source
stringlengths 620
29.3k
| target
stringlengths 12
1.24k
|
|---|---|
Carcassonne: The Grass Connection Been looking into the rules a bit but can't find all the answers I want and it's possible this is more of a house rule with no definitive answer, but what I'm looking for is some official ruling if it exists. Do grass continue under bridges? i.e. is the grass connected? I'm thinking of the bridges from for example River 2 that cross the river. Source Also does the grass go around the well/pond from River expansions? Usually even if no other tiles connect the grass we do play as if the grass does connect on well/pond. source Do grass continue around the monastery from Catapult (that has the yellow fair thing stretching from one end to another)? Source Finally Bridges, Castles and Bazaars I'm assuming grass under the wooden bridges does connect? Source There are a lot more pieces in the expansions that basically asks the same question about farmer grass. If there is no official ruling I'm still interested in what is most common out there. <Q> The rule in all cases is the same. <S> A field is contiguous only if there is an unbroken path of green on the tile(s). <S> The large wooden bridge does not interrupt the green so it does not break the field. <S> Everything else you mentioned does except for the path around the well/pond. <A> I have a Carcassonne Big Box (containing The Tower, Inns & Cathedrals, Traders & Builders, and The Princess & the Dragon). <S> I consulted those rules. <S> Fields do not continue past bridges. <S> This is shown on page 7, using a tile that looks like a + of roads, one of them containing a bridge that looks like it could feasibly not split the field. <S> [emphasis theirs] <S> The bridge is not a crossing! <S> One road rune [sic] from left to right across the tile and the other runs from top to bottom across the tile. <S> The field segments are all separated. <S> Fields do wrap around the edges of the River. <S> This is stated on page 11. <S> The field space on the lake and spring tiles wraps around those features. <S> I cannot answer the Catapult question or the Bridges, Castles, and Bazaars question with authority. <S> I would guess the Catapult ones are divided while the Castles ones are not. <A> Sometimes these rules can be confusing, but the iOS edition of Carcassonne has answered a lot of rule grey areas for me, including the River II city-bridge one. <S> The Carcassonne app makes it clear that this city-bridge over the river is, in fact, high enough to keep the fields connected . <S> While I still find this visually confusing sometimes, the app rules and application within games are clear. <S> This large bridge, as opposed to all small bridges, does not separate fields. <S> The pond end to the river also continues fields. <S> But that's just my group. <S> (Since this post is <S> years after you asked the question, you may all know those rules already, but I thought I'd add this just in case anyone's doing a search.) <A> A city cuts a field in two, as does a road, even if it appears elevated in the drawing. <S> So that tile from River 2 has four fields on it. <S> However, if the field wraps around a feature on the tile--such as the lake at the end of the river, a cloister at the end of a road, or the river source--then the field is connected. <S> I haven't played with Catapult, but judging from the picture <S> , it looks to me like that Cloister and the stuff connected to it <S> do divide the field. <S> I'm sure the rules that came with that expansion address it.
|
I can't answer your other questions with the same certainty, but I can say that my group and I have always played it that the wooden bridges you place over the tiles do not block fields.
|
What games are similar to Risk? Are there any other board games that have similar game mechanics to Risk ? <Q> I generally think of Axis and Allies as being like advanced Risk. <S> Of those I'd recommend 2210, but if you can handle the complexity, which isn't bad in the grand scheme, Axis and Allies is the way to go. <A> Diplomacy is a similar game in that its aim is to conquer other players land. <S> However it removes the dice and the element of chance, replacing it with face to face negotiation (making it a much better game IMHO). <S> You can play it online for a quick taster. <S> There are also lots of other web based learning resources. <A> The combat is different in this game (you are not using dice at all) but gathering resources and conquering other provinces (which act like countries in Risk) has the same basic principles. <A> I really like Risk 2210 A.D. . <S> Basically a faster, more Aggressive risk (also more luck and less strategy, but this does not take away from the fun of nuking a continent :)) <A> There are 7 epochs. <S> During each epoch a player takes control of a different empire from the past. <S> They expand and conquer as much as they can (this part plays out very similar to Risk). <S> Next epoch they play a new vibrant empire. <S> Scoring is based on area control at the end of each player's turn. <S> Last year a new edition was released called, A Brief History of the World which is supposed to play to completion quicker. <S> I haven't yet tried it. <A> There is also Dust , which is set in an alternate World War II. <S> There you have mechs and tanks, submarines and destroyers, bombers and fighters. <S> New additions also include character-based powers, fortified positions and capitals. <S> Unlike vanilla RISK, it uses a VP track to determine victory. <S> One of the interesting part of the combat is that tanks soak damage before mechs, fighters soak damage before bombers and destroyers soak damage before submarines (If I recall correctly). <S> Mechs, Bombers and Submarines provide more offense in the game <S> The official site for the game is here . <A> How about Twilight Imperium. <S> We always play and when I explain to someone who is not into the scene what it is I always end up saying:"Ok, do you know Risk? <S> Well it's like that but more complicated". <S> But I guess there are loads of game that then qualify as advanced Risk :). <A> Ozymandia is simultaneous Risk, simplified to its essence. <A> I used to play Samurai Swords (also known as Shogun) as a kid. <S> It's a lot like Risk, with several unit types, more complex battles, and more territories. <S> It takes forever though. <A> I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but there are various Risk variants that use exactly the same rules and mechanics, but on a different board. <S> I've got the Lord of the Rings and Star Wars variants, and there are others . <S> As far as I can tell (from the LOTR and Star Wars verions) they normally/often have some extra (and optional) themed rule and unit variations, which, combined with the new map topology, can keep it interesting if you're bored of classic Risk.
|
History of the World is played much like Risk . Also there are all of the different Risk clones, 2210, LoTR, Star Wars, Godstorm and others which introduce slight variants in maps and rules. Quest for the Dragonlords also plays a little like risk, but, to be honest, fails miserably at being any fun to play. Shogun is another similar game.
|
House rules for Crokinole? Any recommendations or variants for playing Crokinole? We say that you have to stay seated in your chair with at least one cheek touching to make your shot. <Q> I believe that rule to be incorrect, but interesting. <S> You must hit an enemy disc, but you can hit a friendly disc first to make a combo shot. <S> It's higher risk because you can lose multiple discs. <S> Check the WCC webpage for official rules. <A> The rules around chair movement and contact with your chair during play are explained in the National Crokinole Association (NCA) <S> rules (emphasis mine): <S> 7) <S> Shooting ... <S> h) <S> Neither the board, nor the chair, of any player may be moved while the game is in progress, excep that a player may move his chair, if necessary, to pick up a disc that has fallen out of reach. <S> i) <S> When a player is shooting, at least one portion of his/her posterior must be in contact with the seat of his/her chair . <S> j) <S> Each leg of a player's chair must be in contact with the floor. <S> (no leaning of the chair) <S> k) <S> No part of a player's body except the feet, may touch the floor. <S> No other means of support may be utilized <A> I just checked the standard rules on Wikipedia <S> If there are any enemy discs on the board, a player must make contact, directly or indirectly, with an enemy disc during the shot. <S> If unsuccessful, the shot disc is 'fouled' and removed from the board, along with any of the player's other discs that were moved during the shot. <S> We always played with this rule : If there are any enemy discs on the board, a player must make contact with an enemy disc directly and before making contact with any friendly disk during the shot (bumpers use is tolerated). <S> If he miss, only the disk shoot by the player is fooled.
|
Also the one cheek rule is standard here in clubs in Ontario as well as not being able to move/shift your chair in any way once play begins.
|
Official Diplomacy sets, variations and where to buy Diplomacy only seems to have one set available to buy widely that I am aware of, built by Gibson Games. It's nothing special, an averagely constructed cardboard board with plastic piece s. Are there any other officaly distributed boxes available? Preferably available to order online. There also lots of variations of Diplomacy available online , have any of these made it 'into the wild'? <Q> The original Hasbro Edition is probably the physically best edition ever made - much better than the current US version with cardboard counters. <S> The only professionally printed Dip variants I know of are Colonial Diplomacy and Machiavelli. <A> I came across the following variants whilst doing a bit more digging at Board Game Geek : <S> The Anniversary edition with metal pieces, an ' Asmodee ' edition, a German variant from the 70's and some amazing custom-built boards ( one & two - shown below). <A> The original has wooden pieces, not plastic. <S> Blocks for the armies and flat pointed ovals for the fleets. <S> But I haven't seen that in a while. <S> There have been versions in other languages (at least I know of a Dutch version). <S> Sorry no links.
|
The other highly recommended edition is the 1992 Deluxe Diplomacy by Avalon Hill, which turns up very occasionally and very expensively on eBay.
|
Cluedo and the Great Museum Caper characters Are there any other games in the Cluedo series that has the same characters? The only other one I could find was The Great Museum Caper... <Q> http://www.theartofmurder.com/ is probably the most comprehensive list I know of. <S> It goes through all the editions, variants, spinoffs etc of Clue/Cluedo. <S> Which are mostly the same game. <S> The Great Museum Caper is a 1991 variant in the US. <A> Clue: <S> The Card Game uses the same characters as the U.S. version of Clue: Colonel Mustard, Miss Scarlet, Professor Plum, Mr. Green, Mrs. White, and Mrs. Peacock. <S> In some ways, it's even more fun than the board game. <A> There is a long list of official Clue variants which can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluedo . <S> According to wikipedia, "The great-museum-caper" is not an official variant. <S> [This Answer was edited to improve it's value.]
|
There's a Cluedo card game , too, but I can't personally vouch for it.
|
What is the Best Random Card Setup Tool? In this question I received two different recommendations for iPhone specific apps to assist with Dominion setups. My group uses a third (non iPhone specific). Which is the best, and why? Please, only one app per answer, thanks! <Q> Zack Hiwiller's Dominion Card Randomizer is nice. <S> It works fine on laptops and mobile devices, is free, has card images, and has some nice options. <S> http://www.hiwiller.com/dominion/ Downside: requires internet connection. <A> Dominion Shuffle for Android <S> I'd have to go back and use iDominion some more to compare the two, but this is the best option I've found for Android users. <S> Turn various expansions on and off. <S> Require or prohibit a certain card. <S> You can set minimums and maximums for any number of things Examples: <S> Require at least one card each of costs 2 through 5; require three cost-5 cards; require no more than 4 cards from Intrigue; require [X] +Action/+Buy/trashing cards; etc. <S> If you can dream it up, you can probably do it. <S> It allows you to set up a pretty detailed list of rules, like requiring a minimum number of X when any Y cards show up. <S> This lets you do the obvious reaction card(s) <S> to go with attack cards, but you can even use it for odd preferences like: require Mine if prosperity cards are in play; require at least 4 Alchemy cards if any Alchemy cards are in play; require a Moat if a Witch is in play; require Embargo if that annoying card your friend likes is in play; etc. <A> Dominion Kingdom Deck for iPhone, free! <S> From the iTunes description: offers an optional structured randomization mode. <S> In this mode, it guarantees that there is at least 1 card each of 2 cost, 3 cost, 4 cost and 5 cost. <S> All current cards for Dominion, Intrigue, Seaside, Alchemy and Prosperity as well as the promo cards Black Market, Envoy and Stash are included as starting data. <S> All sets can be turned on and off to match your playing situation. <S> Don't like a card in the list? <S> Swipe the row and replace it with a new one. <S> Have a custom set? <S> Add it in with the built-in set editor. <S> Had a particularly interesting mix of cards? <S> Save the list and recall it later. <A> iDominion EDIT: <S> iDominion has not been updated for several sets - it lacks Cornucopia and Hinterlands <S> Features <S> Turn each expansion on or off <S> (supports all expansions through Prosperity) <S> Turn each promo card (Envoy, Black Market, Stash) on or off <S> Generates the Black Market deck as well if you're using it <S> Sort the resulting list by name, cost, or set (or a combination) to facilitate easy retrieval of the cards Randomization Options <S> Ensure Attack <S> Ensure Reaction <S> No Curses <S> No 6 Plus Cost <S> Ensure + <S> Correctly selects 3-5 Alchemy cards or none at all Cons <S> Not free (although iDominion Lite is free, and a fully functioning randomizer. <S> It doesn't offer the blacklist and randomization options) <S> "Correct" Alchemy selection means you may have to refresh several times before it actually chooses any Alchemy cards <A> Enable/Disable Expansions <S> Blacklist Change <S> ordering - cost, alphabetical, by set Can only show Alchemy cards if at least 3-5 Alchemy cards <A> This is a great (the best, far and away, IMO) offline randomizer with a TON of options. <S> You'll love it. <S> disclaimer: I wrote the app :) <S> Get it here: <S> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/gajlaijicbmdnbpdficpdlkhgajhgkkd <S> Not real sure why this recommendation keeps getting deleted. <S> I'll try one more time and if it gets deleted this time I'll appeal to admin. <A> We've been pretty happy with WebMinion . <S> It has plenty of options for how to set the cards up and lets you selectively re-randomize any of them, which we use a lot in our games if something comes up that we've seen too much or nobody likes, but we don't want to scrap the whole set.
