far, my subjective rating for Ultra-Pro is 9/10, and KMC is 8/10 (mainly for being too thick to double sleeve.
Hope that helps.

I was under the impression that any more than just single-sleeved was not allowed in most competitive play.

@Urdungo hmm. No it's not. I always double sleeve during my modern format days.

I haven't seen any QC tests but I have been using both over the past year. I have every color of Dragon Shields (except Brown and Pink) and I have only had an issue with 1 set (some tearing on about 10 sleeves). I double sleeve my cards using Perfect Fits on the inside and I riffle shuffle. that puts a ton of stress on the sleeves
Ultra Pros are good, not as thick as Dragon Shields, but I haven't had an issue with them. However, I've seen many of an opponent tear an Ultra Pro midgame.
I always put it to my friends this way... In the lifetime of a box of sleeves you can buy one box of Dragon Shields or 3 boxes of something else.

Is it still easy to see through the double sleeve?

@BBz At most, they are just a bit more reflective than single-sleeving.

My family own and manage a game store, and we have been into MTG and many other card games since their inception. We like KMCs the best all around, though some prefer Dragon Shields' color selection and price.
I believe Ultra-Pro sleeves have been gradually declining in quality. I have seen too many packs with QC issues (incorrect cuts or gluing, etc). They are the smoothest to shuffle, but show wear the first time they're shuffled, especially non-Pro-Mattes. For a Commander deck I invariably choose Dragon Shields (100ct). For a 60-card deck, it's always KMCs (Only available in 80ct). Most of our customers (especially the more experienced) miss the old days of Ultra-Pro, and end up doing as we do.
BCWs are excellent sleeves when you can find them. Plainer and less color selection, but very affordable and durable. I like them better than Dragon Shields but not as good as KMCs. They're the best 'inexpensive' sleeves by miles.
This all depends on the pricing of your shop, of course.

I use Ultra-Pro. I've never had a problem with them. Been using them for about 5 months now. Now I don't like playing without them. It feels weird when the edges aren't stabbing me in the hand every few seconds. :D

This answer doesn't contain any information about "quality control tests that show statistically one brand is more reliable than the others", which is  what the question asked for.


text:
What is a Gateway Game?
Before joining the B&CG community, I had never heard the phrase "Gateway Game." The quintessential examples of Settlers of Catan, Ticket to Ride, and Carcassonne gives me a rough idea but Googling did not yield a more precise definition. So:
What is a Gateway Game? To help refine the definition: Why are (or are not) the following borderline cases considered Gateway games:

Monopoly
Race for the Galaxy
Spades (a card game which is a Gateway to Bridge, for some).

The term can be understood by analogy to "gateway drug".

Don't move the goal posts arbitrarily. Better make it a separate question. Also, we usually don't do lists here, as they can typically not be complete, and with not totally clear-cut questions like this, there will be lots of debate whether this or that game belongs on the list or not.

@Hackworth I opened a hornet's nest today when I attempted to ask a question in answers-as-items-in-a-list form today and after lots of discussion (both Q and Meta), two people suggested I go back to this question and revise it to get a more precise answer. In retrospect I made an error by accepting your answer which was pretty good but still left me wondering about some games. Note that my (quickly closed) question did suggest two additions to the definition: (1) easy to explain and apply the rules and (2) doesn't take long to play (< 2 hours?). Maybe adding these 2 is enough?

BGG has this definition in their glossary:

A game with simple rules that is easy to teach to non-gamers in order to attract new players into boardgaming as a hobby.

Usually people will say that a Gateway Game must have at least these qualities:

Simple (so you can explain the rules to them quickly).
Fun (fun games will attract repeat plays).
Short (short hits can be played again, misses gives you time to play something else).

The real problem with this definition is that the focus is on the game, and not the goal. If your goal is to attract new players to boardgaming as a hobby, the focus should be on the player. There is no silver bullet with a Gateway Game. The game needs to match the player that you are trying to convert. If you know the new player or can get to know them, you can make better decisions about what games they might be interested in. Speaking in just generalities though:
Are you trying to convert a brand new player who has never played any games?
This kind of player doesn't have any background in any sort of game mechanics. It would be best to focus on a game that has only one or a couple game mechanics so that they don't have to learn too many new things all at once. For Sale/No Thanks have just a bidding mechanic. Can't Stop has a push your luck mechanic. Blokus has an area control mechanic. Cash n' Guns has a hidden selection mechanic. The shorter the game, the better, since you can try many different games until you find one that clicks. Then stick with that game for a while until that player becomes comfortable with the game mechanics and understands that strategies in the game.
Are you trying to convert a Monopoly, Risk, Trivial Pursuit, kids board game player?
Nothing wrong with suggesting something that might be already familiar. Settlers of Catan has pieces like houses and hotels, and resources (goods instead of cash) are collected based upon what players roll. If they like Risk, there is Risk Legacy, and for Trivia buffs there is Wits and Wagers.
Are you trying to convert a Party Game player?
Games with lots of player interaction, or cooperative in nature, since they focus on the social aspect of games. Forbidden Island/Pandemic
Are you trying to convert a Chess, Go, Bridge, Poker, or other classic game player?
This person is already a gamer, so you are half way there. They know how to play by the rules and they probably have a good grasp on probability or board position. You probably want to focus on a games that have less luck, and more skill.
Are you trying to convert a MtG/Yugioh/Pokemon/CCG player?
This person probably already is a gamer by most people's definition. If your goal is to open their mind up to the rest of the board gaming world, you might want to focus on card games so that they are playing a familiar game, Dominion/Resident Evil: the Deck Building Game. Nothing wrong with stretching out to something completely different though. Something themed and less abstract might be more to their liking Gears of War/Shadows over Camelot/Battlestar Galactica.
As to the question, why or why not are certain games are considered gateway games, it usually comes down to not meeting one of the criteria above.

Monopoly: Isn't fun. Players have very few interesting decisions to make that will have any impact on the outcome of the game.
Race for the Galaxy: Isn't simple. I think that mostly it is the iconography that trips everyone up here. The rules themselves are fairly simple to explain (choose an action for the turn, all players perform all actions with bonuses for selecting that action, pay cards to play cards unless military, repeat), but the total number of icons and choices per turn is probably overwhelming for most players.
Spades: Not a Hobby/Designer Game. Most "gamers" do not consider classic games like Chess, Checkers, Go, Hearts, Poker, etc. to be hobby games. Teaching someone to play these types of games will not usually get them any closer to being interested in playing designer games that you would find in your friendly local gaming store.
Settlers of Catan: A Gateway Game. One of the quintessential gateway games.  Simple rules (roll dice, distribute goods, trade/build, repeat), fun to play, somewhat short (1-1.5 hours) if you use the City/Settlement starting rule. A little bit for every type of player, lots of player interaction through trading, a screw you over mechanic, some luck so the first game isn't a complete blowout, limited options per turn so tactical decisions are easier, and clear VP point system so you know how well you are doing (mini goals).
Ticket to Ride: A Gateway Game. Simple rules (play sets of colored cars, draw cards, link cities to complete tickets), fun game play, and relatively short duration.

You are not going to find a definitive definition of what is or isn't a Gateway Game. The idea behind it though is to find a game (theme, mechanic) that the new gamer might be interested in so that they become interested in the wealth of games that are available in the hobby.

"Monopoly isn't fun" - hah! (+1) for that, though the rest of that line is hard to parse.

ps where else would one "Google"...?

+1 Nice expansion of the answer, and good highlighting that gateway games are dependent on the audience and what you're looking for a Gateway to.

Thanks for such a thoughtful answer. Interestingly, using your way of thinking about it, I'd have to say that my top two gateway games for getting other people to advance to a more complex world of gaming have been Spades (gateway to Bridge) and Cosmic Encounter (to all kinds of games), yet neither is typically considered a Gateway game. That may just be a reflection of the fact that it's been many years since I've converted non-gamers into (more complex) gamers.

I would consider Cosmic Encounter a GG, and Spades is similar enough to Bridge to act as a GG for it (I only have limited experience playing bridge though). CE has luck, limited decisions, and somewhat simple rules (the only complications would be the Race Powers, Flares, and Artifacts. Though no more so than deck building games or Dominion clones.)

