As per the the Official FMJD Rules for International Draughts, if the opponent notices that you have not captured as many pieces as possible, they may decide whether the move stands or if it must be taken back and made again.
5.4. If a player has committed one of the following irregularities, his opponent has the right to decide whether that irregularity ...
The deuce of club and hearts do not considered a spade in the standard game, however there are variants where they do.
In some versions of Spades, some or all of the four twos are elevated to the top of the spade suit, are ranked in some specified order, and are considered to be spades. The rest of the cards rank as in normal.
For example, in ...
I would say not. The advantage to those on the ends of being able to place multiple pieces consecutively is far greater than the disadvantage of going last in this game, IME.
First, the single most successful opening strategy is to get across the board as fast as you can, so you don't end up boxed in to your corner of the board. It's been my experience that ...
This appears to be the fast-paced or Super Chinese checkers variant described in Wikipedia.
While the standard rules allow hopping over only a single adjacent occupied position at a time (as in checkers), this version of the game allows pieces to catapult over multiple adjacent occupied positions in a line when hopping.
In the fast-paced or Super Chinese ...
"Snake Order" isn't that common in games, because getting 2 turns in a row is often a massive advantage. Usually the first player advantage is dealt with by rotating the starting player, so I'd suggest you try that.
Player order would be 1,2,3,4,2,3,4,1,3,4,1,2,4,1,2,3 then back to 1,2,3,4.
There is an excellent article up by one of the Magic developers that discusses the issues with various mulligan types, and why they upgraded to the new "Vancouver" Scry 1 mulligan.
A quick summary:
The "cheaper" it is to mulligan, the more likely you are to do it. On digital, this is instantaneous. In paper, properly shuffling takes a lot longer, as does ...
One element that I haven't seen in any of the answers yet: a 'lenient' mulligan rule advantages some deck archetypes over others. Some decks are built on the concept of redundancy: for a mono-Red aggro or burn deck, for instance, there may be minor differences amongst its various one-mana creatures or its burn spells — maybe this spell does an extra ...
We own several versions and editions of the crayon rail games in my house. In each one that we have, there is a "Variants" section of the rules. One of the variants we always play with is the fast game. It has 5 main effects that I can think of offhand:
Increases starting cash by $20
Adds one additional pre-movement turn
Gives you 5 initial demand cards,...
King, represented by the King.
Withdrawer, represented by the Queen.
Chameleon, represented by the Bishop.
Long Leaper, represented by the Knight.
Coordinator, represented by the Rook.
Immobilizer, represented by the Rook, placed on its head.
Pawn, represented by the Pawn.
Object is to checkmate the King
There is a variant of war, called "Strategy War" or "Armed War" (a joke on hands) where, instead of pulling the card from the top of your deck, you chose it from your hand. This works as follows:
You shuffle the deck and deal it out in equal parts. Each player takes the cards dealt to him/her and puts them in his/her hand.
All cards a player plays and all ...
You could draw a 2D array of 2D boards, like this:
▢▢▢ ▢▢▢ ▢b▢
aaa ▢▢▢ ▢▢▢
▢▢▢ ▢▢▢ ▢▢▢
▢▢▢ ▢▢▢ ▢▢▢
▢▢▢ ▢b▢ ▢▢▢
▢▢▢ ▢▢▢ ▢▢▢
c▢▢ ▢▢▢ ▢▢▢
▢▢▢ ▢c▢ ▢▢▢
▢b▢ ▢▢▢ ▢▢c
You'd probably want a 4x4 array of 4x4 boards, though I used 3s everywhere instead to make the example smaller. The example shows a few of the many winning lines (a-c). If it's not clear what ...
The answer to this depends a lot on why the game is taking you so long to play. We had been suffering from the same problem, and the main reason is because we have one player who is just an incredibly slow thinker. He often took over 15 minutes just to make one move.
Over time, we made a lot of small changes to the game to reduce the amount of information ...
There is no official 2-player variant; the game just wasn't designed for it.
But as always, the internet provides. Various fans have proposed two-player rule sets.
The Roland Wood variant is probably the most commonly used, building on earlier suggestions by other players.