|
Buy Ensure +Action Blacklist for cards you're just sick of Swipe to replace any card in the set with a new one Dominion Minion (iOS Only) Similar to iDominion - was the first Dominion related app on the App Store.
|
What is a good strategy for using the Doomsday card? Doomsday - The card text reads as follows: Pay half your life, rounded up: Put your graveyard on top of your library, then remove all but five cards of your library from the game. Put the rest on top of your library in any order. I have never managed to do anything useful with this card. Ever! What could I do to use it successfully? <Q> For half your life, you get to stack your deck and set yourself up for a number of combos. <S> There's a combo going around that involves <S> Shelldock Isle / Doomsday / Emrakul, the Aeons Torn to pop out the Emrakul for free. <S> In addition, cards such as Serra Avatar , Beacon of Destruction , and other cards that shuffle back into your library afterwards can be used to stall running out of cards. <S> Platinum Angel can help keep you from losing the game. <S> That said, it's a pretty hard card to build around. <A> This is a quite heavy article on the subject : http://sites.google.com/site/emidln/doomsdaystacks <S> It describes the uses of the card in competitive legacy play, with several "win now" stacks. <S> The idea is to float some mana, for instance 1U with this stack and Sensei Top (SDT) in play : [Top] Brainstorm Lion's Eye Diamond (LED) Lion's Eye Diamond Ill-Gotten Gains (IGG) Tendrils of Agony [Bottom] <S> How it Works: <S> Tap SDT to draw into Brainstorm (1U floating). <S> Play Brainstorm (1 floating) to draw into SDT, LED, LED. <S> Put back 2 random cards. <S> Play LED, LED, SDT. <S> Break LEDs for UUU and BBB. <S> Pay B to rearrange the top3 using SDT putting IGG on top. <S> Tap SDT to draw into IGG. <S> Play IGG (floating U) <S> returning LED, LED, Brainstorm. <S> Play LED, LED, Brainstorm (breaking both LED for BBBBBB) to draw SDT. <S> Play SDT. <S> Pay B to rearrange the top3 using SDT putting Tendrils of Agony on top. <S> Tap SDT to draw Tendrils of Agony. <S> Play Tendrils of Agony and kill with the storm triggers <A> You wouldn't want to be casting Doomsday unless its text basically says "win the game"... <S> if you set it up right, though, it DOES. <A> Doomsday + Laboratory Maniac + draw Get the Manic on the field, play doomsday, then draw yourself to a win.
|
Doomsday + Mind's Desire + Beacon of Destruction is a quick win-the-game combo.
|
Seating orders effect on Puerto Rico Within my group its taken for granted that some seats in Puerto Rico are better (if only slightly) than others. There's a general consensus that 3rd and 4th seat are strictly better than 1st, where 2nd and 5th lie is a matter of debate. I remember stumbling across some hard numbers (data collected from tournament play if I recall correctly) backing some of this up, but can't seem find them anymore. Basically, does anyone have those numbers? I'd also appreciate some opinions as to why this is the case. My personal pet theory is that 3rd and 4th seat are in the sweet spot for both diversified production and an early game Factory. Although that's not a guarnateed victory, it should keep you competitive in most games (all else being equal). <Q> Seating is very important in Puerto Rico. <S> Here's the compilation of stats from 2002 to 2009: <S> Seat 1 indigo 41.53 scoring average, 19.9% of winsSeat 2 indigo 40.73 scoring average, 19.5% of winsSeat 3 <S> corn <S> 43.48 scoring average, 30.8% of winsSeat 4 corn 43.35 scoring average, 29.7% of wins <S> Having corn allows you to produce sooner, and more, so you can make more points shipping. <S> It requires less men, so you can do more with the men you have. <S> One of the big reasons that it gives an advantage is that it's a simple strategy, just make corn and ship. <S> The other strategies take more thought and hard decisions. <S> One other factor that comes into play in Puerto Rico is that you have to change your tactics and maybe your strategies based on the player to the left and what he does. <A> Starting with corn (seat 3 and 4) seems to have a large advantage from stats, but this does not mean necessarily that the game is that unbalanced. <S> I believe this advantage, something close to a 50% extra comparing to seats 1 and 2, is accentuated by the fast the producing and shipping corn <S> is an easier strategy to grasp and effective deliver. <S> When playing with more experienced players the gap is probably not that wide. <S> This is similar to the Temple strategy on Tzolkin. <S> It is not that the temple strategy is stronger but it is the easier thing to do without messing your game up, if you don't know what you are doing. <S> Still, for the new or casual Puerto Rico player, the 3rd seat is the best spot, followed close by the 4th. <S> This topic on BGG has more stats and balancing suggestions with simulations. <A> The statistics are interesting and I certainly can't argue with them. <S> My thinking is that it does not give any lasting advantage. <S> It is nice to produce and ship early <S> but it is also nice to produce a good that has Trade value early on too. <S> In other words your strategy for a particular game may be influenced, for good or ill, by the seating order. <S> Part of that influence originates from the first round effects of seating. <S> However, the seating arrangement/order of play matters at least as much for trading, shipping, etc.; <S> but not because someone got corn or indigo to start. <S> For instance, if the person to my right produces the same items and likes to trade frequently I find that has much more of an impact than that they initially had a corn plantation or an indigo plantation.
|
The seat that wins the most is 1st Corn (based on World Boardgaming Championship stats).Here's one of the tourney pages with stats , if you look around you'll find more.
|
What's the difference between ante and blinds? What is the difference between an "ante" and a "blind" in poker? <Q> Ante is a bet that everyone in the game must make in order to stay at the table. <S> It forces there to always be at least some payout in the pot, increasing the relative value of playing a hand to folding. <S> Blinds are bets that only one or two players are forced to make, usually a small blind and a big blind, the small blind at half the big blind. <S> They are bet by the two players after the dealer, and thus rotate around as the dealer rotates. <S> The blinds start betting off; bidding starts with the player after the big blind, and players must call or raise the blind bet to stay in the game, otherwise they fold. <S> It puts less in the pot than ante does, thus it does less to incentivize staying in the game, but it still puts enough in that it's worth it for some people to stay in as they do stand to win something, and the players who played the blinds stand to lose them if they simply fold. <A> Ante is given by all players before cards are dealt. <S> It's effect is to make sure that everyone has some skin in the game, and that people don't instantly fold when dealt less than stellar cards. <S> Blinds are a different way of dividing up the ante so that only a few player are committed to the game before seeing their cards. <S> They are generally split into big and small blinds. <S> The big blind is the full 'ante' for the round. <S> The small blind is a smaller sum. <S> The blinds are bet before cards are dealt, but after seeing the initial cards, players can either fold, pay so that they have equaled the big blind, or place a higher bet. <A> When playing with an ante, all players have to give the same amount before they are allowed to see their cards. <S> Thus, everyone has an equal stake in the current hand, and folding is less common in early betting rounds. <S> (It's the "I already paid <S> so I might as well stick around for another card" mentality.) <S> Antes have the benefit of allowing players to sit out any hand (say, to go to the restroom or take a phone call) or even quite the game without any sense of unfairness. <S> Blinds are unequal forced bets usually imposed on two players per round. <S> After seeing their cards, the remaining players have to call or raise to stay in the hand. <S> Since there is initially an unequal stake in the hand, folding is common. <S> (Why stay in if you haven't put anything in the pot and you have a lousy hand so far?) <S> Also, savvy players can "over-raise" on the blind round to force everyone into folding <S> , thus slowly building wealth by bleeding their opponents of the blinds. <S> And with a blind system, if a player needs to leave the table for some reason, the fairness of the game becomes problematic, as they obviously can't leave when they are up for a blind, but leaving at another time would rob them of a "free" hand. <S> Or does everyone wait however long it takes for that player to return? <S> (In case you can't tell, I consider blinds to be a blight on the noble game of poker. <S> Antes are much more fair and superior to blinds in almost every way.) <A> Antes and blinds are both collected from players to "seed" the pot with a single bet. <S> But they are collected in different ways. <S> An ante is collected from EACH player, but represents only a FRACTION of the basic bet. <S> (The sum of the fractions, collected from each player, amount to about one bet.) <S> As such, everyone "pays the same," and no one is at a disadvantage versus anyone else. <S> A (big) blind is a basic bet collected from ONE player. <S> (A small blind, half the basic bet is sometimes collected from a second player.) <S> They are called "blinds" because these players have to bet "blind" before receiving their cards. <S> The others can look at their cards before deciding to call, raise, or fold to this "forced" bet. <S> The (big) "blind" bettor is thus placed at a disadvantage, but can reasonably stay in with "any two cards" (if not raised), since s/ <S> he bet before receiving cards. <S> This adds an element of randomness to the game. <S> (The small blind can play "loose" for only half a bet.) <A> I'm coding a poker tracker right now, and I've found an other subtle difference : <S> Let's say "ante/SB/BB" are at "10/100/200" When you've already put a SB (100) and you want to "call" the BB (200) , you will only pay 100 from your stack. <S> But when you've put an "ante" (10), it's removed from the table before the "PRE-FLOP" bet phase, so "calling" the BB means you pay 200 from your stack, not 190. <S> At least, this is how it works at Winamax tables.
|
Ante and blinds are both forced bets.
|
In Magic, when can I tap my opponent's creatures to prevent them from attacking? Whilst I haven't played Magic in a while, use of the stack was something that I always found a little confusing. When I first started out, our group could tap an opponents attacking creature after attackers had been declared and effectively take it out of combat? Is this right? Or did we have the stack order backwards? <Q> This is not so much about the stack, as the order of the turn: Beginning Phase <S> Main Phase Combat Phase <S> Beginning of Combat step <S> Declare Attackers step <S> Declare Blockers step Damage step End of Combat step <S> Main Phase <S> End Phase <S> After the first main phase, there's a step where you can play abilities like tapping, but before they can attack you: Beginning of Combat step. <S> Every turn goes in this order (with minor exceptions) <S> But when we play, we usually don't bother talking about every phase and step, often because nothing happened in them! <S> But they're still part of every turn, if we need to do something then. <S> So there's nothing wrong with your opponent playing a spell, then moving right on to "I attack you with this guy. <S> " All you have to say is "wait, I want to do stuff at the Beginning of Combat" and back up to that point. <S> Then you tap whoever you want to tap. <S> Just remember, after the tapping your opponent gets to decide how they want to attack, knowing their creature is tapped! <S> And after they know you can tap things, in future turns they should stop and ask you before they declare attackers. <S> (You can ask them nicely to do this.) <S> That way they don't give away the info of who they want to attack with! <A> Spells, activated abilities, and triggered abilities go onto the stack when they are cast, activated, or triggered. <S> Before they resolve, any player is allowed to play other (instant-speed) spells or abilities, which themselves go on the stack and can be responded to. <S> If no player responds to an item on the stack, the top (most recently played) spell or ability resolves. <S> There are, however, several actions that do not use the stack. <S> Among them are the turn-based actions, the game actions that happen automatically when steps or phases begin or end. <S> Declaring attackers is one of those turn-based actions: As soon as the "Declare Attackers" step begins, the attacking player declares any attacking creatures, before anyone gets to play any spells or abilities that step. <S> This action cannot be responded to; once a creature is declared as an attacker, you cannot tap it to prevent it from attacking. <S> Even if it has vigilance, tapping it will not remove it from combat unless it's due to regeneration or an effect that explicitly removes something from combat. <S> For convenience, most players respect " <S> In response to your declaration to attack" as shorthand for playing something at the end of the main phase. <S> Note, however, that the attacker is not obligated to declare attackers before such a response, and is free to change any declaration that was proposed before you interrupted it. <S> For example, if your opponent plays Arc Runner and immediately declares it as an attacker, you may play Twitch on that Arc Runner "in response," by which you really mean at the end of his or her pre-combat main phase. <S> However, if you do, your opponent is then allowed to attack with any other creatures he or she controls. <S> On the other hand, if you specifically ask which creatures your opponent is attacking with, you have implicitly given up the ability to play Twitch until after they're attacking. <S> As for tapping a creature to remove it from combat, something similar used to apply to blockers , not attackers. <S> That rule was removed in the sixth edition rules update, when the stack was introduced. <A> Once attackers have been declared, tapping them usually has no effect, but there are exceptions. <S> Suppose a creature with Vigilance has been declared as an attacker. <S> You can surely tap it, and perhaps gain an advantage thereby (e.g. being able to attack next turn without it being able to block); it just won't remove the creature from combat. <S> A little confusingly, if a creature is regenerated mid-combat, it is both tapped AND removed from combat. <S> But the removal from combat is a property of regeneration, not a property of becoming tapped.