I'd like to point out that Monopoly tends not to actually be played by the rules, and the common house rules tend to lengthen the game. Most people's opinion of monopoly is based not on the games' rules but these house rules (Not that it's actually a fun game when following the rules, it was meant to be a teaching exercise more than a game after all)

A little googling brought up this definition, paraphrased:

A gateway game is a game that you can use to introduce non-gamers to the world of 'real', i.e. complex games.
A gateway game

has good replay value
has nice game components
is good for mixed age groups

I would also add that a Gateway Game is one that is relatively easy to learn how to play. i.e. the game mechanics and concepts are accessible to completely new players.

@GregDemetrick True, and I guess that's implicitly stated by  "good for mixed age groups", i.e. both young and old.

I would add that gateway games, specifically, have relatively more luck than other complex games.  This allows newer people to 'win' more often, despite good strategy from experienced players.

I think "mixed age groups" should really just be reformulated as "varying levels of skill and experience". The important thing is to make sure that everyone can learn the game reasonably quickly and have a shot at doing well, for players who might have trouble with that in some games. It doesn't really matter why they might have trouble - it could be age, it could be experience.

This definition is a great start but I'm wondering if you can make it more precise, perhaps by adding examples. Of the following games, which are Gateway games, which not: Monopoly, Poker, Spades, Blackjack, Rat-a-tat-cat, Cosmic Encounter, Labyrinth, Race for the Galaxy?

@JoeGolton The link I provided includes a list of gateway games, proposed by the members of that site.

The problem with the gateway game list you linked to is that it provides some obvious examples of what is included, but not borderline examples. I am still left wondering if Monopoly is a gateway game. The definition does not say the game must be modern or trendy or German. Monopoly has replay value, nice game components, and is good for mixed aged groups. It has some properties in common with Settlers of Catan (Trading/negotiation, using resources to build, random/probabilistic factors, and an ever growing pie of resources). Yet I never see it on lists of Gateway games. Why?

Here's an example of someone who (by implication) claims Monopoly is not a Gateway game, because (by implication) it is owned by a major old-school U.S. Game manufacturer: http://www.meetup.com/SWAGamers/events/10850746/

Monopoly is not generally considered a gateway game because it's not a "gateway" to anything; most people have at least heard of it, if not played it, and introducing people to it won't result in their becoming interested in hobby gaming. From your list, for example, Race for the Galaxy is also not considered a gateway game because the iconography is notoriously tough for people who don't have a frame of reference to grasp (e.g., the difference between military and non-military worlds being an easy to overlook red border), so it's not a good "introduction" to hobby games for most people.

@JoeGolton It's also worth noting that different definitions of "gateway game" may exist, and if your someone says Monopoly is not a gateway game just because "it is owned by a major old-school U.S. Game manufacturer" perhaps he's using a different definition.

@Hackworth Your answer was a good start but I now realize I should not have accepted it because I still had several unanswered questions (see comments, and see closed question asking to list Gateway games). I've unaccepted the answer in hopes that you will add enough refinement (see my refined question) so that the resulting answer makes it very clear whether any given game is a Gateway game or not. Then I'll re-accept the answer.

The term Gateway game comes from Gateway drug.
A gateway game is like a gateway drug.  It's what you give to somebody in hopes of them enjoying it and trying harder more intense variations.
For instance, I want to get my non nerdy friends to play Pandemic  with me (a cooperative game) but it looks too fiddly for them and the theme has too much science for my friends' tastes.
So I bust out Forbidden Island which is easier to win and has very similar mechanics and rules. They enjoy it so I can suggest Pandemic next time and they will be much more likely to play it.
Race for the Galaxy and Twilight Imperium have a similar relationship.

The second part might be. Better fit as an answer to this related question.

While it is true that Gateway Game comes from the term gateway drug, it gives the impression that there is such a thing as a gateway drug (I should post that to Skeptics.SE)


text:
Is it better to go first or last in Vinci?
My son is convinced that it's best to go last in Vinci because you have the more complete information of seeing where other players have started their civilizations and you always get last turn (like having home field advantage in baseball). I see these 2 advantages, but I wonder if these outweigh the disadvantages such as not having first pick on civilizations, not being the first to go into decline, and perhaps other factors I haven't even considered (we're all new to the game). So:
Is it better to go first, last, in between, or is the game so well balanced that it hardly matters?

I've never played Small World, but I've read that it's a reimplementation of Vinci, and thus very similar. So perhaps the answer to this will apply to both games equally? If not, please tell me in the comments and I'll remove the small-world tag.

It will be difficult to measure, especially when you add in more than two players. Just examining two players for a moment here. It is usually more advantageous to go first during the first turn, because you get first race selection. After choosing your race, the new selection is revealed. If your opponent was only allowed a single turn, you could calculate the best move for every race before the revealed race, and determine the best move possible (after the new race is revealed, you can add it's best move into your calculations). If you only played one round, you will get the first attempt to take empty territory, and your opponent might have to attack you to take territory.
The exception to the above would be when a powerful race is revealed. This is less likely to happen when compared to the 6 starting revealed races.
An examination of the last turn is similar. The player who is going first has the opportunity to take any unclaimed regions (if any) before his opponent.
For the most part, this is a game of open information. Going first is an advantage in 2-player, because you could calculate your optimum move and your opponents optimum move that turn. In subsequent turns, you will get the first opportunity to go into decline. The only random events (race selection) favor the first player. In multiplayer though, who each person decides to attack has probably a greater effect on winning. If every player played optimally, I think the first player would still have the advantage most of the time, but that is a much more difficult question to solve.

This is very difficult question to answer because so much of it depends on your experience, play-style, and how the random elements of the game turn out.  These games have sufficient complexity that, based on how they are played by humans, going either first or last might be an advantage.
It's certain that one's play-style preferences will affect this decision.  If you are one who more often likes to find a best response to your opponent's moves, then going later will be 'better' since it suits your play-style, this you'll win more often going later than going earlier.  However, if you're one who prefers to be more strategic, going earlier might yield you more wins.
Two things to note:

If you have the choice of consistently going in a certain order, keep choosing the one you have the most experience with.  This will enable you to remove one variable of the game, and allow you to improve your skill in the game faster.
There ARE certain combinations of races and powers that are clearly better, especially in terms of how they interact, than others.  This means that in certain games, it will be more advantageous to grab them, thus go earlier.  However, it's not at all clear that these situations happen often enough to offset any advantages (if they exist) from going later.


text:
What Mahjong set of rules can be recommended to beginners?
I play Mahjong with friends every now and then, using a set of rules that we sort of invented along the way: we knew the basics, but had no internet connection for one summer and played with what made the most sense. Now, we'd like to settle on established rules, but there are so many of them... I'd like to have rules that are:

stable (no changing every year like American Mahjong)
uses a 14-tiles hand, 4 winds, 3 dragons, flowers and seasons, no jokers
scoring doesn't have to be zero-sum operation (we don't play money)

If you believe it, there's one regional variant in China that allows chowing winds.

This set of rules for Chinese Mahjong might be a little terse, but are essentially the rules I have always played with.   The last chart gives a nice limited set of honor hands too.

The simplest ruleset is Hong Kong Old Style (HKOS). It has simple scoring and very few special hands. Other forms may have few special hands but complex scoring - or simple scoring but many special hands to learn - or complex scoring and many special hands to learn (like American Mahjong).
If you want even simpler rules, have a look at these ultra-simplified Chinese rules. They even omit Kan and most of scoring, so you can understand and explain them in a few minutes. From experience I would say they are a good way to start. Once you got the basics, you can gradually add more rules of the HKOS set, and eventually also have a look at other rulesets.
One thing I especially like about the ultra-simplified rules is how scoring works:

Whoever won gets a chip or a coin from
  everybody. Or just use the "ooh and
  aah" method. When somebody wins,
  everybody goes "ooh." You can keep
  track of score on a piece of paper
  too. Make a tick mark next to the
  winner's name. Whatever works for you.
If you want to make things really
  exciting, award an extra chip, coin,
  or "aah" for a pung of dragons or
  winds.
If you want to recognize dragon or
  wind pungs for all players (not only
  for the player who goes mah-jongg),
  you can do that. It might be possible
  for a non-winning player to get a
  higher score than a winner, if you
  allow this. But that's OK, if you like
  it that way.