(There was another popular version in the "Shattered Expansion", but I can no ...
This variant seems to have been introduced with the Harbor Expansion and I'm not sure it would work well with just the base game. It's a way to avoid having only low (resp. high) numbered buildings when using the draw cards rule (instead of having all the buildings available at once).
The idea is apparently to split the deck into 3 decks :
one with the ...
This depends on the exact variant of checkers you're talking about. In the primary version played in the US, the forced capture rule says that you must make captures if possible, but lets the player arbitrarily choose between capturing moves (emphasis mine):
1.20 All capturing moves are compulsory, whether offered actively or passively. If there are two ...
There is a Go variant without boundaries (but, of course, on a finite board): Torus Go. It is sometimes played in Go clubs or as a side event on Go tournaments. On a traditional board I find it very hard to visualise.
There are variants like 3 dimensional Go, which may be interesting to you. However, from personal experience as well as seeing higher dans struggle, I'd guess humans are far worse at them than computers :)
I'm not aware of any kind of "infinite" Go that is even remotely playable. The basic problems are ladders, which need to end, and counting, which ...
It sounds like it might be Margo, except that Margo is played on a 7X7 grid, not 9X9. Per the linked website by Cameron Browne:
Two players, White and Black, each have at least enough marbles of
their colour to cover the board.
Start: The board is initially empty. White places the first piece at
any board point, then Black may elect to swap ...
Optimal play on NxN boards where you need N in a row leads to a draw for all N > 2.
Contemporary Combinatorics, by Bela Bollobas has a proof of it. Below is a summary of this. The images below are from this book.
All board sizes 5x5 and up can be proven to be a draw by the second player employing a pairing strategy, namely where the second player plays a ...
I found a Windows program on https://dammen.startpagina.nl/ (checkers is called 'dammen'in Dutch). On this page I installed the program "dam 2.2". This is amazing. I can customize the setup (positions of the pieces on the board) and save the game. Then I can choose for two players, one player against the computer, or only the computer. This last ...
The game you are describing is more similar to Three Men's Morris than to Tic Tac Toe. Unlike Three Men's Morris, the extra movement options under the rules you cite mean the game is likely a draw under optimal play. I'm assuming that this game has something akin to Chess's draw due to Threefold Repition; if not, the optimal result of the game is that you ...
I wrote a Mathematica script to handle the dice rolling. It keeps track of all previous dice rolls, and weights the next dice roll probabilities according to the difference
(expected # times rolled) - (actual # times rolled),
so that the actual distribution converges faster to the expected. (And dice rolls on different turns are not independent.)
It wouldn't really make sense to keep the gates on the board since they would be tied to the threat of an oncoming great old one. Presumably your characters would have had some downtime between one game in the campaign and the next.
I imagine it would be like seasons in an ongoing tv-show.
However, one could always make a roll for each gate to close some of ...
Late answer, but how about allow other quests and for every mandatory quest not competed at the end of each round, deduct 2 points. So an annoying penalty that can get progressive worse, but not devastating, and can be ignored, especially late in the game.
Copyright only covers specific implementations, i.e. the exact wording of the rules. Patents are a nonissue in this case, Boggle was released in 1972 so any patent applying to it would have expired years ago.
After some play-testing with friends, the complexity was intimidating, and so we settled on these rules:
The last card is dealt face up, and it is the point suit.
There is no trump suit.
You cannot lead with a point suit until a point suited card has been discarded.
When a point suit is led, any other card can trump it.
The results were ...
According to Wikipedia, Cap Sa and Big Two are the same game while Daifugo has slightly different rules. I could scrutinize those pages and try to summarize the differences here, but I think there's no point: based on this list and my experience, there are so many variations of these games that you will likely never find two people who play by the same rules ...
There is ambiguity, but I would do the Global Conflict culture award first, and then follow the usual start of a new age process as defined in the rulebook.
Discard antiquated cards
Remove antiquated leaders from play
Remove antiquated unfinished wonders.
Remove antiquated pacts
Lose 2 yellow tokens
This could be justified by noting the rulebook seems to ...