|
However, there are occasions before the Declare Attackers step when opponents are allowed to tap potential attackers; in particular, the end of the pre-combat main phase, and the end of the "beginning of combat" step.
|
What's better for Ork Nob in Warbiker Mob: Big Choppa or Klaw? I've been assembling a warbiker mob recently and I've wanted to make one unit a Nob. According to the Ork Codex I can then give him either a Big Choppa (+10 points) or a Klaw (+25 points). I know the Klaw is more powerful but it also carries the disadvantage to Initiative. Is the Klaw really worthy the extra points or is it better to stick with the Big Choppa (which also looks much better on a model)? Big Choppa - gives +2 Strength Klaw - energy weapon (ignores armor) and doubles the Strength <Q> There's a few things to weigh up here. <S> What else could you get with the points? <S> It's easy to go overboard on your 'hero' units, and forget that you could spend that extra 15 points on more basic troops. <S> With Orks, huge numbers is a core strategy. <S> A few extra Boyz could be much more valuable to you. <S> Who do you expect to be facing? <S> Ignoring armour is a much more useful ability against Space Marines and Necrons than it is against Dark Eldar or Tyranids. <S> If you regularly play against a few particular armies, then this is particularly relevant. <S> More tactically, consider whether your Ork Nob will be likely to be in a situation where he can make use of armour-ignoring abilities. <S> Will he be attacking tanks, Dreadnoughts, or souped up heroes? <S> Or is the primary role of the squad to act as cannon fodder, or take down more generic troops? <S> Bottom line - there's no point taking expensive custom stuff if you don't make use of it. <S> What do your other models have? <S> I like giving identical units different weapons, just for variety. <S> This is also handy when you need to pull out a specialised weapon combo for a particular scenario. <S> What do you like the look of more? <S> This is actually an important point, in my opinion. <S> Warhammer is about aesthetics and cool models just as much as it is about optimising armies and strategies. <S> If you think the Big Choppa looks much better, that's a strong argument for taking that as a weapon! <S> Without knowing the answers to these questions, I can't give you a straight recommendation. <S> The Klaw is clearly a much more powerful weapon. <S> But whether the cost (both points and aesthetic) is justified depends on all these factors. <A> Always go with a Klaw for your Nobz in either biker or normal boyz squads. <S> You need this because Orks are not terribly good in close combat against certain enemies. <S> Walkers, heavy tanks, and units with 3+ or 2+ saves can usually fend off a charge from Orks. <S> You need the Klaw to be able to break even in these situations. <S> Without that Klaw, your Orks could get tied up in combat with a Space Marine Dreadnought you can't hurt. <S> You'll also have a hard time against infantry hiding in transports. <S> It's hard to destroy even an armor 10 vehicle in hand-to-hand with only ST 6(from the Choppa). <S> Another thing to consider: a charging unit of 10 Ork bikes will only kill about 2-3 Marines on average(30 attacks, 15 hit, 7.5 wound, 5 save). <S> All it takes in this instance is for the Marine player to roll a little above average, and the Ork player to roll a little under average for the Marines to win the assault. <S> The one or two outright kills you get from a Klaw will help make sure you are going to win the assault. <S> It's even more important if you face a unit with a 3+ save and Feel No Pain. <S> Don't worry too much about the loss of Initiative from the Klaw. <S> Even with boosted Initiative on the charge, most things in the game that can hurt you are already swinging first. <S> You're opponent <S> will also have to wipe out the whole unit to prevent that Klaw from getting its attacks. <S> You can give most of the unit Choppas to save on points and get the most out of the wound allocation rules. <A> If your talking about Nob Bikers, You would be Str 7 on the charge with 4 attacks, using WS5 (waggh banner). <S> Hitting marines on a 3, wounding on a 2. <S> (10) <S> Nob Bikers kited with Waggh banner, 5 choppas, 2 power klaws and 3 slugga & choopas would get 43 attacks on the charge.(20) <S> Str 7 choppa attacks, (8) str 10 power klaw attacks, (15) str 5 slugga attacks. <S> Furious charge grants the str +1. <S> Not to mention the 30 Str 5 TL shots you put into them before. <S> TL Str 5 shots @ <S> BS2 = <S> 20 hits, Wound on 3's, 10 wounds, 3+ save. <S> 3 die from shooting. <S> On the Charge @ <S> WS5 = 13 hits(Choppa), 6 hits (Klaw), <S> 9 hits (slugga) would theoretically yield = 11 wounds (Choppa) 5 wounds (Klaw), 5 wounds (Slugga) 21 wounds. <S> 5 of which Ignore armor saves and ID. <S> Of the remaining 16 wounds, They would save ten. <S> Yielding another 6 dead. <S> Shooting+Melee = 14 Dead marines.
|
For all Nob units, you don't have to give every Nob a Klaw.
|
Building a Blue Deck on a budget? My daughter is a huge Blue card fan (she loves mermaids especially). How can I build a solid blue deck on a limited budget with easily obtainable cards? <Q> You should be able to build a reasonable deck of any colour for casual play using just standard commons. <S> It won't be particularly exciting, but as long as you have a reasonably large fraction of creatures, go easy on the enchantments, and choose cards to follow the mana curve (i.e. some low cost, some high cost, most in-between), you'll be fine. <S> I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'mermaids'. <S> A basic idea would be 4x Lord of Atlantis , 4x Sunken City , and then your choice of Merfolk cards (of which there are lots; many are common). <S> Here's a list of Merfolk to give you an idea of the possibilities: http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?name=+%5Bmerfolk%5D <A> Building an inexpensive blue deck means concentrating on one of the strategies it does well at common, which could mean "mill" (causing your opponent to draw out his or her deck), cheap flyers, card drawing, or creature denial (cards like Unsummon or Sleep). <S> These strategies tend to dovetail nicely with merfolk. <S> Merfolk themselves have a "strategy," as there are many cards that give bonuses to other merfolk you control, or allow you to tap them for various effects. <S> These "fish" decks are playable in many different formats. <S> A preconstructed blue/white Merfolk deck was released in 2008; they're still fairly easy to find. <A> I am a big blue fan too, and I have a combo of creatues and instants/sorceries/enchantments. <S> I would lay low on the artifacts, even though most say they are good in blue decks. <S> If you want merfolk, I would try adding x3 Merfolk Sovereign and maybe a Deepchannel Mentor . <S> Also throw in a Talrand, Sky Summoner . <S> You should have some counter-spells like Cancel to hold off till you get a powerhouse like Guile , Frost Titan or Sphinx of Magosi .
|
If you're referring to Merfolk, then yes, you should be able to build a reasonable deck based on that theme relatively cheaply.
|
Ideas for handicapping strong players? My family enjoys playing Boggle . Usually it's all adults that play, but come the holidays it's not uncommon to have elementary and junior high aged cousins, nieces, and nephews interested in playing but lack the vocabulary (and practice time!) the adults enjoy. Any suggestions on how to handicap the adults to make the game more balanced when younger players join? <Q> Group the players according to skill level. <S> Each of your words are eliminated if anybody in your group or below has a duplicate word. <S> Players in groups higher than yours cannot eliminate your words, but you can eliminate theirs. <S> I think there should be at least two players in the lowest group, but maybe you want to be really kind to the most junior player. <S> I haven't tested this, it might be too unbalanced. <S> Try experimenting with the group sizes. <S> I suspect fewer groups would be better. <A> The normal scoring is Word length <S> 3 4 5 6 7 <S> 8+Points <S> 1 1 2 3 5 11 <S> You can adjust the values up or down depending on the relative skill levels of the junior players. <S> Another idea, related to Don Kirkby's interesting answer , is to automatically score words over a certain size for the juniors (instead of discounting them if others have them) - for example, any word over 5 letters. <S> This encourages the children to put the effort in for the larger words, which for them is likely a much more challenging task than for the grown-ups. <A> You could require the more experienced players to find words with a minimum number of letters. <S> Like, they need at least 5 letters in the word to count? <S> Or, the younger players could be given additional time. <A> My wife kicks serious butt at Boggle, so much so that I don't like playing with her anymore. <S> I asked her this question, and without hesitating, she said "Either give the kids double the time, or the adults half the time". <S> I may have to try this with her at some point (with me receiving the handicap) :D <A> We've successfully used adding more time for less experienced players, allowing one and two letter words in addition to normal words for the younger players, and eliminating words on the experienced player's lists while not eliminating them from the younger player's lists. <S> It's way more fun when everyone has an actual chance. <A> Whenever I play Boggle with my SO and brother (both way better than me) I always score the number of total words I get against myself in previous rounds to try and beat that number as well. <S> "Best game yet today!" <S> I'm not sure if that'd work for kids, but it's another number more within their control. <S> It does require some patience and acknowledgement that some boards are harder than others. <S> Makes me try harder though.
|
For the less skilled players, you could try something more like Word length 3 4 5 6 7 8+Points 2 3 4 6 10 15 which increases the reward for finding any words not found by the veteran players, and gives huge bonuses for large words (which are even more unlikely for them). You could use different scoring for the kids and the adults.
|
Alternatives to the coins supplied in Puerto Rico After getting the Rio Grande Treasure Chest for the two Puerto Rico expansions, I want to spice up my set of Puerto Rico a little bit. Can anyone recommend any good sites where I could get physical coins to use instead of the $1 and $5 pieces in the game? I was thinking period-authentic replicas, or just even nice looking small gold and silver doubloon-looking coins. <Q> Board Game Bits has little wooden disks in various sizes. <S> This might help spice things up also. <S> There is also a company out of Australia, Campaign Coins , that specializes in coinage useful for games and LARPs. <S> They're <S> prices are a little steep at $7 for ten coins, but they have a good selection of different designs. <A> I got real gold doubloons from <S> The Great American Coin Co. They are about the size of a nickel, and are authentic looking, real metal coins based on the 17th century Spanish doubloon. <S> They make the game so much more fun! http://www.greatamericancoincompany.com/c5/Shiny-Gold-Doubloon-Replicas-You-Choose-Quantity-p184.html <A> I got some really nice doubloon coins from Momcorp . <S> They're a lot more enjoyable than the paper coins, and a pretty good deal for $29 <S> -- you get 50 coins (40 small silver coins & 10 large gold coins). <S> http://momcorp.com/moms-famous-antique-doubloons/
|
You could get some cheap plastic pirate coins you can get at pirate stores.