I'm generally a fan of Riichi Mahjong, but what I use for teaching beginners is Zung Jung, a very simple and logical ruleset. See the scoring chart here - it's easy to apply (no "small points" and "multipliers", only one limit), and the point values are adequate to the effort required for a given pattern. At the same time, you can find most of the commonly used patterns in Chinese and Japanese mahjong, so a transition to a more complicated system shouldn't be a problem.

I searched for materials and updated the links with best alternative articles I cound find. I hope this helps.

According to this table, Hong Kong, Classical (Babcock's red-book rules), and Korean variations fit your criteria.
Having said that, this page state that Korean rules don't use seasons.

My preferred ruleset is Mahjong Competition Rules, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guobiao_Majiang (I don't think anyone in the west call them by the name Guobiao though, or at least I have yet to hear anyone do so, even at major tournaments). The rules can also be found at http://mahjong-europe.org/.
These may seem very complicated at first, but the scoring itself is fairly straightforward (just add whatever patterns are on the hand), and due to the large number of patterns, there will almost always be plenty of opportunities to pick different directions during the course of a hand.
A good way to get to know the rules is to start playing without the 8-point requirement and then spend some time figuring out the actual score of each hand, to get used to the patterns.
The ruleset also has the advantage (at least in Europe) that many of the large cities will have some club or similar playing by the ruleset, which gives an opportunity to get to know other players.
There are also a decent number of tournaments using the ruleset, and most of them (barring the European and World Championships) are open to everyone and generally have a very friendly atmosphere.

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


text:
What do you recommend to learn Go?
I am a beginner at this great game, and I would like to improve my skills at the game of Go. What resources would you recommend?

@Seth Most traditional games don't need to be uppercase; chess, backgammon, poker are all OK in lowercase. However, because "go" is a common English word on its own, to distinguish the game, it's usually written in uppercase. Just thought I'd clarify why we do that, and that it doesn't apply to other traditional games.

I recommend these great iOS or Android applications

@TecHunter Those applications are iOS only (and Windows/OSX).

Once you have learned some basic strategy, the best way to learn is to play.  If you don't have a friend or neighbor to play with, then I highly recommend the American Go Association.  They have a great resources page, links to clubs, books and teaching software.
The AGA maintains a list of Internet Go Servers for on-line play, including some turn-based servers.  Turn-based servers are good for beginners because there is no pressure to move quickly — you play via email.  The Dragon Go Server is dedicated to Go.
The great thing about Go is that it is easy to handicap.  You and a much more accomplished player can both enjoy a game together, you just have to handicap the expert player.

The interactive way to Go. It is only rudiments, but helpful at the beginning.

This is so far the best tutorial I've seen on Go. I learned Go this way and found it really easy and fun, and concise and fast as well.

Only one advice: Play on small boards !
Just start by understanding a "simplified-but-faithful" formulation of the rules, like Strasbourg Rules, and then practice with a partner (either a beginner or an experienced player) on a 5x5 board.
Once you both feel too cramped on 5x5 (typically after 5 to 10 games) then move to 7x7, and so on.
Only after quite a long time does it become enjoyable to play on 19x19. Don't try it too soon, or you'll be disoriented by the many possibilities and loose interest in the game.

Mac Software. It hasn't been updated in a while, and I have no idea if they're interested in porting it to iOS, but a company in Switzerland called Sente have produced a very nice, and free, Go client for OSX called Goban (and it still works on Snow Leopard, despite not having updates since 2006). It lets you play against the Gnu-Go program (which it bundles), and it lets you connect to internet Go servers that support Go Modem and Go Text protocols. How good you think the opposing play AI is, well, I'm not sure an experienced Go player would appreciate it, but I sure do as a learner.
At one point, I was able to download and compile up a simple Go Server for OSX on my own, so I could host my own Go Server and then people at my workplace could connect to it and we could play games over our intranet, but I wouldn't recommend that for the non-technical.
Books. Kiseido publishes a series of books on Go, in English. I have K31 ("The Second Book of Go"), which I thought was quite useful, and most of the Elementary Go Series (K10-K15), and, again, I found them quite useful. K31 says that it assumes that "you're new to the game, but you've already read a newbie intro book on Go", but I didn't think it was necessary. Once you know the rules, I thought that K31 was a perfectly fine place to start your studies.
I don't consider myself anything more than a beginner, and I also am not the sort of person who enjoys reading series of problems and such, so I haven't progressed past these books from Kiseido, but they do offer a whole raft of books for players of all skill levels (ostensibly).

GoGrinder is a free desktop program for practicing Go problems.  There's also a (paid) version of GoGrinder for iPhone on iTunes.

Start by playing with "strong" (or at least stronger) players if you can. You'll get whipped, but at least you'll learn some of their "typical" moves.
After you have served an "apprenticeship," then look for opponents close to your own strength. Try to beat them with the techniques you have learned from others.

My website at www.telgo.com is intended for players who have learned the basic rules, but don’t know where to go next. The site has been active for many years, and I have had many kind comments. Take a look.

I may have offended some people (-2?),  though I would point out that I have never had any commercial interest in making this site available.

why the downvotes? that site is not commercial and has some interesting stuff for a beginner like me

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


text:
How to counter oddities of Shade-Tree Checkers? (long distance king jumps, etc)
I know someone who played checkers with a guy, and he plays with non-standard rules. People he plays with have their own rules, in this case, he played where the kinged checkers piece can jump unlimited distance and land just past the single piece being jumped. For example, given the below board, with White and Black kings
___________
|  B    W
|W
|  B
|

Normally, White's only jump move would be with the left piece jumping the lower Black, but in this variation, the top right White can make a jump down-left just past the lower Black.
I don't hold much hope that you would know these particular rules, since they were probably made up on the fly and talked into acceptance.
What would you suggest, as how to defeat someone who is used to this.. but not by forcing him into the standard rules.

Is there online reading material regarding obscure game variants?
Is there a way to get a computer to follow unusual rules, allowing me to get some practice ahead of time? (at least with the special rules I'm aware of) I am a programmer, but I was hoping for something that required less programming and maybe something more generic, where I can just set the rules and play on a higher level.
Do you have other suggestions on how to level the playing field, so I can fare better in checkers with this opponent?

I am hoping to get in as much practice ahead of time before, to reduce the need to learn on the fly.
I play Chess very well already.

To level the playing field you could change more of the rules, so that neither of you are familiar with the game?  Maybe not most constructive of comments :-)

"Long-jumping" kings are standard in international checkers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_checkers

The variant of checkers described here is most likely Pool Checkers, or is at least closely related. A quick Google search showed several online play sites along with general strategy write-ups. There is even an iPad app with VS Computer play.
Having never played the variant myself, I cannot give any specific advice on gameplay improvements.


text:
Robber in fishing version of Settlers
In the fishing addition to Settlers of Catan the robber can be removed from the board by using two fish. The question then is can a knight from the pack of Development cards be used to bring the robber back into the game by putting it on an opponents resource?
My question is not answered by the first respondant as in the fish game the desert is replaced by a lake and the robber is move completely off the board with two fish. The question then is can the knight bring the robber back into play from this position?

This picture shows a desert in Fishermen of Catan. I think not all versions have the lake.

The rules (here) actually state that for two fish you may:

Move the robber back to the desert (do not steal any cards)

It isn't removed from the board, but is placed on the desert (where it has no effect). A knight may still then move it as normal.

The lake tile replaces the desert. With no desert tile, the robber starts out off of the board and moves onto the board when a 7 is rolled or someone uses a Knight card.
If the robber has been removed from the board (using fish), the same rules apply: a Knight or rolling 7 will bring him right back. There is no way to remove the robber "permanently."

I did understand that  rolling a 7 would bring the knight back but I was unsure about the use of the knight. Your answer confirms the way way we have be playing by allowing the knight to bring the robber back into play.


text:
Does playing one virus from my hand allow me to get all copies from my deck?
The text on virus cards states:

Viruses are not unique. Whenever you play a virus, you may play another copy of that virus from your deck, then shuffle your deck.

At first I assumed that playing one virus from my hand would allow me to get two total viruses, the one from my hand plus "another copy" from my deck.
Now I notice that the card says that I "play" the copy from the deck. Does that mean that each virus card I search for will itself allow me to search for another copy, potentially putting all 4 copies of the virus into play immediately?

