The Ticket to Ride UK map collection comes with a new deck of train cards. The rules call out that the deck includes an additional six locomotive cards, but are there any other differences from the base set of Train cards?
Our base cards are a bit tired looking and could do with being replaced.
Arc Spitter‘s ability reads
Equipped creature has “{1}: This creature deals 1 damage to target creature that’s blocking it.”
I’m not sure what “target creature that’s blocking it” means when the equipped creature changes zones. Suppose my 1/1 blocks another 1/1 equipped with Arc Splitter. My opponent activates its ability, targeting my blocker, and in response I destroy the attacker. Does the damage ability resolve?
Of course I’m aware of the basic principle that abilities on the stack are independent of their source (Does an ability resolve if the source of the ability leaves the battlefield?), but in this case the source’s zone change seems like it could affect the legality of the target.
The key question seems to be, is my blocker still “blocking it (i.e., the attacking creature)”? If so, it’s a legal target and takes damage; if not, it’s an illegal target and the ability fizzles. 509.1g clearly says it’s still a blocking creature, but I’m not sure what rule specifies whether it’s blocking anything specific.
My best guess is rule 608.2b, which reads in part:
If the source of an ability has left the zone it was in, its last known information is used during this process [of checking whether its targets are legal].
That clearly applies here, so we should use the LKI of the attacker, and maybe that includes the set of creatures blocking it. On the other hand, the blocker is still on the battlefield, so we should use its current information. It’s a blocking creature, but it isn’t blocking any other creatures.
What should actually happen here and why?
In the game of rubamazzetto the cards are shuffled and four are placed on the table and then distributed among the players to the left, so each player has three cards. Each player takes a turn. When a card on the table matches the player can sweep it by placing their card above the card and taking it. Same goes if a sum of cards on the table sums up to a player card. The player can also take the other player’s pile if the top card matches the player card by placing the card on top of it and taking it (hence, the Italian name, ruba mazzetto AKA Steal Cards). There cards are placed back on the table when they finish and each player keeps on taking a card until all cards on the table are gone. At the end, the player with most cards wins.
I wonder what variations of this game exist.
Thanks.
Two rounds ago, I cast the saga The First Eruption.
Before I draw a new card, there are two lore counters on it.
I draw the card, and a new lore token is added, causing the third ability of the saga to trigger.
This third triggered ability goes on the stack.
Before the ability resolves, I cast Clockspinning, indicating that I intend to use it by removing a lore counter (the third one, obviously) from the Saga.
The stack should therefore be formed as follows:
When all of this will be resolved, finally there is the check of the exact number of lore counters on The Saga.
The Saga will not be sacrificed, because after the check the number of the lore counters is not three yet.
This way I think I will be able to use the third ability of the Saga a second time.
Is this a correct analysis?
I am looking for any game theoretical insights for the most basic form of The Resistance: Avalon. Specifically I am looking at a 5 player game, with just two added roles: Merlin and the Assassin. I am looking at strategies that can be executed without using psychology, tells, hidden messages (including but not limited to cryptography and signing) etc.
Without the additional roles – ie the vanilla version of the original Resistance game – it is quite easy to calculate the winning chances for the rebels if both sides play optimally – for it is 30% (assuming the traitors can avoid double-failing missions with two spies). The good team basically has three chances to identify the spies (or the good team). And they have nothing better than chance to rely on, so they will choose each of the 10 possible teams with equal probability, for a total of 3/10 winning chance.
When adding Merlin, things seem to be worse for the good guys! If he takes no action to help the good team, he just reduces their winning chances to 20% (since he has a 1/3 chance of being killed). If he does help the good team, he increases their winning chances – but he also increases his chances of being killed. Any action he takes, or statement he makes, which sways the other players to choose the right team, will also be visible by the bad guys. Assuming no hidden communication, they will see each of the statements made, and know who encouraged the winning team, or discouraged the losing ones.
So is there any strategy for the good team which does better than 20% in this setup? The strategy must be known to all players ahead of time. Just to make it absolutely clear: I am not asking for ways to “hint” to your team-mates which team to pick, without the bad guys noticing or understanding what is going on.