|
How can I tell if these vintage boardgames are worth anything? My grandparents passed away recently, and my mother is cleaning out their house. They have some vintage board games (ca. 1960's, maybe?) in their house, and she's wondering what to do with them. I don't know if any of them are collectible or not; she sent me a rather low-res picture in which a few are identifiable: Mille Bornes, Barrel of Monkeys, Flinch, Contack, Yahtzee, a few card games like Old Maid and Crazy Eights. How would I go about finding out if there's a market for any of these? I tried checking BoardGameGeek , which shows what's for sale there and on eBay, but that tells me nothing about whether anyone is actually buying those games (well, in some cases it tells me a little; if there are a bunch of eBay auctions, all with no bids, there probably isn't much demand). Is there any good way for me to determine if there's a demand for any of these games? Is there a good place I should try and sell them? Or should I just give them to the local thrift store, as it probably won't be worth the hassle of storing them and listing them for sale? <Q> If you look at who wants a game on BoardGameGeek, you can get an idea if there is any demand for the game. <S> (It's under the statistics section on BoardGameGeek.) <S> Unfortunately, for any item in a market, it's hard to know if people are actually buying that item. <S> It can be difficult to see if an item will sell, without trying to sell it. <S> I'm skeptical of price guides for antiques cause just cause people say something will sell for X, doesn't meany <S> anyone will pay that for it. <S> You could always donate them to a something like the Salvation Army or Goodwill if you'd just like to have them find new homes. <S> I'm not sure it costs money to put things up in the BoardGameGeek marketplace, but you could list them on their instead to see if they're interesting to general gamers. <A> I personally bought an old 1960 Mille Bornes game on eBay. <S> I wanted the old game for sentimental reasons, but I wasn't willing to pay too much for it. <S> When I was shopping for those, there were some at around $20.00 USD, but with patience I found one for $12.60 <S> USD including shipping. <S> While I was happy to find one, this is not an outstanding value for this particular game. <S> So, yes there is always demand for these games; I personally think eBay is a good place to evaluate the values of those. <S> But you will only get a good price if you are patient and/or lucky. <S> Is it worth the hassle? <S> It depends of how you evaluate the whole process of selling them. <S> But I would personally pack them in the basement and wait for the next garage sale. <A> The Games section of the well respected Miller's Antiques & Collectables Price Guide might be a good place to start. <A> The first thing I alway do is search for them on Ebay and see how things are going. <S> If there's a few auctions there then follow them to see how they end. <A> I have had some great luck with some of my own personal old games in my collection by reaching out to a reputable and good local (and online) boardgame store. <S> In my personal experience I sold a bunch of games to Noble Knight Games in no small part because they support many of my favorite gaming related podcasts. <S> In dealing with an online store that buys & sells older games (in my case I sold them both boardgames and role playing game materials) you will need to provide them with detailed information about the games you have, their condition, completeness etc and they will then make you an offer. <S> In most cases they, like many used dealers online and offline will offer you a bit more in store credit than they would pay in cash. <S> You probably also won't get exactly what you might see individual games selling for on EBay - but then neither will you have to incur the Ebay fees, payment fees, shipping costs and more or the hassle of listing many items and relisting the many which likely won't sell the first time around. <S> Some local game stores may buy and sell used games - but generally to do so successfully requires a store with an active online presence which ensures that they turnover their inventory reliably and often. <S> In your particular case I would suggest that you have your relative box up all of the games and ship them to you - you can then inspect them for completeness and take more detailed photographs. <S> Personally I would also suggest keeping a few if they are games you actually play (or might actually play). <A> On eBay, you can see how much previous buyers have paid for an item. <S> This site explains how to check the box on the left marked « <S> Sold Items» <S> ... <S> «Search eBay for "Completed Listings" <S> to Know How Much Your Stuff Is Worth» <S> http://lifehacker.com/search-ebay-for-completed-listings-to-know-how-much-y-5937100 <S> oruse eBay's Advanced Search function : http://pages.ebay.com/bo/en-us/completedlistings/
|
While I haven't done it for board games, I've followed eBay auctions with active bids to see what they close at.
|
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) <Q> This set of rules for Chinese Mahjong might be a little terse, but are essentially the rules I have always played with. <S> The last chart gives a nice limited set of honor hands too. <A> The simplest ruleset is Hong Kong Old Style (HKOS). <S> It has simple scoring and very few special hands. <S> 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). <S> If you want even simpler rules, have a look at these ultra-simplified Chinese rules . <S> They even omit Kan and most of scoring, so you can understand and explain them in a few minutes. <S> From experience I would say they are a good way to start. <S> Once you got the basics, you can gradually add more rules of the HKOS set, and eventually also have a look at other rulesets. <S> One thing I especially like about the ultra-simplified rules is how scoring works: Whoever won gets a chip or a coin from everybody. <S> Or just use the "ooh and aah" method. <S> When somebody wins, everybody goes "ooh. <S> " You can keep track of score on a piece of paper too. <S> Make a tick mark next to the winner's name. <S> Whatever works for you. <S> If you want to make things really exciting, award an extra chip, coin, or "aah" for a pung of dragons or winds. <S> 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. <S> It might be possible for a non-winning player to get a higher score than a winner, if you allow this. <S> But that's OK, if you like it that way. <A> See the scoring chart here - it's easy to apply (no "small points" and "multipliers", only one limit), and <S> the point values are adequate to the effort required for a given pattern. <S> 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. <A> According to this table, Hong Kong, Classical (Babcock's red-book rules), and Korean variations fit your criteria. <S> Having said that, this page state that Korean rules don't use seasons. <A> My preferred ruleset is Mahjong Competition Rules, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guobiao_Majiang <S> (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). <S> The rules can also be found at http://mahjong-europe.org/ . <S> 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. <S> A good way to get to know the rules is to start playing without the 8-point requirement and <S> then spend some time figuring out the actual score of each hand, to get used to the patterns. <S> 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. <S> 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.
|
I'm generally a fan of Riichi Mahjong, but what I use for teaching beginners is Zung Jung , a very simple and logical ruleset.
|
Are there good two player rules for resource trading in Settlers of Catan? I've tried playing two-player Settlers, where each player controls one set of pieces, and each time a player builds they need to play a piece of the same type for one of the two uncontrolled colors (so there are two non-player nations in play). What I would like to add to this is for the uncontrolled nations to have resource cards and some mechanic for them to allow trading with the players in the game. Are there any two-player rules that support this? <Q> While I've never tried it out, there is a variant set of rules here <S> that uses the white player as a neutral third party. <S> It looks a little interesting, but the rules in the link only allow the neutral player to build roads, and nothing else. <S> Building roads for the neutral player is determined by highest dice roll. <S> It <S> does allow for trading with the neutral player using a special trading chart. <S> The chart may or may not need to be tweaked to your liking. <A> You remove 2 roads, 1 settlement and 1 city from each player. <S> You also reduce the size the development card deck by removing a few cards. <S> There are six ports on the map in this variant, encouraging players to build ports. <S> Trading in Catan helps both players involved in a deal get the resources they need. <S> Players who refuse to trade with the other players on the board often don't do <S> as well I've noticed. <S> Thus, each deal two players work out, can bring them closer to victory over the other players. <S> With just two players, this effect is lost since they only have each other to trade with. <S> If you use a proxy player, it's doesn't really act as a party with it's own self interest since it's controlled by the two other players. <A> If you have two human players (A & B) and a neutral player X played by A & B. <S> The solution is easy. <S> If A wants to trade with X, let B handle the trading. <A> There is an official 2 player Settlers version introduced in the Traders and Barbarians expansion. <S> This has 2 neutral players placed, who build something whenever a player does which you can use to block in your opponents. <S> You can use trade chips to force a 2 for 2 trade with your opponent, which costs 2 trade chips if you are in the lead, or 1 if you are behind. <S> You can these chips from building on the desert, on a coast, disbanding a solider or from initial setup. <S> http://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/21616/error/expired/klaus2player-pdf <A> I've played two person Catan quite a few times. <S> The best way I've found is to play with four players and each person controls two colors. <S> The rules are that you can only trade 1:1 from hand to hand, but you can trade as much as you want with your opponent. <S> Turns go back and forth between you and your opponent and between your hands. <S> For example: you right hand, his left hand, you left hand, his right hand and then repeat. <S> The final rule is you need a combined amount of 18 victory points between both hands. <A> I suggested a way to play with 2 players that hinges largely on a trading dynamic with the shared neutral player here <S> How do you make Settlers of Catan work well for 2 players? <S> (Problems and play-tested solution described, alternatives requested) <S> The idea is that you trade 1 for 1, then 2 for 1, then 3 for 1, and so on, randomly drawing from the neutral hand, making it progressively more expensive to get what you want. <S> The second key is that you can use this mechanic to stack the neutral player with resource power and force a win for him (thus a draw for the two human players). <S> This creates an atmosphere of tension as you each keep trying to gain position but not too quickly in the eyes of your opponent until it's a clear shot to run away to victory (otherwise he will pile into the neutral player and force a draw).
|
There is a two player option developed Nick Barko where players can only trade with the bank and played on a smaller board .
|
Optimal Leading Card in Cribbage In the "Play" phase of Cribbage (31's), what is the optimal leading card to play. I have always played a 4 if I had one, because it can't be fifteened and is less likely to result in a run, because an opponent is unlikely to play a 5 or a 6. It is also not as useful as 1s, 2s or 3s at the later part of the Play when it gets close to 31. However, I fear that this tactic is becoming too predictable, and my fellow players will know that my hand lacks a 4 if I have not played it immediately as a Leading card. What other cards are optimal leading cards. <Q> Having spent some time trying to work out probabilities and carrying out some research, I have come up with a few conclusions. <S> Almost NEVER lead with a 5 or a 10. <S> There are 16 cards that value 10 in the pack (30%), so playing a 5 gives a very high probability that the other player will get 2points for 15. <S> Same theory for leading with a 10. <S> Although far fewer 5s are in the pack, these are highly valuable cards and often not sent to the crib. <S> Keep back Aces for the end <S> They come in very useful for getting 31 for 2, and possible doubles or triples. <S> 6s, 7s, 8s, 9s <S> These are strong cards in a hand, so are often quite easy to 15. <S> Leading with a 9 or 6 allows the other player to get a 15 with little worry of a run occurring. <S> 7s and 8s can trick the other player into going for a 15 to gain you a run, but can be followed by another card to make a further run from the other player. <S> This would give the other player 7 points and you 3 points. <S> Not a great return. <S> Deuces and Treys 2s and 3s are what is left. <S> A 2 is probably useful to hold back for the same reason as the Aces, but 2s and 3s are the safest options for leading. <S> So, the answer to vary the leading card (i.e. instead of always playing a 4) is to use a 3, or even possibly a 2. <A> The first of a pair, or the middle card of a run <S> The key strategy to take away is that in the play you're trying to trap or entice the other player into playing something that might give them points but sets you up to get more, or you're trying to increase the number of cards they can play that will enable you to respond with a scoring play. <S> For example: If I have a pair, I typically lead with one of them. <S> You're hoping to entice the other player to play a pair-for-two so you can turn around and play triples for 6. <S> An obvious exception is starting with a 5, as you're asking for them to take 15-2. <S> Starting with a 10 is less risky as there are only four 5s in the deck but many 10-value cards. <S> The probability of the opponent getting dealt exactly 1 of the other cards of my pair is 23% (in their opening hand, they could have dumped it to the crib), while the probability of the opponent having both of the other cards of my pair is less than 1%. <S> If I have a run I'll also often play the middle card. <S> That gives me run-for-3 options if they play any one of four cards, the two ranks below and the two ranks above what I played. <S> For example, if I have 6, 7, and 8 I'll play the 7. <S> If they play 6 and I can play 8 run-for-3; 5 I play 6, 8 <S> I play 6 and 9 <S> I play 8. <S> This particular run also had the advantage of trapping them into playing the 8 to get 15-2, where you can answer with a run-for-three. <S> I know it's only a one point advantage, but I've won many a game by one point. <S> Of course if you have 6-7-7-8 then you can do both strategies simultaneously and you're really set, both for the play and for the killer hand <S> you're about to lay down during the show. <S> :) <S> Appendix : <S> To compute the probability of my opponent getting dealt exactly 1 of the other 2 cards of my pair is (in octave or matlab code): (nchoosek(44,5)*nchoosek(2,1))/nchoosek(46,6) <S> The probability of getting dealt both of the remaining cards is: (nchoosek(44,4)*nchoosek(2,2))/nchoosek(46,6) <A> On occasion, there may be value in playing a card of the same rank as that turned up in the cut, since there's a reduced chance of your opponent being able to pair it. " <S> See one, play one", was how it was usually described. <S> I wouldn't recommend it for a 5, though... <A> A great deal of leading off in the play depends on the board position. <S> If you are ahead, you should play defensively, so playing a 4 is fine there, and any low card (1-4) could be counted. <S> It is a common mistake to be tied to closely to your aces, as they usually only get you a point for go, and very rarely a 31. <S> If you are behind, playing from pairs, playing connected cards etc, hoping to get points after they get points is a common strategy. <S> so if you have a horrible hand and are behind (A79Q), you would lead the 7, hoping they play 8 for 15-for-two, and you can play 9 for 24-for-three. <S> Playing a 5 can be a fun play in certain situations (you have a 5JQK hand, and you only need two points to win, play the five, and you have a 75% chance of matching their 15), but is quite bad in most others.
|
Playing a 10 is not too bad, especially if it is a double (no chance for them to redouble for 12), and that same principle is true for all cards 8 and up, there is no danger if they match your card.