Yes, playing one virus will allow you to play as many copies as you have resource slots available.
In an article from 2004, Michael Reynolds, one of the game's designers, discusses the use of viruses. He directly states that viruses allow you play all copies at once, with the intention that this will enable cards with heavy color requirements.

Viruses are resources with a twist. They are not unique, meaning you can have more than one of the same virus in play, and when you play a virus, you may play another copy of it from your deck. In this way, if you have four copies of a given virus in your deck and no resources in play – meaning you have four free resource slots – you can play all four copies when you draw and play the first.
There are eight different viruses in the Grand Prix set, two for each color, all common. So you can get four copies of a color in play early in the game with only one card. This is very powerful when you consider the events and BattleChips out there that require multiples of a given color to play, like Incredible Speed from Power Up.
Naturally, viruses have a drawback. Let's illustrate this with Spikey, a red virus that could help play Incredible Speed early and consistently. The drawback is how expensive it is to spend – discarding a card for an additional BattleChip play! Playing a bunch of viruses is easy, but getting further utility out of them is expensive while they occupy slots that resources with better text could occupy

Your initial impression is correct, when you play a virus card, you may play another copy of it from the deck onto the play area (two total).  Otherwise, it would be OP to have that many resources down at once, plus the card would likely say something like you may play 'all' copies of the card when you play it, rather than 'you can play a copy, then shuffle'


text:
In Jenga, what happens if there are 2 blocks on the top of the tower blocking the way for the 3rd block?
I am programming a game of jenga however I have a problem where the player can place down 2 blocks on the top of the tower, and leave no room for a 3rd block? Is there any rule here to prevent this? Can the player push the top blocks to straighten them?

The player cannot take another turn because placing the next block anywhere on the top level will mean it will fall down. The player cannot start a new level either, because a level of the tower must be completed before progress

Should the question be edited to include the picture itself, instead of just a link to it?

Sure, I've made the edit

The rules on Hasbro's site say that you can touch other blocks with a single hand, and you must complete a 3 block story. I don't see why it would be unacceptable to either fix the top story with your hand directly to accept a third block, or nudge the top blocks in place with a block in your hand to complete the story. Clearly, if you are required to make a 3-block story, the blocks must fit across the top.

While stacking, always complete a 3-block story before starting a higher one.
You can touch other blocks to find a loose one - but if you move a block out of place, you must fix it (using only one hand) before touching another block.

This is a mass market game. The rules are written to be as easily understood as possible, not a game like Advance Squad Leader or Magic: the Gathering where the rules are written to close every possible loophole. The rules don't define what 'fix' means or 'out of place', but since you are supposed to create the top story with 3 blocks, those three blocks must fit on the story. The rules also don't prevent you from placing your top block perpendicular, but with nearly half the block extending over the edge of the tower, but I contend that a piece placed like that is "out of place" and is subject to the fixing rule. To fix a block is to move it back to its relative position in my mind. (Example: Top of the tower, center block.)
Several digital versions exist for iOS, Android, Wii, etc. You could always see how the rules were interpreted for those electronic versions and copy their behavior. The Official Jenga version for iPhone allows you to nudge any pieces you want during your turn to 'fix' them (or ruin them actually). The iPhone developers consulted with the original game designer Leslie Scott in the making of the game. In this implementation, a player could place 2 blocks on top to prevent an opponent from placing the third block of a story, but his opponent could just nudge those pieces on top to make room for his piece.

NaturalMotion Games worked closely with Leslie Scott, the inventor of Jenga, to create the most authentic Jenga experience ever.
“I’m delighted by how the team at NaturalMotion Games has so skillfully captured the essence and universal appeal of Jenga,  while adding new and thrilling dimensions to my original game.” – Leslie Scott

Sort of seems like a grey area in the rules. The 'touch other blocks' rule very clearly states that you must move that block back to its place! :(

@Prodigga, the rules actually say, if the block is moved out of place, you must 'fix' it. Blocks that are perpendicular to the blocks below, but are hanging off the edge of the tower are "out of place," because they don't fit the normal guide when stacking the tower. Were you planning on allowing pieces to be placed on the top with the edges of the blocks extending past the ends of the tower?

Having slept on this issue (sleeping on Jenga - ouch) I've decided to change my previous answer.
The rules state you must "stack the block on top of the tower at right angles to the blocks just below it".  I would contend that "stack" does not simply mean "place" - or else the rules would have used that word.  Looking up a definition of "to stack", you will generally discover something along the lines of "to neatly arrange".
In terms of Jenga, neat arrangement must imply the sort of three-by-three formation that the tower starts from.  As such, I would say that if you leave your block haphazardly on the top of the tower, you have failed to stack it and cannot be considered to have completed your move.
Your scenario is therefore easily resolvable - just request of the previous player that they tidy up the top of the tower before the next player starts their move.
I will say that I have played with many people whose idea of a fun game of Jenga move is to destabilise the tower as much as possible before passing the go on.  While I would describe this as outside the spirit of the rules as plainly stated in the rulebook, I don't see much wrong with a house style of "screw-you Jenga", where anything at all is fair game in the course of a move, as long as one block is taken from somewhere in the tower and left somewhere at the top of the tower at the end.  However the consent of all players to play in this mode should probably be obtained beforehand...

Placing the blocks on top is not usually part of the "fun" of Jenga.  For this reason all digital implementations of the game that I have seen have always just let you pick 1 of the 3 legal spots and automatically placed the tile leaving room for others

That game was 1 player, so all you could do is mess yourself up

Must have been patched in later, I played the game back when it came out

That makes sense, just saw some reviews that mentioned the upcoming multiplayer features in a Jenga 1.1 version review. As of 1.6, the current version, multiplayer is supported, and you can destabilize the tower and not return blocks to their original positions. The top story can be manipulated in the same way.

Well, i went ahead and allowed the player to push blocks around with the other block. You can go ahead and give it a go. just place a block on top of the tower, and with your 2nd block hold down the left mouse button (while NOT intersecting any other blocks) and go ahead and push the block out of the way. how do you guys feel about that?
excuse the jittery 'placement' in the demo, its not a feature, just something I need to fix.


text:
Do dice finish resolving before yielding Tokyo?
When does yielding occur in relation to dice resolution? Simultaneously? After all dice have resolved? After attack dice are resolved?
For example (A for attack die, H for heart):
Alice is outside Tokyo, Bob is inside. It is now Alice's turn.
Alice rolls: 3, 3, 3, A, A, H
? Handle VP and hearts?
Alice attacks Bob
Bob chooses to yield

Now consider the possibility Alice has a single shrink ray token, so she only rolls 5 dice:
Alice is outside Tokyo, Bob is inside. It is now Alice's turn.
Alice rolls: 3, 3, 3, A, H
? Handle VP and hearts?
Alice attacks Bob
Bob chooses to yield

She must choose if the heart is applied to heal for one, or if it will remove the shrink ray token. In this case, order of resolution for the attack/yield and heart matters (more/less information for Alice & Bob, inability to heal in Tokyo). Is there an order to the dice resolution (eg hearts then attacks), or is the yield not declared until after all dice have resolved?

@ikegami So does is the decision to yield made after the dice resolve? I'm wondering due to the effect of hearts with shrink ray - the added information of what they use the heart for could potentially influence whether someone yields, while the added information of whether they yield could determine what they use the heart for.

@ikegami Sorry, I'm thinking the other direction: if Alice has been hit by the effect of Shrink Ray (not shown in my example above), she would have to choose what her heart was used for (heal 1 or remove 1 shrink ray token). The timing of Bob's decision to yield (or not) could obviously influence (or be influenced by) her choice of what to do with the heart. So the question is where does the yield fall (ie attack resolution) in relation to the rest of the dice?

@ikegami I updated the question with the second example I was outlining.

@ikegami Hence my question. What you can do with the heart changes based on when the yield occurs, and whether the yield occurs at all can also change based on the information of what the heart is used for. I'm wondering if there's some official ruling on the timing here: if dice are resolved simultaneously, is the yield after that? If they are resolved in order, what is that order and where does the yield fit in?

you accepted an answer, but there appears to be a mismatch. Ikagami is answering an older version of your question perhaps, but no where does he answer if you must decide to use a [heart] for healing or removing a shrink token before/after the monster in Tokyo decides to yield.

