استریم

دسته: تغییرات و بهینه‌سازی‌ها

  • What are the odds in Scrabble of not being able to make a legal move on opening turn


    I’ve been playing the game for 50 years and this happened to me recently:

    I had the following rack

    PBQZJDH

    And so I could not play a legal move.

    I’ve been trying to work out the odds of this (no legal word on the first turn) happening.



    Source link

  • Frozen discard pile for Canasta


    For the initial meld with the pile frozen, what are the rules for picking up the discard pile? If the minimum meld is 120, is the meld plus two naturals needed to pick up the pile, or just two naturals and a wild card and be able to use this as part of my meld. I have always played that in order to pick up the pile I need the meld plus a natural pair in order to pick up a frozen pile, but just lately I’ve seen it where the person was able to pick up the frozen pile with 2 naturals plus wild card while the pile is frozen. Which version is correct?



    Source link

  • I am trying to find a specific Sci-Fi Board game I played once years ago


    I play many board games, this is not one of the obvious ones. I am trying to find the name of a game that I think went out of print.

    1. It is a sci-fi game.
    2. Every player is in charge of a faction.
    3. You are all trying to colonize/exploit the same planet.
    4. It is not Terra Forming Mars though the planet might be Mars. (There are fewer cards and more plastic pieces)
    5. I think every player had their own rectangular play mat that represented their stakes/claims on the planet.
    6. Trading resources was a critical part of the game. (The dynamic player influenced market is one of the biggest things I remember)
    7. It might be considered more of a worker placement game.

    My memory is getting less clear about details after this point

    1. Play took place mostly on your own mat. The "central board" was more a market where players exchanges resources and bought "units" (mostly excavators or androids?).
    2. I think the game initially came out in the 90s or earlier then got a reprint in the 2010s.
    3. The set I played was newly opened in the 2010ish and had bright plastic pieces.
    4. The theme/artistic style was slightly cartoonish.
    5. I think it was 4 player max.



    Source link

  • Could using randomness to improve play count as a behaviour violation in 2012 magic?


    In the question Magic: The Gathering – Are there behavioral rules for sanctioned MTG games? one of the ‘serious violations’ listed is "influencing match outcomes", and a suggested method is ‘using randomness to decide the outcome of the match’. Interestingly, (and probably because of the problem I’m about to point out) this has since been removed from this document’s latest version.

    I understand the reason it’s there: if players were allowed to flip a coin to decide who wins and fix the match beforehand, that would be problematic: it could run into gambling laws.

    But in the interest of completeness, I’d still like to ask a historical question: Given the rules of the day, could it be possible that this ‘behavior violation’ could come up during the normal course of play if a player decided that using randomness was the best course of action, and did so?

    For example, consider a situation in which a player could ‘bluff’ having a counter-card in a combat. Gregory, playing green, attacks with a 2/2 bear into Bob’s 3/3 zombie. Normally, this would be a mistake, but Gregory has several unidentified cards in his hand.

    Greg should (to play optimally) bluff some percentage of the time in this situation (the exact amount is some complex game theory I won’t get into in this post). So he could covertly roll a d20 to decide, and do the same thing if he actually does have the buff in hand, but not use the result. (Or use any other method or source of randomness.) He could use the primary colour of the shirt of the player sitting across and to the side of him. Or any other thing that would be really hard to prove. If it is not allowed, then how would one even catch a player using such a covert random method?1

    Let’s say that the outcome of this play happens to decide the outcome of the match. If Greg loses his creature, he falls behind and can’t overcome Bob. But the same holds for Bob. If Greg gets in the two damage, that just so happens to be the two points he needs later on in the game. (If Bob was already at two life or below, he would obviously have to block).

    1: The reason to do so would be because people are bad at generating true randomness. Using a proxy prevents your opponents from reading a pattern and catching the bluff more often than by pure guess. A pair of sunglasses is also highly recommended.



    Source link

  • In Scrabble, what is the probability of not being able play a valid word using the NWL2023 (196,601 words) Scrabble dictionary to open the game?


    I know using the CSW2019 is known (0.572% (or 1 in 175)), but that has many strange words in it. This is regarding the first word of the game covering the center square of course. How many of the 3,199,724 racks are there with no playable word? I’m thinking the overall probability (out of 16,007,560,800) is near 1.000% or 1 in a 100.



    Source link

  • How could an online Checkers player use AI to cheat in real-time? [closed]


    I’ve been playing Checkers on CardGames.io, and I’ve noticed some players make perfect moves instantly, almost as if they’re using a bot or AI to assist them.
    I understand that AI solvers for Checkers (like Chinook or web-based tools) require you to input the current board state before they return the optimal move. But this takes time — so how are these players seemingly:

    • Reading the board state immediately
    • Sending it to a solver
    • And executing the move without any delay

    How could a player be getting AI solver moves so quickly?

    For example, are they using browser extensions, scripts, or something else to automate the reading of the board and feeding it to an engine? How technically difficult would it be to pull off without the site detecting it?



    Source link

  • What could happen in some cases when activated abilities are countered


    The opponent decides to use the activated ability of Nevinyrral's Disk. When the artifact is tapped to use it, I respond by casting a Stifle, which counters the Disk’s ability, avoiding the total destruction that would result.
    My question, however, is the following:

    • Nevinyrral’s Disk is normally placed in the graveyard after being used;

    • but its activation was countered;

    • therefore, does the Disk remain on the Battlefield, or is it placed in the graveyard from the game in any case,as indicated by the card text, even after its ability was countered ?



    Source link

  • Is always simple to understand if an ability is an activated ability rather than a triggered one?


    In the Fourth and Fifth edition printings of Verduran Enchantress, her triggered ability that allows her controller to draw a card after successfully casting an enchantment was written as an activated ability:

    {0}: Draw a card when you successfully cast an enchantment. Use this effect only once for each enchantment cast.

    While this is nearly identical in terms of game effect, the difference in something being an activated ability versus a triggered ability can matter for other cards like Strict Proctor.

    Is there an easy way to tell just from this card that the updated Oracle text has turned this into a triggered ability? If not, how do I explain it to another player, especially a beginner, who has the outdated wording of this card?



    Source link

  • What should I lead against this slam? [closed]


    My hand is K8643 4 AQ862 64. As West, I deal and pass. With E-W silent, N-S bid:

     N  S
2D  2NT
3D  6H

    What should I lead?



    Source link

  • What happens when multiple ‘conflicting’ counter-moving abilities trigger at the same time?


    The card-interaction that triggered this question was:

    1. P1 has a Sin, Unending Cataclysm on the board, and P1->P4 have a mixture of +1/+1 and other counters.

    2. P2 plays Fractured Identity, targeting P1’s Sin.

    What counters get moved where (assuming P2->P4 wants to put all counters on their Sin copy)?

    Would P2, seeing as they control the effect, be able to choose the "order" that the copies are made, and thus have their "enter the board" happen last? Or would all the ETB’s trigger at the same time and effectively split atoms, ‘copying’ the counters being moved, as they’re all moving from the same initial board-state?



    Source link