|
Hello World game for many game systems Ron Hale-Evans mused about creating a benchmark game that could be ported to many different game systems as a design exercise. Do you think that would be a useful tool, and can you suggest a game that would be simple enough and flexible enough to fit in many game systems, such as piecepack , Stonehenge , Icehouse , standard playing cards, or even Decktet ? I think the benefit of the exercise would be that someone could compare several game systems by seeing how their differing components were used to implement similar mechanics. Porting Games Porting a game to a game system means to take an existing game and modify its rules so that it can be played with a multi-purpose game system. Some examples of game systems are piecepack , Stonehenge , and the others I mentioned above. Some games are trivial to port, such as Nim. (It just involves piles of objects and removing objects from one pile at a time.) But many games are quite a challenge, and can require elegance to bring the essence of the game without all the original equipment. You can see some examples of porting games to the piecepack in the Good Portsmanship contest , and further discussion of porting games in the contest announcement . <Q> Zendo is an Icehouse game which can be ported to different game systems; none of the fundamental rules refer to any sort of specific pieces, you just need pieces that can be combined together into structures such that there can be some rule that distinguishes two classes of structures built out of the pieces; or if you're familiar with Zendo terminology, you need to be able to build koans out of the pieces, and come up with a rule that distinguishes which koans have the Buddha nature. <S> I've played Zendo with playing cards before (rules can be things like "a koan has the buddha nature if the red cards add up to 10"), and it could just as well be played with Piecepack ("a koan has the buddha nature if it has at least one sun square and one moon coin"), or likely could be adapted to most any game system. <S> The nice thing about porting Zendo to other game systems is that the rules you make up will adapt to the attributes of the game system in question; the mechanics don't rely on things you could do with any pieces whatsoever, like count them or put them in piles. <S> For some other game systems than Icehouse, it might help to have more than one copy, as you need to be able to use identical pieces in different koans to test out theories. <A> ( abstracted from http://www.google.com/buzz/ludism/FCQD89cPwBr/rwhe-It-would-be-interesting-to-create-a-benchgame ) <S> My initial answer for best benchgame was "The Lady or the Tiger?", which is the "benchfic" used by these folks, who inspired the benchgame idea in the first place. <S> They probably use it because (a) it's in the public domain, (b) it's about a highly significant choice in a simple game, and (c) <S> it's a ripping good story: http://writerresponsetheory.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Benchmark_DAC_proposal <S> The Frank Richard Stockton story itself: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/396 <S> As far as I know, there is no existing "The Lady or the Tiger"-themed game in BoardGameGeek, which is weird, but very good for this project. <S> The field is clear. <S> If we treat LoT as the benchgame, we can retain compatibility with the benchfic project and still have plenty of flexibility for individual style in ports to various game systems, as well as room for more direct ports among them. <S> A port of this story should be non-trivial, more fleshed out than Hello, World, and probably more so than Cloak of Darkness ( http://www.firthworks.com/roger/cloak/ ), but still very short, like the story itself. <S> The story is readable and fun, so a board or card game port should be playable and fun. <S> I envision certain versions of LoT -- say for the piecepack -- as a social game, possibly a couples' game. <S> Maybe an iterated Prisoner's Dilemma kind of thing. <S> By the way, I suggested a pan-game-system design competition a while back. <S> https://twitter.com/#!/rwhe/status/27115198293 <S> https://twitter.com/#!/rwhe/status/27158778288 <S> Don had the idea that all games in this contest would have to be ports of "The Lady or the Tiger?". <S> I think that's a great idea. <S> Anyone game? <S> I've run two previous contests, including Good Portsmanship, and I'd like to be involved in this one, but I don't have the time to run it by myself right now. <A> My first thought is that games are too delicate to be ported between many systems. <S> I almost regard successful ports as accidental - the game just happened to fit both systems reasonably well. <S> You might argue that a poem is equally delicate, yet Hofstadter and friends made many translations of the same French poem in Le Ton beau de Marot. <S> However, I think the comparison is unfair because natural languages have so many more options than a typical game system. <S> That being said, I'm still up to experiment. <S> Nim seems too simple and dry; it wouldn't use any interesting features of each system. <S> Eleusis seems too different from most games to be helpful. <S> Mancala? <S> The sowing mechanic seems flexible enough to fit in many different environments. <S> Am I being too abstract? <S> It seems like trying to port a theme as well as the mechanics just makes it even harder. <A> This is only slightly related in that none of these games would work as a benchmark, but Puerto Rico , San Juan and Race for the Galaxy more or less fit the "ported" description. <S> The latter two were created as card game "ports" of Puerto Rico. <S> The main reason I mention this is that the game system itself is often the greatest factor in what makes the game playable or fun. <S> I do not have personal experience with any of the systems you mentioned <S> but it seems that any benchmark game that crosses game systems is going to have a rough time being complicated enough to be interesting while simple enough to port recognizably. <S> In the case of Puerto Rico and Race for the Galaxy, the core mechanics are similar enough to see a connection <S> but I really don't see them as similar games. <S> (I have not played San Juan.) <S> Other games have certainly been ported -- generally they convert from board game to card game ( Monopoly , Settlers of Catan ). <S> Conversions from computer games to board games has happened ( World of Warcraft ; WoW TCG ). <S> Spin-offs may also offer some insight toward successful translations of mechanics ( Carcassonne and its kin). <S> The numerous requests and fan variants for solitaire rules for board games is another place to look for altered systems and mechanics.
|
An Icehouse set is almost ideally suited, as you have 5 copies of every piece, with just enough attributes different between the pieces (4 colors, 3 sizes, a few different orientations you can place them in, a few ways to stack them) that rules are relatively easy to judge and not too hard to guess; but you can use pretty much any game system you want.
|
Where can I find reviews of board games? Before buying a board game, I would like to read some detailed reviews. It's also hard to tell if the review is just a paid announcement from the publisher. Is there any website that is " the reference " for those? <Q> BoardGameGeek can be a great resource, but it can be a bit hard to figure out where everything is. <S> First, you can search for games by name, if you know what game you're looking for. <S> Or you can use the "Browse" feature to find games by category or mechanic. <S> Once you've found a game, you find yourself on a page that's stuffed full of information , somewhat haphazardly laid out. <S> At the top, there is the name of the game, a picture, and some basic information on number of players, suggested age range, and so on. <S> This can be useful to determine if it will work well for your group. <S> You then see a description of the game, followed by some places it might be for sale, followed by some additional information. <S> Keep on looking as you go down, you eventually come to the Forums. <S> Click on the "Reviews" link, and you will see a list of all of the reviews for that game. <S> Look through these; they tend to be fairly detailed, explaining the mechanics of the game and how they work. <S> That's not all that BGG has to offer, though. <S> If you keep looking further down the page, you come to the Statistics section. <S> This is where statistics about people's ratings and the game's ranking are collected. <S> One of the links is to "Personal comments. <S> " This will give you a list of many short comments that people have made on the games, organized by their rating. <S> I find this invaluable for getting a quick feel of why some people liked the game, and some didn't; I usually try to check out a few of the comments with a 10 rating, a few with a 7 rating, and a few with lower ratings, to get a sense of how different people see the game. <S> Only a few people leave long, detailed reviews, but there are usually hundreds of people who leave comments. <A> <A> BoardGameGeek has lots of user reviews and ratings of board games. <S> It's a little hard to navigate sometimes, but there's a lot of valuable information there. <A> Dice Tower Reviews goes over a mind-boggling variety of games. <S> They have a great youtube channel worth subscribing too. <S> I'd also suggest Downtime Town for great, ludicrous, and nuanced reviews - the Scottsman who reviews there is a total nut. <S> Sadly, hasn't been updated lately. <A> Board Games with Scott is an excellent review site that provides video reviews of games and attempts to describe whether the game in question is a good match for the type of game you'd like to own. <S> There are quite a few reviews available, but he isn't necessarily going to cover every single game on the market. <S> Scott has been reviewing fewer games lately, but the reviews that continue to come out are always of very high quality. <A> I write for MTV Geek, Wired GeekDad, and The Geek Collective. <S> None of the sites are as comprehensive as BGG (in fact, all of my reviews are cross-posted to their linked items list). <S> You cannot go wrong with BGG <S> but if you really do want other sites, those are great places to check out! <S> MTV Geek <S> The Geek Collective <S> Wired GeekDad <A> There is also a long-running German board game magazine called Spielbox . <S> As of (I think) <S> last year, they are also publishing an English version. <S> I've only received one issue, but it is chalk full of reviews for new games. <S> The translations can be... interesting, but it is quite readable. <S> A VERY interesting resource. <A> I'm a fan of Ogre Cave . <S> They're good, down-to earth guys with an active community of commenters. <S> There's RPG stuff there too, <S> but there's plenty of boardgame reviews too. <A> It's not really an online resource, but Games Magazine does game reviews, too. <S> (board games, video games, etc.). <S> Even if you don't pick up the subscription, in the December issue each year they have a 'best games of the year' feature. <A> Amazon has user reviews for the vast majority of their products, and they also sell board games. <S> Some of the most well-written reviews I've seen for games has been on their Amazon page. <A> The best collection of reviews I have seen are on a site called Games from Pevans . <S> It contains a summary table plus a detailed review. <S> It seems completely impartial and well written with lots of details and pictures.
|
BoardGame Review is a blog that provides useful board game reviews.
|
Restoring worn-out deck of cards. Many board games have a special deck of cards and over time get worn out. When they start to get worn out, they get "sticky" and difficult to shuffle. Is there a way or a product that can be applied to a deck of cards to make them "slippery" again? <Q> You need deck sleeves . <S> They should be available at your local game store, or from any number of online suppliers. <S> They are available in various sizes, so be sure to bring a sample card along while shopping (or measure it precisely before hand). <S> Online you can find lower quality sleeves for around 1 cent apiece in bulk. <S> Higher quality sleeves may cost upwards of 10 cents/sleeve. <S> The higher quality will give you a sleeve that shuffles much easier and can optionally have an opaque back. <S> (An opaque back is desirable if some of your cards are marked or bent due to heavy use). <S> Ultra-Pro and Fantasy Flight are two high quality well known manufacturers to ask for if you want somewhere to start. <A> The stickiness of cards is typically just due one of two things, the surface of the card becoming rough or warped due to actual wear, or the build up of oils from contact with the fingers. <S> In the case of oils, which you can tell thats what it is because the cards still have a reflective surface, you can just use a damp rag (not wet) with soap on it, and give it 2 fast light swipes on each side, making sure to hit the corners and dry it off with a paper towel afterward. <A> There's an easier solution available for those who don't want to invest in new cards or sleeves which might not even match in size: - When cards get sticky, put them in a plastic bag. <S> - Add some baby powder to the plastic bag. <S> - Shake vigorously for 5-10 minutes. <S> - The baby powder (be sure to use the kind made from only the highest quality babies!) will absorb the moisture and oil that has built up on the cards. <S> - Remove cards from bag, wipe individually with a cloth. <S> And that should fix ya!
|
You can also just take a hair dryer to them, in a spray paint motion where you never stop moving the airflow, then wipe them with a dry paper towel immediately. I don't know of any products to return them to slippery state, but most games you can buy replacement parts for through the manufacturer, right down to individual cards that may have been damaged or destroyed.
|
How would you "study" Risk? This question is not about a particular situation in the game, but rather how to study the game in the sense of if I wanted to learn Scrabble, I would spend time focusing on how certain uncommon letters can be used in words of length X or the goals of different strategies. If no one had ever played Risk before, how would we go about learning to evaluate which moves are better for a particular situation? <Q> This is purely off the top of my head, but the following come to mind: <S> Look at paths of contact (eg, you can only get to Australia through Siam) <S> Find "choke points" (building off the contact paths) <S> Note that Continent bonuses are in proportion to not only size, but difficulty in holding/winning them Gameplay <S> can be wildly different with two players instead of 3, 4, 5, or 6 <S> ultimately all games devolve into 2 player games, but knowing how to handle the higher number of players is key to surviving long enough to be in the final pairing <S> The Neutral player in a 2 player game can have some interesting consequences when playing strictly because they are not required to be eliminated to win, you might only attack to gain a Risk card depending on how the cards were dealt, they can be used to your (or the other player's) advantage as a buffer to weaken attacks (or strengthen defense), forcing the attacker to expend more armies to defeat the defender Everything else I can think of come with time and practice: <S> like when to attack / when not to attack for example, if your contact territories are heavily defended, but your non-contact territories only have one or two armies, it may be a Bad Idea™ to attack from there if the enemy territories are moderately-well defended (ie, they could attack back form multiple directions easily against a weakened contact territory and wipe-out the middle of your holdings) <S> when to hold cards / when to turn them in for example, if you know that your opponent must turn his cards in on his next turn (he has 5, and therefore has a set), but you have the option (perhaps you have a set, but you have four cards, and can therefore wait a turn), it may be worthwhile holding yours till after he turns his in to get the next-higher army value from them in my experience, holding your trades <S> only notably impacts the game early on (before the turn-in exceeds 10 armies) <S> etc <S> And don't forget the psychology of the game, too: <S> Some players "want" Africa and will do [almost] anything to get/keep it (for example) Aggressive vs non-aggressive play styles etc <A> The thing that seperates the newbies from the intermediate players in RISK is: KNOW <S> WHEN TO STOP <S> ATTACKING. <S> Essentially, the inexperienced player will look at the board, look at the forces he has, the forces the enemy has, realize that he has enough men to carry the day, and attack. <S> He is, however, looking at the wrong pieces. <S> Instead, a player should look at the forces he has, the forces the enemy has, and then consider how many of his men would survive his planned attack , comparing those pieces to how many men the enemy will have available to retaliate with on his next turn . <S> Its not enough to take territory (except for throwaway attacks for the sake of a Risk Card). <S> One must take the territory with sufficient survivors to hold it next turn. <A> It is helpful to know your odds of winning any given battle over a territory. <S> Doing that involves quite a bit more than just learning the most likely die rolls. <S> This paper from Mathematics Magazine: www4.stat.ncsu.edu/~jaosborn/research/osborne.mathmag.pdf gives some nice charts and tables and an overall pretty readable analysis of win/lose odds, and expected losses. <A> http://www.totaldiplomacy.com/ <S> This is a nice site with more information on Risk strategies than I thought was possible :) <S> I remember spending several hours procrastinating reading over this site. <S> They also sell a book which looks good, though I can't say I've read it.