It is my opinion that the dice indicate what happens to you at your current location. A heart dice would indicate that you healed, if your location permits it.
This is partially supported by the fact that one must take all damage rolled even if one cedes Tokyo. You should similarly be able to use all hearts even if you are forced to take Tokyo. There's absolutely no mention or implication of any other possibility.
Everyone I've played with has naturally come to the same understanding. You could view podcasts of people playing KoT, but I'm sure they've come to the same conclusion.

She must choose if the heart is applied to heal for one, or if it will remove the shrink ray token. In this case, order of resolution for the attack/yield and heart matters

No, it doesn't. According to the FAQ on BoardGameGeek, removing a bad counter counts as healing and is thus equally forbidden in Tokyo, so the order does not affect the choice.

Alice chooses in which order to resolve dice and how to use them (heart for heal of to remove shrink ray). Alice get the opportunity to finish resolving ALL dice before Bob can declare yielding.

It this is an official iello representative, you might want to click on the [tag:King-of-tokyo] tag. There are several other KoT questions without official answers, and at least one question with two official answers that contradict.


text:
Why are the extension cards in separate stacks?
I recently purchased several extensions for Catan card-game and noticed that the manual says to put the cards of the extensions into separate stacks at the beginning of the game. Before reading the manual I expected that the extension cards would just be shuffled into the regular stacks, and therefore I was surprised to read about the separate stacks. Unfortunately the manual is not very clear on why those cards need to be in separate stacks. What is the reason for this? And what is the disadvantage of shuffling them into the regular stacks anyway?
More info:
I'm referring to this game (notice the table setup next to the box): Kolonisten van Catan Kaartspel  At the end of the page you can see that there are 5 extensions for this game.

My question refers to the manual of the extensions saying that instead of making 5 equal stacks of cards, now there should be made 4 equal stacks of the base game cards, and 2 stacks of the cards of the extensions. So that makes a total of 6 stacks of which 2 contain ONLY extension cards. In my opinion this is a strange rule as it allows a player to search either the base set or the extension sets. I would argue that mixing all cards together and make 5 equal stacks makes a nicer game. Now why is the rule not like this? Is there any disadvantage of making 5 mixed stacks anyway?

is this "Rivals for Catan", or Settlers of Catan Card Game? It appears that there is at least two different card games, but SoCtCG is 2-4 player, while Rivals is not.

I strongly believe it is Settlers of Catan card game. The one with square cards, dice and the wooden mill and wooden knight figure. I hope this distinguishes it, as I don't know the Rivals of Catan game.

It sounds like the Settlers of Catan card game to me, certainly I can't see any mismatch between the terms of the question and the rules of that game!

I've deleted my previous answer as it was based on too many wrong assumptions on my part!
When playing with the Catan Card Game Expansion set, you could choose to just mix all the expansion cards together into five stacks as normal.  I don't think this would break anything, as such.
However, it strikes me that the new Themes introduced in the Expansion set would be quite significantly diluted by just being mixed in with everything else.  Depending on the outcome of the shuffle, your game might not end up being very highly "themed" at all.
By giving the new cards their own dedicated stacks, you give players the option to have a game that is quite heavily based on the theme. (They can, at their discretion, just keep drawing cards from that stack, after all.)  This could be particularly relevant if cards within a theme work better with each other, instead of in isolation: and I'd be amazed if this was not the case - most boardgame expansion kits I can think of are designed to have new internal synergies, rather than just complementing the mechanics of the basic set.

Good point you made about the game being themed when the extension cards are in separate stacks and players can take a themed card at will. Also the point about the themes being synergistic is true, many of the extension cards require another of the cards of the same extension. I didn't think about this because I purchased 3 extensions with the intention to add all the cards to the base game so to give it more spice, and alternative ways to win.


text:
Stinkweed Imp + Rancor and a flying 3/3 blocker
Does Stinkweed Imp with Rancor get the extra trample damage if a 3/3 flyer blocks? Is Stinkweed's text is the same as an actual deathtouch?

No.
If a creature has been dealt damage by a source with deathtouch since the last time state-based actions were checked, that creature is destroyed. The damage itself leads to the destruction.
But that's not the case for Stinkweed Imp. Its damage does not leads to the destruction, a triggered ability eventually does. It must assign damage normally, so it must assign all three of its damage to the flyer.
Here's the key difference: One can respond to Stinkweed's Imp's ability. It can even be countered.


text:
Spy Kit + Oddly Uneven: How can I determine what should occur?
Suppose a creature is equipped with Spy Kit, and Oddly Uneven gets cast. Then in order to figure out whether the creature is destroyed, I need to determine whether the total number of words in all names of non legendary creatures is even or odd.
What is the best way (i.e., simplest database query) to accomplish this?
(This originally came up on Mark Rosewater's tumblr.)

In the interest of speed of resolution, I'd recommend flipping a coin, and using that result for the rest of the match...

Having "all the names" does not mean the creature has one mega-name; it means it has multiple distinct names.
Does it have a name with an odd number of words in it? Yes.
Does it have a name with even number of words in it? Yes.
Therefore, it will be destroyed no matter which mode is chosen.

A split card is another example of a card with multiple names. Except when a spell, this card has names "Alive" and "Well". It also has two sets of types. (It used to have two mana costs and CMCs too, but that changed.)

While this answer clears up an incorrect assumption that the asker has made; it doesn't actually answer the question being asked. It just avoids the need for the question to be asked.

Should that be "does not mean the creature has one mega-name"?

@jwodder: Apparently so, since that's what the original version said. It was lost in a later copyedit.

My apologies. .

@GendoIkari, Not quite. Don't get distracted by the wording of the question; it's frequently wrong. The OP does not "need to determine whether the total number of words in all names of non legendary creatures is even or odd." The actual question is how to handle Spy Kit with Oddly Uneven --this is even explicitly stated in the title-- and that question was answered.

@ikegami I see that I missed the question title; indeed that makes it clear what the user really wanted. (Without that title, it could have been a valid interpretation that the user wanted to know how to count words in all card names; and was using that interaction as an incorrect example of why he wanted it).

@Gendolkari, There's no reason to count words in all card names. You gotta find out what the person really wants to know, and it's how Spy Kit works (with or without Oddly Uneven).


text:
Question about MTG card Flamebreak
I was using Flamebreak during the MTG pc game, and I had a 5/4 without flying. I used it, and the 5/4 died! Why? It says it only deals 3 dmg to non-flying creatures.

More information about other things that were on the board required, I think.  All other things being equal, Flamebreak should not kill your 5/4 creature.

Voting to close as unclear; we cannot provide much more than guesswork with the information provided.

We can't tell why your creature died from the limited information you gave because Flamebreak alone would not have killed your creature.

Maybe your creature's toughness was being buffed by the static ability of some other creature that died from Flamebreak.
Maybe your creature already had damage marked on it.
Maybe your creature received damage from something soon after Flamebreak.
Maybe something debuffed your creature's toughness.
Maybe something doubled the damage.
Maybe ...


text:
Pedro Ramirez super power
From the rules:

during phase 1 of his turn, he may choose to draw the first card from
  the top of the discard pile or from the deck.

Are the cards in the discard pile visible?
Doesn't this incentivize the previous player to put the worst one on top when throwing many cards in the discrad pile?

Yes, the discard pile is face up. This is standard in almost any game, unless the rules specify otherwise. While the rulebook for Bang! doesn't seem to specifically state this either way, it does say that brown-bordered cards are

played by putting them directly into the discard pile and applying the effect described with text ore symbols on the cards".

This wouldn't make sense if the discard pile were face-down, as you wouldn't see the card that was just played if that were the case.
And yes, if someone is discarding multiple cards at once, they could put the least helpful card on top to try and hurt Pedro Ramirez. However, it is not common that a player will actually be discarding many cards at once; most cards that go into the discard pile go there from being played. Only if you have exceeded your hand limit at the end of your turn would you be discarding more than 1 card at a time.

Multiple cards get discarded more often then you would think. Anytime a card/cards are played in response to something all of them will go to the discard at the same time and the order can be chosen. Also the cards that require a card to be discarded to play also end with both cards going to the discard pile at the same time. At least that is how my group always played.