The small blind is 12,000, big blind 24,000. First player goes all in with 10,500, Second player goes all in with 22,000. Small blind folds. The big blind did have the 24,000. There are three players left in the hand. What are the pots?
The Pokémon Battle Academy box set is a reasonable starting point for a younger child, under 10. It is indeed standard cards, and follows the standard rules.
I would only use them for that purpose though – learning. The decks aren’t remotely competitive, so don’t think of them as something you can take to a league and play with other people playing other levels of decks. They’re well tuned for each other though, and are great if you are playing with your child or with others with the same decks.
For higher level play, there is the ex Battle Deck, which is still not “win games in a tournament” level but is somewhat higher power/difficulty level. I would start at this level for an older child (10+) honestly, as they can pick it up fast enough (but obviously this depends on the kid to some extent).
To get to the “win games in local tournaments” level, you want the League Battle Decks, which are competitive level decks – not “win a regional” level, but absolutely good enough to win games/tournaments at the local level, and the changes needed to make them “win a regional level” are pretty small realistically – just tuning mostly.
The ability can only trigger once on each of your turns.
The actual text of the ability on Alesha is
At the beginning of your end step, if you attacked this turn, return target creature card with mana value less than or equal to Alesha’s power from your graveyard to the battlefield.
In order to understand this ability, you can divide it into three parts: the trigger event, the condition, and the effect. The trigger event is “At the beginning of your end step”. The condition is “if you attacked this turn”. And the effect is “return target creature card with mana value less than or equal to Alesha’s power from your graveyard to the battlefield”. The beginning of your end step happens once during each of your turns, so the ability triggers once in each of your turns. The condition means that if you didn’t attack, the ability doesn’t trigger at all. If you did attack, and you have a valid target, the ability triggers and resolves that one time, and the effect happens.
There are a few strategy games with a large published literature expounding the “theory” or advanced strategies of the game. Go, chess (and related games such as Chinese chess and shogi), bridge, poker, and blackjack come to mind. I know of a couple of other games with a smaller literature, such as checkers, backgammon, and Scrabble, and a few more games about which just one or two notable “theory” books seem to have been written, such as Othello, Hex, Connect 4, Dots and Boxes, and Nine Men’s Morris.
Are there other games with a small but substantive amount of published theory? To set some parameters, I’m interested only in games for which there exists at least one full-length book devoted entirely (or almost entirely) to advanced strategies for the game. So for example, for Monopoly, I’m only aware of The Monopoly Book by Maxine Brady, which doesn’t quite meet the threshold I’m looking for, because it devotes a lot of space to history and basic explanation of the rules, and does not delve that deeply into advanced strategy (but if there are other, more advanced books on Monopoly, then I’d love to hear about them).
The combination of Amalia and an indestructible Wildgrowth Walker always draws the game with an infinite loop once a creature explores, no matter what card is on top of the library.
For reference, Amalia has the text
Whenever you gain life, Amalia Benavides Aguirre explores. Then destroy all other creatures if its power is exactly 20.
and Wildgrowth Walker has the text
Whenever a creature you control explores, put a +1/+1 counter on this creature and you gain 3 life.
The keyword action “explore” and the event “explores” are defined in rules 701.40a-b:
701.40a. Certain abilities instruct a permanent to explore. To do so, that permanent’s controller reveals the top card of their library. If a land card is revealed this way, that player puts that card into their hand. Otherwise, that player puts a +1/+1 counter on the exploring permanent and may put the revealed card into their graveyard.
701.40b. A permanent “explores” after the process described in rule 701.40a is complete, even if some or all of those actions were impossible.
So, if a player controls Amalia and a Wildgrowth Walker, and a creature explores, then Wildgrowth Walker’s ability triggers, which causes the player to gain life, so Amalia’s ability triggers, and she explores, which triggers Wildgrowth Walker’s ability again, in a loop. The only choice any player makes during that process is what to do with the card on top of the library, if it is not a land.
However, because of the last part of rule 701.40b, the exploration happens no matter what card is on top of the library, and even if there is no card on top of the library at all. This means that the loop always continues, no matter what choice the player makes while exploring. Therefore, the loop is mandatory, so the game is a draw.