|
Learn the most likely die rolls
|
With both Seafarers and Cities & Knights expansions, how many victory points should I play to? I've recently gotten Cities & Knights and plan to play it with my existing Seafarers of Catan expansion once I get the hang of it. Looking through the manuals for both Seafarers of Catan and Catan: Cities & Knights, I can't find how many victory point should I play to when combining the expansions. Both expansions can be played together, but it doesn't say how many victory points to play to. I assume since Cities & Knights increases the number of victory points you play on the base settlers map, it would do the same for the Seafarers maps, but I can't find a reference for this. When playing a Seafarers Scenario with Cities & Knights, do you play to the number of victory points for the scenario, or do you increase the number of victory points you play too? <Q> The rules for Seafarers (pdf) do not address combining the two expansions. <S> The rules for Cities and Knights <S> (pdf) <S> do address combining the two games (page 13), warning that only certain scenarios work well, and providing rules for things like how to treat ships as roads and how a knight can chase away the pirate. <S> They do not, however, specify how many victory points to play to. <S> The FAQ on combining the two expansions addresses a few questions, but not the victory point question. <S> According to Daniel Johnson: Also, Klaus Teuber's website has a FAQ at <S> http://www.klausteuber.com/en/index.php?page=seefahrer_staedte_und_ritter.html with a few questions that might not be answered by the Almanac. <S> ... <S> 2. <S> The victory point goal should be 2 more than in the Seafarers scenario. <S> Sadly, the site linked to seems to have been reorganized, and that link just redirects to the home page of catan.com . <S> However, this seems to be the best answer that is available so far; to add two victory points to the conditions listed in the Seafarers scenario. <S> I have never tried this, as I tend to prefer not to combine expansions in games. <S> I find that in general, combining too many expansions makes a game bog down too much. <S> I love Seafarers, and find Cities and Knights nice too, but combining them would just add too many extra things to think about, and too many confusing interactions (like this one) that need to be answered in separate rules, FAQs, and the like. <A> I'm pretty sure there's no official rule, but increasing the victory point target seems basically mandatory if you want the whole game to develop. <A> I have played with both these expansions ever since I started playing. <S> We have always played to 13 victory points and it has worked very well. <A> Some of the links in other answers are obsolete; the re-designed Catan website now has a whole section for combining expansions , including the following under Combining Seafarers with "Cities & Knights" Expansion : <S> The number of victory points specified for each scenario should be increased by 2 .
|
There is a thread on BoardGameGeek about combining the two expansions, in which two separate people mention that the official rule is to add 2 victory points to the Seafarers scenario if you're playing with Cities and Knights.
|
How do you configure the people playing Werewolves to not give each other away? Werewolves, if you're not aware, is a group game played with hidden roles. It's also best played with a fairly large group -- 10, 15 or more. During various stages of the night, people need to do certain things. However, both noise and movement can give certain things away. (Reaching across a table, or walking across a room, to flip a card, etc.) One solution we've come up with is to play very loud music during those times. This helps to mask a lot of the secret play. Unless, however, you're in a very large space, too, you can often feel the person near you move regardless of how loud the music is. So, does anyone have any good ideas to such issues with this game? I realize it's also up to the players to "play fair" -- otherwise there's no point. But you also don't want to be accidentally handed the answer. Thanks! <Q> The table smacking creates enough noise and vibration to mask movements. <S> The only caveat is that people need to remember to keep smacking while they point with the other hand. :) <A> Seat people far enough away so that they can't feel each other move. <S> Either get people on the floor or in individual chairs. <S> If you have kitchen chairs and enough space this can be done. <S> Another option is to have the judge walk around the room and point at people for the werewolves. <S> Their werewolves can nod their heads on who they want their next victim to be. <S> This way the judge is the only one doing the pointing movement. <S> If you have everyone drumming their hands as Todd suggested, you should have a fairly easy way to have the werewolves secretly select victims without giving each other away. <A> The group I regularly play with has a tradition of softly stomping your feet with your heads down. <S> Built into this is the opportunity for misdirection, which is all part of the game. <S> For instance, stopping your stomping when the magician is called to wake up, when you are in fact a werewolf. <S> I completely fell for it once. <S> ONCE. :) <A> You might want to consider that people "giving themselves away" is part of the game, and an important source of clues for others. <S> Advanced players will even sometimes "wrongly" emit noises or make gestures to confuse others into thinking they are what they're not. <S> My policy is that players who draw unwanted attention to themselves, be it werewolves pointing to their next victim, or simply flipping their card for checking what they should have in memory, <S> should suffer the consequences (if their opponents pay attention...). <S> The game is fast enough that this will serve as a lesson for next round. <S> The only player that should care about not giving clues away is the Moderator. <A> One way to exploit this, is that you can move on another turn <S> (for example a wolf can move on the seers turn). <S> But there is a vital role for the game master. <S> I have seen games ruined by adressing the witch as he while there was only male player alive. <S> A good game master messes with several cards if a role has to be shown. <S> Talks in a random direction (not to the player she talks to). <S> And walks around the table touching several players (if they are seated close to eachother). <S> This is a fun part of the game. <S> People give themself away by small hints. <S> And you can take advantage of it. <S> I was once (as a wolf) trusted by another player because I was sitting next to him. <A> We have silent nights. <S> Moderator asks werewolves to open their eyes and all agree on a kill by pointing to a single player. <S> Misc noises can always be heard by people coughing or the dog making noise. <S> You're never really sure if the noise is cause for alarm. <S> Nobody ever gets out of their chair though during this time except for dead people, who can help add noises. <A> Use an ipad ( Curse of Pandora ).
|
I played this recently and the group I played with had established the practice of having everyone repeatedly smack their hand on the table while heads are down during the night phase. I try to take great care not to talk to people directly, sliding the head around all directions while speaking so that it's not easy to triangulate werewolves or the Seer, etc. We always sit in a circle (or circle-ish) so the moderator can stand in the middle and twirl to see everyones eyes.
|
How does Infect interact with Lifelink? When a creature with Infect and Lifelink puts poison counters on a player, does the controlling player gain life? Do all abilities that trigger on combat damage still occur? A link to an official ruling would be helpful. <Q> Yes, the creature's controller will gain life. <S> Infect and Lifelink are both abilities that modify how damage is dealt. <S> They're not exclusive in any way; they just mean that the damage dealt has some effects different to what damage normally does. <S> They can happily coexist. <S> 119.3b <S> Damage dealt to a player by a source with infect causes that player to get that many poison counters. <S> ... <S> 119.3f Damage dealt by a source with lifelink <S> causes that source's controller to gain that much life, in addition to the damage's other results. <S> The damage is still damage in every way. <S> So it'll still trigger an Ophidian Eye , get doubled by Furnace of Rath , get prevented by Samite Healer and so on. <S> The Scars of Mirrodin <S> FAQ document says: Damage from a source with infect is damage in all respects. <S> If the source with infect also has lifelink, damage dealt by that source also causes its controller to gain that much life. <S> Damage from a source with infect can be prevented or redirected. <S> Abilities that trigger on damage being dealt will trigger if a source with infect deals damage, if appropriate. <A> Creatures with Infect still deal damage, so all abilities that trigger* (such as Lifelink) still function. <S> This is a natural consequence of rule <S> 119.3b and 119.3d (and others, like 702.87x, omitted here) <S> Damage dealt to a player by a source with infect causes <S> that player to get that many poison counters. <S> and Damage dealt to a creature by a source with wither and/or infect causes that many -1/-1 counters to be put on that creature. <S> (Source) <S> Note that both Infect and Lifelink occur as a consequence of damage being dealt, thus it follows that any other damage triggered* <S> ability would also occur. <S> * <S> As AlexC points out, the actually phrase "trigger" can be tricky. <S> Think "caused to happen, through any of MTG's myriad rules." <A> Yes to both.
|
The FAQ for Scars of Mirrodin states that creatures with infect deal damage to players in the form of poison counters; that's still dealing damage, so lifelink and other abilities that trigger on combat damage take place as normal.
|
What is a "dead hand"? This book states that "If a claimed tile is not taken within the next two opponents’ turns, i.e. before another two discards has been made, the player has a dead hand." What is a dead hand, and how does it affect the game? <Q> "Dead hand" has a few different meanings. <S> It's hard to tell just from that one sentence, but it sounds like the one you're describing is the case where somebody forgets to take a tile, so their hand ends up short tiles <S> (it's also a dead hand if the player forgets to discard and thus has too many tiles). <S> A dead hand cannot be used to win the round, but the player still takes their turns as normal until the round ends. <S> "Dead hand" also sometimes refers to a declared mahjong that turns out to be invalid (like above, that player cannot win anymore, and play continues), or a round where all tiles are drawn from the wall and nobody makes mahjong, but neither seems to be what you're referring to in this case <A> The term "dead hand" is maybe ambiguous. <S> The certainly most common use is for hands that may no further participate in the game due to a critical, usually accidental, mistake. <S> This is related, but not identical to chombo (a usually intentional mistake by a player that ends the round and forces the offender to pay mangan). <S> The OP was referring to MCR rules. <S> I am not very familiar with MCR, but to gain a basic understanding of the term, let me refer you to these ( simplified ) rules for dead hands in riichi mahjong: <S> The following actions result in a dead hand: Looking at the tiles in an opponents hand or the dead wall. <S> Drawing a tile before the opponent before you has discarded, or drawing in any inappropriate way. <S> Making an invalid CHI, PON or KAN or declaring one invalidly. <S> This includes KUIGAE. <S> A hand is dead immediately after any of the above conditions are noticed. <S> A player with a dead hand may not declare CHI PON KAN or a win. <S> A player with a dead hand is considered NOTEN, even if his hand is TENPAI. <S> I have <S> found one other use of the term "dead hand", but I have never seen this elsewhere: <S> A hand in which no one completes a winning hand before all tiles except the Dead Wall have been drawn. <S> The round ends then with no winner. <A> The case I’m thinking of is a hand that was complete except it was missing one pair. <S> All four of the needed tiles were out. <S> Because it was for a pair <S> and I didn’t have even one of the two, my hand was “dead”. <S> If I had one, I could claim a discarded one even though it was for a pair because you can call for the second tile in a pair if it’s for mah jong <S> but I didn’t have any and the game was nearly over. <S> I was taught that you can declare a dead hand and let the game continue three handed, without you. <S> Is there a rule about this ?
|
What I call a dead hand is one where there is no possibility of winning.