@JoeW The rules state that when you play a brown-bordered card, you place it directly into the discard pile. So a Bang! card would already be in the discard pile before a Miss! card is played in response.

Strange I never remembered that from the rules but have always played with the mindset that until a card is fully resolved it can't be placed in the discard. This also eliminates confusion as to who responded to cards that hit every player or how many bangs have been played in response to a dual. To me it doesn't make sense to put something directly in the discard when every player on the table might need to respond to it.


text:
Is the bloodrush ability affected by cards that reduce casting cost?
If I'm playing Wrecking Ogre, a spell with Bloodrush 3RR and have a Ruby Medallion out (all red spells cost 1 less to play) does this also affect the Bloodrush?
In the same vein, can I use Smokebraider's ability ({T}: Add two mana in any combination of colors to your mana pool. Spend this mana only to cast Elemental spells or activate abilities of Elementals) to pay the Bloodrush on a Scorchwalker (which is an elemental creature)?

Bloodrush is an activated ability that you can use from your hand. You are not casting the card when you use it. Thus, bloodrush is unaffected by any effects that modify casting costs.
Cards that affect abilities, however, do affect bloodrush — as long as they can affect cards in your hand. E.g. Suppression Field will make all bloodrush cards more expensive to activate because it doesn't limit the scope of "activated abilities," but Training Grounds does not modify bloodrush costs because it is scoped to creatures you control (not creatures cards in your hand).
In Smokebraider's case, the card specifies "abilities of Elementals," which means permanents with the Elemental type. This is clarified in the Oracle text:

10/1/2007     The mana can't be spent to activate activated abilities of Elemental sources that aren't on the battlefield.

So since it's considered an "activated ability", Smokebraider WOULD affect it then? Since it's mana can also be used for activated abilities of elementals?

No, since Bloodrush can only be activated from someone's hand (since discarding it is part of the activation cost), and Smokebraider can only be used for the activated abilities of Elementals (i.e. Elemental permanents (i.e. Elemental cards on the battlefield)).

@BrandonF From Smokebraider's rulings on Gatherer: "The mana can't be spent to activate activated abilities of Elemental sources that aren't on the battlefield." When it says "Elemental" it means one on the battlefield (see comp rules: 109.2. If a spell or ability uses a description of an object that includes a card type or subtype, but doesn't include the word "card," "spell," "source," or "scheme," it means a permanent of that card type or subtype on the battlefield.)

Ah, this all makes a lot of sense. Thanks for clearing this up for me! :)

No and no.

Bloodrush is an activated ability [CR 207.2c, 112.3b]. It's not a spell [CR 111.1, 111.1a].
Ruby Medallion does not reduce the cost of Wrecking Ogre's or Scorchwalker's Bloodrush ability.

Bloodrush can only be activated from someone's hand (since discarding it is part of the activation cost) [CR 112.6i].
Since Smokebraider's mana can only be used for the activated abilities of Elementals (i.e. Elemental permanents (i.e. Elemental cards and tokens on the battlefield)) [CR 109.2], it can't be used to activate a Bloodrush ability.
Mana from Smokebraider ability cannot be used to activate Scorchwalker's Bloodrush ability.

The rules referenced above:

207.2c An ability word appears in italics at the beginning of some abilities. Ability words are similar to keywords in that they tie together cards that have similar functionality, but they have no special rules meaning and no individual entries in the Comprehensive Rules. The ability words are bloodrush, [...].

112.3b Activated abilities have a cost and an effect. They are written as “[Cost]: [Effect.] [Activation instructions (if any).]” [...]

111.1. A spell is a card on the stack. [...]

111.1a A copy of a spell is also a spell [...].

112.6i An object’s activated ability that has a cost that can’t be paid while the object is on the battlefield functions from any zone in which its cost can be paid.

109.2. If a spell or ability uses a description of an object that includes a card type or subtype, but doesn’t include the word “card,” “spell,” “source,” or “scheme,” it means a permanent of that card type or subtype on the battlefield.


text:
Should we take good cards out for better cards while sideboarding (magic 2014 rules update)?
It has been announced, among other changes, that you are allowed to increase the number of cards in your deck beyond 60 while side boarding. Meaning you can bring 5 cards in and not have to take 5 cards out.
There are decks and match ups where some cards are just bad, and you want to take them out (e.g. removal against legacy storm combo). Some match ups you have plenty of sweet cards in your deck, you just have sweet cards in your sideboard too. In this situation, it can be very difficult to decide which cards are "least relevant" to the matchup, to cut in favour of the sideboard cards which have a much bigger impact.
With the rules change, are we better off trying to keep our deck count to 60 wherever possible? or should the conventional wisdom be "cut the bad cards, bring in the good cards" and resultant card count being an afterthought?

there's also the land-to-nonland ratio to think about

Short answer
Yes.  You should take cards out to keep a 60 card deck size.
Medium answer
Yes.  It's always legal to play more than 60 cards.  But when you design a deck, you don't - you keep it to 60 as much as possible.  When you sideboard, you're redesigning your deck on the fly - and the same reasons that you kept it to 60 cards in the first place still apply.
Long answer
In a typical game (some highly specialised graveyard decks aside), you will only ever hold in hand and play a fraction of your deck - even in a game that goes to 13 turns (possible in casual but pretty unlikely in constructed), you will typically only have drawn 20 of your 60 cards - around a third of your deck.
The other two thirds, no matter how awesome the cards are, did you no good whatsoever.
So Magic is won on the draw.  (After all, you win games not because you had great cards in your deck but because you had great cards on the battlefield.)  If you've designed the deck properly, it's based around a winning strategy and some key cards that support that.  You want to have as great a chance of drawing those winning cards as possible.
The mathematics of card draw and distribution for Magic have been extensively studied.  (There's a pretty good article on the mathematics of card draw available.)  And one of the reasons for the 60-card minimum is that it makes your deck unpredictable.  Even if you have 4 of a key card in the deck, your chance to see one in the opening hand is just under 40%, and even by turn ten your chance is only 71.5%.  (And if you haven't drawn it by turn ten, you're probably never going to play it.)
Increasing the deck size by only one card - to 61 cards - immediately takes about 1% off both those chances.  So why harm your odds like that?  If the new card is better for your strategy than the increased odds of drawing one that you have four of, your should remove one of those four.  And if not, then you shouldn't be adding it.
(A telling point is that all of the top players field exactly 60 card decks.  They don't have to; constructed rules permit more.  They choose to.)
Some of the top players will occasionally play a 61 card deck.  They do this to protect against decking and to subtly adjust their probabilities.  But you can believe they plan for ages while considering the benefits of that 61st card, and they don't hesitate to remove it.  If you're still at a level where you're asking this, you probably shouldn't try it.
So: Yes.  Keep to 60 cards.

That was a fantastic supporting article. I wish I could vote this up twice.

Great answer. One Q that would make a good extension to the Answer: How does this relate to decks focusing on Tutor cards?

@deworde: Alex P discusses the extreme case - Battle of Wits deck - pretty well in his answer.  For a 60 card tutor deck, everything I said still applies.  You still want to maximise the chance that you'll either draw your key cards, or draw the right tutor.

@Tynam, When you say "turn ten", does the count includes your opponent's turns?

@Pacerier: Your own tenth turn.  (Your opponent has also had nine or ten turns by then, of course, but since you don't draw on them it doesn't affect the odds.)

Tynam's answer covers the general case very well: the minimal deck size is optimal, and there are very few good reasons to deviate from that.
Nonetheless, here are some examples of corner cases where you may legitimately want to deviate from making one-for-one substitutions when you sideboard.
Storm-style combo decks
Unlike a more "traditional" two- or three- card combo deck, storm-style decks are essentially using every card in the deck as part of their combo. Good storm decks have a carefully-tuned ratio of cantrips, rituals, and kill cards, to avoid "fizzling" when they go off as much as possible (in the hands of a practiced pilot, at least). Their maindeck configurations tend to be very aggressive, with only a few slots set aside for disruption.
I think there will be some occasions when you'll want to bring a card into a storm deck without taking anything out, going to 61-14 post-board:

When your plan in game 2 is to still go off as fast as possible, but you really want another hate card of some sort (e.g. you runs three Thoughtseize as your only maindeck combo-protection, with a fourth in the sideboard), going to 61-14 lets you bring in that extra card without messing up the ratios of the proactive part of your deck as much as a direct one-for-one substitution would.
Against a slow deck with lots of disruption, like traditional control, the typical storm deck strategy is to avoid going off until you have a hand that can survive having a few of your cards countered. Since you're planning to go off much later than normal, it's reasonable to bring in a land or two to help hit your later land drops. If your deck deck has lots of fetchlands, they'll thin your deck out enough to counteract the extra land cards you've put in. Make sure those extra lands are really worth putting in your sideboard in the first place, however.
("When should you side lands in and out?" addressed trying to hit extra land drops in control mirrors. Note that there you are more likely to be making one-for-one substitutions, since your deck has a lot of reactive cards that are fairly weak against another control deck; whereas here your deck is mostly dedicated to your storm combo.)