|
Can Expansion Combining "Break" the Game? There are a lot of different Carcassonne expansions available and I'm curious if anyone has any insight in to telling if combining them may break game play? Recently we've been using Inns & Cathedrals with Cult, Siege and Creativity . It seems to have drastically changed the balance so that it's very dangerous to try and build a city of any size. Most cities end up being 2-3 tiles, putting a ton of them in the field. Sieged cities make being a farmer even more attractive. Last game, every big meeple was a farmer and three players had 5 meeples each in one large field. Is there any general advice on combining expansions? Are we just experiencing different game play thanks to different tiles? <Q> In my opinion you can combine any of the expansions (except possible the Catapult ) together to make a decent new game. <S> In fact we often combine different parts of different expansions if we want to avoid having too many rules. <S> We might play with the inns, pigs and mayors for instance. <S> Also we sometimes want a longer game but without too many extra rules. <S> For example, by playing with Traders and Builders we get a lot of extra tile shapes, which can be very satisfying if you like to fill in holes, but we might agree before the game that we won't use the resources associated with those tiles. <S> One expansion which we never use alone is the Princess and Dragon . <S> We like to play with the dragon on a large board, as this helps to encourage more long-term strategies. <S> For example on a small board (with the dragon) you are unlikely to risk making a large city, or placing a farmer early. <S> If the board is bigger then the dragon is less likely to come near your meeples, so there is a bit more margin for prospective play. <S> In your example it sounds like you are using a sensible number of rules. <S> If you're not a fan of small cities then you could maybe try playing without the siege tiles? <S> However at this stage it becomes a question of personal taste. <A> I have played with Inns & Cathedrals, Builders & Traders, Princess & Dragon, Tower, and River all in play simultaneously. <S> It didn't break the game, but neither was it really more fun in any way - it got very bogged down in mechanics. <S> Pick your favorites and combine 'em! <A> My only caution is that the additional expansions begin to greatly increase the amount of time the game takes to play. <S> I always found part of the enjoyment of Carcassonne was that it was quick and satisfying. <S> When you add on two or three expansions the game begins to get really long and the interest of the parties can start to fade. <A> I find that the additional mechanics of the expansions rarely combine constructively. <S> I will play any of the expansions alone, and many of them in pairs, but usually decline a game that uses three or more because of the sort of undesirable consequences you describe. <A> Each expansion give a independent set of rules. <S> It's complete safe to combine expansions. <S> Even fan made expansions provide an independet set of rules. <A> The only way it breaks the game is each expansion's impact on the score becomes less as you add more expansions. <S> Except for king and scout that scales exponentially as more expansions are added. <A> The Big Box versions <S> (there are five total) of Carcassonne <S> come with extra rules just to explain the interactions between each expansion contained within. <S> There's even a popular name for combining all expansions in one game: Mega-Carcassonne . <S> To accommodate for all these expansions in a single Mega-game, the player base from BoardGameGeek has assembled all BigBox rules, as well as any official publications by Hans <S> im Glueck and Rio Grande games into a single rulebook, called the Carcassonne Standard Complete Annotated Rules . <S> Be warned, it's currently at a staggering 339 pages.
|
There's no way to break the game by combining expansions, so feel free to combine any and all of them.
|
How important is memorizing chess openings in casual play? I've played chess since I was kid and after much practice have become a decent player. I still though, have little strategy to my opening moves besides starting with a King's Pawn Game . I know professional players and grandmasters have a large repertoire of openings they know. They also know a large number of responses to those openings. How important is knowing different openings when playing chess casually? <Q> Its far better to thoroughly understand a small number of openings than it is to mindlessly memorize a large number of openings. <S> Frequently, if you know why a set of moves is considered optimal, then you're in a better position to adapt once the board gets "off the opening". <S> Now frequently, there's a good reason why that move is not covered by your opening chart; <S> that move may be terrible. <S> But if you don't understand why that move is terrible, then you may not be able to take advantage of it, and if the other player improvises better/faster than you, you may find yourself at a disadvantage despite your 'superior' play to this point in time. <S> Don't let that happen to you. <A> 1000x more important (and more fun!) <S> than even studying theory is.. improving your tactics! <S> The best place I know for this is chesstempo.com . <S> You can easily get up to <S> 1700~1900 USCF never learning any theory at all (casual players are usually 800~1400 ) , and I've even met a few players over 2000 (master level) who have never studied any theory! <S> However, if you insist on studying theory, learn the barebone basics, then study endgames - knowing an opening might give you a slight theoretical edge going into the middlegame, but knowing an endgame could mean the difference between winning and drawing/losing . <S> Remember, the winner is the person who makes the second-to-last mistake! <A> For casual play, I don't think memorizing chess openings is all that important. <S> However, studying and understanding why some counter-moves are appropriate for this or that opening may prove quite useful. <A> Chess openings are very important if you are interested in winning games, as they are sets of moves that help develop your pieces quickly and gain some control of the centre of the board. <S> Having a grasp of an opening sequence that your opponent doesn't know should give you an edge in the early game that you may be able to turn into a clear lead during the middle game. <S> On the other hand, if you are playing against an opponent who doesn't know the opening then you may quickly find yourself in an unexpected position - so try to concentrate on learning a shallow amount of an opening. <S> Finally the other thing to say is that some openings are a must know. <S> See for example scholar's mate! <A> Opening memorization is not important at all, especially to casual play, and shouldn't be the focus of study time for serious players, either, even up to around expert/master level. <S> For casual play, you should instead follow basic opening principles: put a pawn or two in the center, move all your pieces once before moving any piece twice (unless there's a tactic), castle. <S> For serious players, it's worth playing a few openings and learning them well, slowly building your mental tree of opening variations game by game, by playing a game and looking up the official lines afterwards, to see where you diverged. <S> I once spoke with a well known local expert player, who confided to me that he wished he could "get all those years back" that he spent studying openings. <S> I asked "what would you study instead?" <S> He instantly responded: "tactics and endgames." <S> He usually played unorthodox gambit openings and almost always built a great attack with the initiative. <A> You don't need to memorise every opening move and variation to be able to play it - not for casual play at least. <S> It's better to just play and get a feel of the different characters that varied first moves and common responses can give a game. <S> You may find you enjoy losing games trying to crack a c4 first move more than winning with a King's Pawn game, and you'll learn to understand the opening better than you ever will by memorising the first X moves. <S> And let's face it, for most of us the game isn't won or lost in the first few moves; there are plenty more opportunities for middle and end-game blunders. <S> A world of experimentation and catastrophic strategic mistakes awaits! <A> In casual play, it's not necessary to memorize openings. <S> Because your "casual" (by definition) opponent won't know them. <S> It's much more important to know tactics, and to "read" the opponent's moves. <S> If s/he departs from the "book," its usually to that player's detriment. <S> Occasionally he'll stumble on an alternate variation, rarely find a new line. <S> Figure out why your opponent's moves are (probably) wrong, and take advantage of that fact.
|
However, if you have a wide set of openings memorized, you may find that while you are moving down your 'optimal opening', ready to transition to a strong midgame, your opponent may have other plans, and make a move that takes him off your chosen opening.
|
Is there a viable corn-only strategy for Puerto Rico? In the last Puerto Rico game I played I wound up with all corn. I tried to make this work with the following strategy: Office + large market + small market for income Harbor + wharf to ship all my corn for maximum points This didn't work as well as I had hoped. In particular, even with the markets my income was lower than any other players, so it took me a long time to build the other buildings I needed for this strategy. I didn't get the large building I wanted, and I never occupied it. At the end of the game I did have the most point chips of any player, but the other players more than made up for it with their large buildings and other bonuses. Is there an alternate strategy that would make all-corn a viable route to victory? <Q> With most games of this type, the key to winning is balance. <S> My Puerto Rico strategy is to think of the game in 3 equal strategic phases Phase 1 - get money Phase 2 - get money/VPs Phase 3 - get VPs <S> You can make a corn only strategy work, but only if you are playing against below-par players. <S> But to get money in phase 1, corn doesn't really help you. <S> To be able to make victory points in phase 2 and 3, a corn only strategy really stops you from preventing your opponents from shipping. <S> Whilst a Wharf will help you, it will not be enough to win in most cases. <S> If you are playing against solid players, balance is the only option. <S> I try to have 3 to 4 different goods being brought in, which gives great options for shipping and selling. <A> In your example, you spent 12 coin on the office, large market and small market, and you will be trading for three coin each time. <S> You could have bought a coffee roaster and tobacco storage for less (11 coin), and be selling those for four and three respectively. <S> Even worse, if your opponents are even of average strength, they will never choose captain, and rarely choose craftsman. <S> You will rarely benefit from their choices. <S> Plus, you will probably have to waste several turns calling settler, to ensure that you get corn whenever it is the only one available. <S> Your opponents will be able to play more opportunistically, mixing up their choices and collecting all of the bonus coins. <S> You are forced to make decisions solely on the basis of how much it helps you, while your opponents will be able to make decisions based on how much it helps them AND how much it hurts their opponents. <A> I think that in general Codemwnci's answer is a good one (+1), but I think the one thing missing from the discussion is that the game length in Puerto Rico is variable. <S> If you are playing with only corn, but other people are also aiming to ship large quantities of goods then the game may end earlier than usual due to lack of VP chips. <S> One way to try to improve your chances is to encourage others to invest in shippable goods, and also the other wharf/harbour. <S> Sidenote: Whenever someone seems to be going for an all out corn strategy I feel obligated to quote Teen Girl Squad <S> - "It's Corn and Corn Alone Day!" . <S> In my experience this starts to get thin on the third repetition. <A> Corn is a tempting commodity, because it is cheap to produce, meaning that you can get off to a fast start. <S> That said, it is easy to fall behind with a corn ONLY strategy, because of its lack of synergy with certain other parts of the game. <S> For instance, corn is the only commodity that can't be upgraded to a finished product, meaning that you can't get the extra money, at a time (early game) when money might be important. <S> Also, as you found in your game, it doesn't always co-ordinate so well with other aspects of the game such as building. <S> "Corn only," may beat unskilled players using a similarly naive strategy. <S> But more advanced players will devise building/shipping/captaining strategies that will defeat your "corn only" play. <S> In general, an "X-only" strategy is a bad idea in ANY game, even if "X" is a good thing. <S> For instance, in poker, its a good idea to USUALLY have good cards when you bet. <S> But if you NEVER bet with a bad or mediocre hand, your opponents will save too much money by "folding" mediocre hands when you bet. <S> If you bet the occasional mediocre hand, and bluff with "nothing," one of two things will happen: 1) You will "steal" some extra hands that you wouldn't win in a showdown, or 2) You will get "caught bluffing" in a showdown, and having seen this happen once, people will "pay you off" more often when you bet a good hand.
|
A corn-heavy strategy can be a good one, but corn-only is vastly inferior. To win, you'll need to "mix it up" with other commodities, and/or buildings.
|
Do great Scrabble players ever turn in their tiles? Presumably you would trade in tiles if you thought you would get in one turn, after trading, more than what you'll get in the next two turns without trading. But then, maybe you should make defensive plays even in some of those situations? <Q> Yes, most definitely. <S> A good write up on exchange strategy can be found in Joe Edley's book Everything <S> Scrabble , pg. <S> 89 and following. <S> Tournament players do exchange significantly less than they did when Everything Scrabble was first written, since the recent (well, not that recent any more, 2006) addition of QI and ZA to the official Scrabble lexicon have made moves like exchanging only Q less favorable statistically. <S> However, good players will also know when it is right to "fish," that is, make a nearly worthless play to get rid of certain tiles in order to greatly increase their probability of bingoing on the next turn. <S> A great way to get some idea of the frequency with which championship players exchange is to look at some of the games from board 1 of the most recent National Scrabble Championships; all of the games are online in turn by turn form here . <S> Many of the words in these games will be unfamiliar, but if you want an idea of what great Scrabble players do, that would be the best place to start. <S> Also, you should note that the best frequency with which players should exchange is going to depend on how large Scrabble word knowledge is (which is almost completely unrelated to your vocabulary). <S> In other words, based on the words that <S> you know, how soon will you be able to turn your rack into a bingo rack? <S> If you can't see yourself doing that in the next two or three turns assuming average draws, then you should probably exchange. <S> For instance, if your opening rack is AEINQST , your best play by far is exch Q . <S> Doing so will give you a 95.7% chance of having a bingo on your rack the next turn, and probably even greater than that of bingoing, depending on what your opponent plays. <A> It's definitely situational, and I wouldn't call myself "great", but I have traded in tiles before, for a number of reasons -- <S> I'm behind, and I have a hand full of either all vowels or all consonants (usually all consonants) <S> I'm one letter away from a bingo, and I've calculated that I have a good chance of drawing that letter. <S> For me, using or blocking a triple-word-score tile trumps swapping in tiles, but if I have a really bad hand, swapping tiles is always an option, especially if I can't block the triple-word or worse, even use low-point tiles on it. <S> From the tournament reports I have read (or the article "830! <S> How a carpenter got the highest Scrabble score ever" , trading in tiles is a not-uncommon occurrence if you think you can get a better word out of it, especially a bingo. <S> In fact, according to the article: Cresta then traded in all seven of his tiles in the hope of getting more-playable letters, not an unusual move. <A> Something that no other answer seems to have touched upon, that I feel like is worth mentioning, is that playing tiles moves the game closer to its conclusion, whereas swapping tiles slows down the progress of the game. <S> Playing a six-letter word like EUOUAE for fewer than 10 points may just be inferior than swapping them, if your opponent is ahead and you need to catch up. <S> An additional thought that arises naturally from this, is that if you're worried about your opponent scoring a bingo against you and gaining an unassailable lead, it may be better to leave a tightly-locked-up board as it is while you sculpt your hand. <S> Opening things up with a mediocre move that doesn't do much for your score, but gives your opponent room to play out his rank, could prove a serious tactical error. <A> Read <S> some of the books - Word Freak is a fun one. <S> If you aren't going for bingos, you should be - if you can't get play the tiles in your hand that are keeping from getting a bingo, dump 'em. <A> An important thing to consider in Scrabble, and one not often thought of in beginner play, is the value of the tiles left in your hand. <S> Playing one letter and getting 4 points, while leaving TISANE in your hand is worth much more than playing neat for 12 points and leaving a random tile, and IS. <S> That is because the leave value of TISANE (which leads to the most number of bingo draws) is enormous. <S> Similarly, and getting to your question, if you could play one tile for 10 points, but get stuck with QKGHLV, the proper play would be to trade out most, if not all of your tiles. <S> (If you have a vowel, keeping the L or the H might be fine). <S> So if the value of your play is less than the negative value of your hand, then trading is a better option than playing.