All of these are basically about fine-tuning your percentages — how do I improve the chance of X while not screwing up Y too much? I don't see a strong case for going above 61-62 cards in this deck, though, because at that point you really ought to just cut a couple of your combo cards instead, and even these scenarios aren't going to apply to all storm decks or all matches.
Battle of Wits decks
When you're playing a Battle of Wits deck, you've already abandoned any reasonable chance of drawing a key card naturally. In exchange, you gain access to a hard-to-disrupt win condition and the ability to just maindeck the kinds of silver bullets a normal deck would only play in its sideboard.
Before the M14 sideboard rules change, the sideboard of a Battle of Wits deck was often considered perfunctory. You're already playing 230-250 card deck with a ton of tutors and card-filtering cards — what exactly do you want to put in your sideboard? Thus, in this kind of oversized deck, it's quite reasonable to have an empty or mostly-empty sideboard and use it as a dumping ground for the cards you don't want to be playing in game 2 and 3.
Shrinking your deck in this fashion is most effective against aggro and combo decks:

Because they tend to have one definite plan for how to win the game, it's usually very clear which cards in your deck can be removed safely. (Watch out for transforming combo decks, though.)
You don't have the luxury of time to sculpt your hand and tutor for stuff. So your dead cards are more of a liability as well.
To win off of BoW, you need 200 cards left in your library after you stick it. Aggro and combo opponents are unlikely to have a lot of answers to your BoW, so you can stick in earlier and the first one you play is likely to be a game-winner. In contrast, against a deck with strong disruption, you're likely have gone through more of your deck by the time you stick a BoW.

Great answer; thanks for a detailed analysis of the exceptions that prove the rule.

when i originally asked this question, it was with storm combo in mind. thanks for the answer!

Battle of wits deck cared about their side boards, not because they wanted to use it to actually sideboard between matches, but because they wanted to use spells like the Wish cycle to access that sideboard during the game, one of the deck's 4 copies of Battle of Wits would be in the sideboard to grab with Golden Wish or Death Wish (and a copy of Golden Wish to grab with Burning Wish)

In general, the same reasoning as when constructing a deck can be used, i.e. if some cards are better than others, reducing the number of cards in the deck makes it more likely to draw the better cards.
In the sideboarding case, we have the additional problem of ensuring a reasonable land/spell ratio, which means that just adding cards to the deck is unlikely to be optimal.
However, in some cases it might be beneficial to change the mana balance of the deck (see When should you side lands in and out?). It could also be argued that in some cases if you have cards that search for other cards, that the added flexibility of an extra cards outweighs the reduced consistency. In such cases it might make sense to add one or two cards without removing any.


text:
Can you stop casting a spell?
Ok, I was playing an EDH game with my friend and I had 8 mana available to me. In order for me to win the game, I had to destroy one of his permanents with a Spine of Ish Sah (7 mana). Now I planned to play a Mana Vault (1 mana and produces 3 mana) so that I'd have enough mana for a Spell Crumple (3 mana) to protect my Spine of Ish Sah.
How I played the turn out is I try to cast Spine of Ish Sah, but I forgot to play Mana Vault first. By the time I've realized that I forgot a very important part in my plan, I've already tapped for 5 mana. At this point I stop tapping for mana and I am unable to pay for the Spine of Ish Sah and it should return to my hand (where I cast it from) and my lands should untap (rule 717). My opponent said that's not the game works. He says that since I started paying for the spell, I have to finish paying for the rest of it. Now, is my friend correct, that if you pay for part of a spell, if you are able to pay for all of the spell, then you must finish paying its cost?
Answer must have rules referencing this.

this aboslutely falls into the realm of 'DBAD'

Your friend is right, though he should let you do it anyway outside of a tournament.

You cannot be forced to produce mana to pay for a spell.

117.3c Activating mana abilities is not mandatory, even if paying a cost is.

And if a spell becomes uncastable, its casting is undone.

601.2 [...] If, at any point during the casting of a spell, a player is unable to comply with any of the steps listed below, the casting of the spell is illegal; the game returns to the moment before that spell started to be cast (see rule 717, “Handling Illegal Actions”). [...]

So it would seem that you can choose to abort the casting of any spell by not producing the mana required to cast it (assuming your mana pool doesn't already have the necessary mana in it).
BUT
When this came up on Wizards's Rules Q&A board recently, it was declared[1] that the intention of the rule is to handle the situation where the casting of a spell becomes illegal after it has started being cast (and possibly other situations), but it's not meant to be used to voluntarily rollback the casting of a spell. While the rule can be used to avoid casting a spell at all, you are committed to completely cast a spell you've decided to cast.
So, deciding to abort casting your spell wouldn't be legal in a tournament, and my friends wouldn't allow any such douchebag rule lawyering in casual. (They could very well allow me to rollback the action if I asked, but not because of 601.2.)

By general consensus among the rules-saavy, by bimmerbot (a very level-headed level 2 judge), and confirmed by Natedogg (the only person on that board capable of making official rulings).

Added link to the thread I mentioned. See the last four posts.

+1 In my playgroup, we're quite liberal with allowing people to "adjust" how they pay for things, especially if they catch themselves prior to a counterspell.

How could a spell you're allowed to legally start casting become illegal to cast without the spell fizzling? Your opponent doesn't get priority until the costs are paid and the spell is put on the stack, right?

@nick012000 It happens when you have non-mana costs (e.g. a cost of sacrificing a creature). Combined with certain continuous effects (possibly on the creature sacrificed), this could make a spell illegal to cast.

As you noticed, rule 717 seems to be applicable here.

717.1. If a player realizes that he or she can’t legally take an action after starting to do so, the entire action is reversed and any payments already made are canceled.... The player may also reverse any legal mana abilities activated while making the illegal play, unless mana from them or from any triggered mana abilities they triggered was spent on another mana ability that wasn't reversed.

But I'm not sure it is, exactly. I'm no judge, but this rule states that it applies only to illegal actions, i.e. those which cannot be completed as declared. In your case, one might argue that there's nothing illegal about your casting of the Spine, and so this rule doesn't apply.
So we have to look to another rule. The one I find that seems to apply is

601.2. To cast a spell is to take it from where it is (usually the hand), put it on the stack, and pay its costs, so that it will eventually resolve and have its effect. Casting a spell follows the steps listed below, in order. If, at any point during the casting of a spell, a player is unable to comply with any of the steps listed below, the casting of the spell is illegal; the game returns to the moment before that spell started to be cast (see rule 717, “Handling Illegal Actions”). Announcements and payments can’t be altered after they've been made.

(emphasis added) This suggests that your friend was right and that you cannot stop casting a spell after having announced it, unless you are actually unable to perform the steps necessary to cast it. Note that the fact that you started paying for the spell is irrelevant; it's the announcement of the spell that locks it in.

In practice, most people don't adhere strictly to these clauses in the rules. I've known players to be allowed to take back spells in the middle of casting them - even after casting them in some cases - in regular REL tournaments, occasionally, and quite often in casual games. Since EDH is supposed to be a fun, casual format, as described by the official EDH rules,

Commander is designed to promote social games of magic.
  It is played in a variety of ways, depending on player preference, but a common vision ties together the global community to help them enjoy a different kind of magic. That vision is predicated on a social contract: a gentleman's agreement which goes beyond these rules to includes a degree of interactivity between players. Players should aim to interact both during the game and before it begins, discussing with other players what they expect/want from the game.
House rules or "fair play" exceptions are always encouraged if they result in more fun for the local community.

I would think taking back a partially cast spell should be allowed there as well.
In light of this information I believe the technical term for what your friend is doing is "being a dick."

For what it's worth, Magic Online does allow you to take back a partially cast spell, at any point up until you finish selecting targets and paying the associated costs. But that situation is a little different because MTGO doesn't even reveal to your opponent that you intend to cast the spell until you have finished all the steps.


text:
Can I use my Dark Angels with my Space Wolves?
I got a Dark Vengeance box recently so I could use the Dark Angels with my Space Wolves, but after reading the history about them it made me think.
Can I use Dark Angels with Space Wolves?

Yes you can.  Wolves and Dark Angels are qualified as "Allies of Convenience" under the 6th edition allies rules.  This allows you to field 1 HQ, 0-1 Elites. 1-2 Troops, 0-1 Fast Attack, and 0-1 Heavy Support options from the Dark Angels codex with your Space Wolves detachment.
In game-play rules they are treated as enemy models that cannot be directly target by your weapons and abilities.  The DA troop options do count as scoring units for you though.

You should note that as of the 7th E rule book they've become battle brothers.

In 8th edition both have the "Imperium" faction keyword, meaning that they can be used together.


text:
Can I use Elbrus as my Commander?
Elbrus, the Binding Blade, is a Legendary Artifact - Equipment that transforms into Withengar Unbound, a Black Legendary Demon. Can I use Elbrus/Withengar as a Commander, and if I can, is my deck colorless or black?

Here's an official ruling from Sheldon Mennery, who is the authoritative source for Commander rulings:

[O] Elbrus is not playable as a General, and its color identity is Black.

Elbrus, the Binding Blade is not a Legendary Creature, so it cannot be your Commander. It doesn't matter that it could become a creature. In fact, I'd be surprise if there is a card that couldn't become a creature.

711.2a In every zone other than the battlefield, and also on the battlefield with its front face up, a double-faced card has only the characteristics of the front face.

Thank you. I suspected this might be the case (though it's saddening), but I wanted confirmation from folks who understand Commander better, since I'm assembling my first-ever deck for it now.

It's not really a Commander question, because you already knew the Commander part. It's really a question about double-faced cards. Added the relevant rule to the answer.

@ikegami I think it is a Commander question. Because what it's actually asking is "Does the back of the card count during deck-building?" And the answer it's necessarily obvious because the precedent in Commander is that it can, based on how we handle the color identity of cards like Garruk Relentless.

@Alex P, Fine, then no, it's not like color identity. It merely looks if the card is a Legendary Creature.

@AlexP Deckbuilding isn't the issue. The issue is the Command Zone, which counts as a zone other than the battlefield. The back face doesn't show in the Command Zone, so you can't cast it as a commander.

@Alex P, Color identity has 903.4c to look at more than just the card.

When I said "it's" above I meant "isn't." Isn't obvious. >.>

@Alex P, No worries, that's what I read


text:
Do you have to have exactly 60 cards in a Magic the Gathering deck?
Do you have to have exactly 60 cards in a Magic the Gathering deck? Some people I've talked to at FNM say yes, others say no.

It's probably worth pointing out that, in most Constructed decks, it's overwhelmingly better if you can keep your deck size as close to 60 cards as possible.  The larger the deck the greater the unpredictability of your draws, and from most angles that's a significant disadvantage.

To add to @thesunneversets 's comment, you're also limited to a maximum of 4 of any specific card (besides basic land) so a larger deck will also contain a wider variety of cards that may or may not work well together.  The best smaller decks tend to be focused around a fairly specific play style - cards that will symbiotize.  This is much more difficult with a large deck.

Related: Why would you want to play with a deck bigger than 60 cards in MTG?

Confusion could be compounded by the fact many (all that I've played I believe) MtG computer games require your decks to be size 60.

No, not at all. You probably should keep it near the minimum since a deck of minimum size will provide more consistent results than a larger deck, but you are not obligated to do so.

For constructed events, your deck must have at least 60 cards[CR 100.2a] (plus an optional sideboard of no more than 15 cards[CR 100.4a]).
For limited (draft and sealed) events, your deck must have at least 40 cards[CR 100.2b].

Additionally all decks no matter the format must be "able to be shuffled within a reasonable time"
There are many formats that impose additional limitations. Notably,

For Commander games, your deck must have exactly 100 cards (including your Commander)[CR 903.5a].

I could quote you the rules, but Battle of Wits is much more convincing :)

Note: When this answer was originally written the side board was limited to exactly 15 cards. This has changed. I have updated this information to match current rules since it doesn't affect the answer.

In a Conspiracy Limited tournament, Advantageous Proclamation could also reduce your deck size below 40. The card is only legal in Conspiracy Limited, though.

There is also a 30-card minimum for 4-booster sealed, and Mini-Masters(pack wars).

I'm going to limit my answer to the rules. Advantageous Proclamation is a case of a card overriding the rules (as allowed by the first Golden Rule). As for the formats @esoterik mention, they do not appear in the official list, and it would still be illegal to create decks with fewer than 40 cards even if the format allows decks as small as 30.

@ikegami if the format allows it, how is it illegal?

@esoterik, Having a deck with 30 cards when CR 100.2b requires the deck to have a minimum of 40 cards is illegal because 30 is less than 40. I don't know what else you want me to say.

You certainly don't, not in any normal MtG format.  60 card decks are the minimum in most Constructed formats, but there is no upper bound.  Commander decks are all the same size... but they are 100 cards big, not 60.  In typical Limited environments (Draft/Sealed) the minimum size is 40, with an upper limit determined only by the size of your cardpool (and even then you can add a LOT of basic lands on top).
If you want to prove to someone that a Magic deck doesn't have to have exactly 60 cards in it, the quickest way is probably to refer them to Battle of Wits - a famous card that doesn't even make sense in a world of uniform 60-card decks.

By default, sixty is just the minimum in constructed, and the minimum is forty in limited:

100.2a In constructed play (a way of playing in which each player creates his or her own deck ahead of time), each deck must contain at least sixty cards. […]
100.2b In limited play (a way of playing in which each player gets the same quantity of unopened Magic product such as booster packs and creates his or her own deck using only this product and basic land cards), each deck must contain at least forty cards. […]
100.5. There is no maximum deck size.

The only official variant that changes this is Commander, which requires exactly one hundred cards:

903.5a Each deck must contain exactly 100 cards, including its commander.

For the record, I have not played in a few years. If you are playing with friends than anything can go, if they are ok for it.
Tournament rules are still as follows, "Players may have a sideboard of up to a maximum of 15 cards, and exchanges of cards between games are not required to be on a one-for-one basis, so long as the player adheres to the 60 card minimum deck size"
There was a rule were you could only have 4 cards with the same name unless the card had special rules limiting it, at the time you could only have one "Wrath of God" or any non-named land for example. Having said that most people would run around 15 land and around 45 other cards... in this case do 16 land and 44 other cards leaving you only 11 different cards give or take. You would do this to increase your odds of getting your strategic cards. When drawing randomly, it's not luck it is a number game, play the odds!
Having said that, I once had a massive 120 card deck. It played awful due to the odds being against me with every draw.

Not to be rude, but this doesn't add anything that wasn't already in the existing answers, and the information in the third paragraph is confusing/wrong.

Now, about that third paragraph - the term for only being able to play one copy is "restricted". Wrath of God has never been on the restricted list, and I know for sure that "any non-named land" is not restricted. Also, 15 lands in a 60 card deck is suicide in basically every deck except for a handful of eternal format decks. The fastest, leanest deck in recent standard history played 18, and the entire deck is 1 and 2 drops. If you just delete that paragraph entirely, I think it would improve your answer.

It is good to have a large deck because if someone had a decking deck you would lose instantly! It is also good to have a deck of 60 cards because you have a better chance to get your good card! This is my opinion!

Welcome to the site! Please note that this space is for answers to the question only, not for discussions and opinions. As such, a mod will likely delete this, but I hope you stick around to ask and answer questions!

I disagree that this does not answer the question. I don't believe it's a good answer, but it is an answer. Q: Do you have to have exactly 60 cards? A: It's good to have a large deck, and it's good to have a small deck. The implication is that no, exactly 60 is not required.