|
Yes, you bet. The other time to exchange is if any legal play would make your rack worse.
|
What games are suitable for a large number of people with only a pack of playing cards? What card games work well with a large number of players (say 6+ players) and only require a standard pack of playing cards? I'm particularly interested in games where the rules can be explained fairly quickly, but there is still a reasonable level of tactics. Also it would be preferable if the game can be played in a single room. One game per answer please. <Q> I find the rules given by Wikipedia to be confusing, though, and found a better set here at eHow . <S> (Note that both of these rulesets differ slightly from the version I'm familiar with, as there are endless variants of most of these games.) <A> Eleusis This is one of my favourite card games. <S> You have to use inductive reasoning to figure out the dealer's secret rule. <S> It's actually better with a large group because you learn more from other players' mistakes while waiting for your turn to come around. <S> It can be a bit intimidating for new players, so you might want to start with a small group playing Eleusis Express to get the hang of it. <A> == <S> Wolves <S> Hearts 2-9 == <S> Villagers Jack of clubs <S> == <S> Hunter Jack of diamonds == <S> Thief Queen of hearts == <S> Cupid Queen of spades == <S> Witch King of diamonds = <S> = <S> Seer Ace of Spades == <S> Mayor marker <A> Many poker variants, including the very popular Texas Hold'em , can support a large number of players. <S> In Texas Hold'em, each player is dealt only two cards of their own, there are 5 community cards, and 3 burn cards, meaning that you could in theory support 22 players if you deal out all of the cards, though generally you play with 10 or fewer players on a table, maybe up to 12 or so. <S> It does require something to bet with—chips, pennies, stones, dried beans, or any other form of counter—so it can't be played with just a deck of cards, but usually it's pretty easy to find some kind of betting counters. <S> If you don't like gambling, you can play it as a tournament, in which each person gets a fixed number of chips and the last player left with chips wins. <A> You can find lists of card games for different numbers of players at pagat.com . <S> In particular, Looking for Friends (找朋友) looks interesting, though I haven't tried it. <S> It's described as a trick-taking game that works well with large groups. <A> Mao can work well with large numbers of players, or you can open a few more decks and get several different games going in the same room. <S> It's also an intriguing game to watch, for those who don't understand how to play. <A> Hearts (yes, similar to the Microsoft game) works surprisingly well with 8 people and 2 packs: I've not tried with more, but there's no theoretical reason why not . <S> Racing Demon (one pack per person) is also good, if a little raucous with high numbers. <A> Creights is a very engaging, Uno-like party game played with a standard deck. <S> It is about 70% luck and 30% skill, in my estimation. <S> It scales easily to about 7-8 players, but requires two decks shuffled together with 5/6+ players. <S> It doesn't require those two decks to have the same backs, but make sure to remove a couple of 5s from the deck if you play with two decks. <A> Liar is simple, requires some tactics to have a chance to win and can be played by all ages.
|
If you have enough players (8+) you can play werewolf with playing cards: Clubs 2-9 The best large-group card game that I know of is Up and Down the River , which Wikipedia knows as Oh, Hell .
|
Carcassonne -- problem telling the difference between the Big Meeple and regular Meeples In our gaming group, we have a very hard time picking out the Big Meeple from the other Meeples on the board. While the Big Meeple certainly is bigger than the others, it's not by a significant factor, and most of our group (epsecially me) just can't tell it apart from other Meeples on the board. It has gotten to the point where we have implemented a house rule that when you play the Big Meeple, you must state you are playing it, and if someone asks where your Big Meeple is, you need to point it out. Still, it's easy to loose track of, in my opinion. Has anyone else experienced this? Have you implemented a similar house rule? Have you altered your Big Meeple (painting on it, drawing a smiley face on it, etc.) to help identify it? Or are we all just seriously visually impaired? <Q> I've mentally lost track of big meeples before, so I don't see a problem with visually altering it to make it stand out. <S> Perhaps you could borrow a hat from a set of Legos? <S> Honestly, I'm more surprised that your gaming group is cutthroat enough to need a rule to force people to announce when using big meeples. <S> Carcassonne is a game of perfect information (other than tile draws). <S> You should always be able to ask where something is. <A> You are not visually impaired. <S> Telling at a glance whether one thing is bigger than another, when they are not immediately next to each other, can be fairly difficult. <S> I have never played Carcassonne with the big meeple, but I've noticed this problem in other games, such as distinguishing medium and large Icehouse pieces in certain circumstances. <S> My solution would be to alter the big meeple in some way. <S> Paint its head, glue a helmet or coronet onto it, or something of the sort. <S> That will make it stand out a lot more than size alone, and be a lot more convenient than a house rule requiring it to be announced. <A> SpeilMaterial has a lot of options if painting the head in silver or something isn't enough Cowboys (might have to paint yourself) & dwarfs for example. <A> I never thought of this as a problem, but always as a deliberate feature - sometimes it's possible to slip a Big Meeple into a city without drawing attention to it. <S> " <S> Okay, so I finish the city <S> and I get the points, because I have two workers to your one." <S> "Actually... you might want to look at my guy again... <S> " <S> I'm aware that some groups' sense of fairness will result in a lynching if anyone tries to pull off something as "underhand" as this, but still, I'm pretty sure the Big Meeple is close in size to his smaller brethren as by a deliberate design choice. <A> <A> I have this problem too. <S> Placing the meeple on its back (rather than standing up) doesn't work for us because we use that for farmers (to resolve ambiguity with adjacent placements like roads). <S> If you don't mind permanent alterations, several suggestions have already been made. <S> If you want your changes to be more temporary, consider a bit of tape of a contrasting color on the front and back. <S> Duct tape comes in small rolls in all sorts of colors these days, and even though duct tape is sticky, it can be scrubbed off of a polished wooden surface like the meeples. <S> Alternatively, you could replace the big meeples with similarly-colored pieces from a different game, like the pawns from Pandemic.
|
I would suggest that if you wanted to do something simple to make the big meeple stand out, that doesn't cost a thing, juts make a house rule to play it on it's head or some other similarly different position.
|
What are good strategies involving Remodel? A basic strategy of using Remodel to upgrade Estates to Remodels, Remodels to Gold, and using Gold to buy or upgrade to Provinces is a powerful but slow strategy, so I haven't been able to win with it. Are there circumstances in which you would use a Remodel-heavy strategy? Assume there are no Curses. How would it work? <Q> Be Ruthless! <S> This is basically an extension of the strategy of trashing all your lame cards presented here . <S> Don't limit yourself to only remodeling Coppers and Remodels. <S> Be ruthless about it: if you get a Remodel in your hand, play it, even if it means passing up other actions, and even if it means you won't get to buy anything. <S> This will keep your deck small and powerful. <S> And, as Powerlord pointed out, this applies to Expand as well, and I'd throw Upgrade into the same box. <S> If Workshop happens to be around, it can speed up the process. <A> In my experience, heavy use of Remodel works best in conjunction with another strategy; you can't usually rely on it exclusively, but it can give you a strong boost. <S> Get into the Remodel game early and aggressively (especially when no other trashing options exist). <S> Most importantly, learn to recognize when other strategies are more powerful than Remodel, and don't be afraid to only buy one and use it only moderately when that's the case. <S> Remodeling from Coppers and Estates all the way up to Provinces takes a long time, so find a way to buy or gain a lot of Golds through other means, and then use Remodel to bump them to Provinces. <S> Near the end game, you can be especially aggressive with dumping your Golds, even when it drops your coin in hand down and limits your purchase to a Duchy. <S> It's also beneficial to combine it with attacks to slow your opponents down enough to let your Remodel strategy come to fruition. <A> Remodel has 2 major uses, both of which apply games of all very strong players. <S> 2: in the late game, remodel is used on gold's and nobles to get provinces. <S> This will very often swing the game if your opponents do not take remodel at the correct time, and you do. <A> Remodel is especially useful in games without + <S> Buy, allowing you to make an end-game Victory point purchase as well as a remodel. <S> This can often swing close games to your favor. <S> I'm a big fan of incorporating Remodel into my strategy <S> and I buy them (and cards like it) early and often. <S> Great card!! <A> I'm not sure why you're discounting Curses here, but... Remodel can be used to turn a Copper/Curse into any 2-cost card. <S> If you played a Bridge first, you can turn a Copper/Curse into any 3-cost card (because they now cost 2, and a card's cost cannot go below 0). <S> Remodel can also be used regain cards lost to Saboteur or Swindler. <S> The strategies presented here also apply to the Prosperity card Expand, but for 3 more. <A> Remodel is great for turning Gold (3 Treasure, Cost 6) into Provinces (6 VPs, Cost 8,) which can quickly get you tons of points and force a game end. <S> This works especially well with Mine (which is in the "basic" set of cards,) Adventurer , and any card(s) which give +2 actions. <S> Play your +2 actions card(s) <S> If needed, use Adventurer to get Treasure cards (hopefully Copper/Silver) into your hand <S> Use Mine(s) to upgrade treasure cards Remodel Gold - <S> > <S> Province <S> You will also have lots of Gold in your hand following this strategy, so it may be possible to simply buy Provinces outright. <S> This build can also be done without Adventurer, but you will want to build a small deck focusing on treasure, +card cards, and +action cards.
|
1: in the early game, if there are no other better cards to take on turns 1/2 like baron/militia/smithy, then remodel can be a great pick because it let's you trash those estates.
|
Without breaking the game, how can I fix Memoir 44's problem with having no cards to order units in a certain section? I find Memoir 44 very interesting and exciting, but it seems everyone I introduce it to has the same gripe. They (and I) don't like having a unit getting pummeled by the opposing force without being able to fight back. It doesn't fit in with the game's realistic/historical feel, and/or it weakens the game's element of strategy. I'm not sure how to fix this issue with a rule modification without undermining some of the basic elements of the game like the luck of the draw. <Q> It sure is frustrating when this happens to one or more sections of an army, I agree. <S> I wonder though, if it would actually decrease historical realism if it was somehow removed or mitigated. <S> The lack of order cards in a certain section could be analogous to: <S> The commander losing radio contact with his troops. <S> He is then unable to tell them when or where to fight back. <S> A unit experiencing mechanical difficulties and is unable to move or return fire. <S> A unit having run out of ammunition. <A> BattleLore, which also uses the Command and Colors system, has a "battle back" rule. <S> Perhaps the rule could be adapted like so: <S> Fight Back <S> When an Infantry or Armor unit is attacked in close combat, a player may choose to have the attacked unit Fight Back if it did not retreat and was not eliminated. <S> Armor units, however, may not Fight Back if the attacking unit is Infantry. <S> To Fight Back, roll the appropriate number of dice, checking for unit, terrain, and other effects. <S> Resolve combat as usual. <S> A unit that Fights Back may not Take Ground or Armor Overrun afterward even if the attacking unit retreats or is eliminated. <S> Only one round of fighting back may occur per attack order (e.g., the attacking unit can't "fight back" after having attacked, even if the target fights back). <S> A unit may, however, fight back more than once in a turn if it is attacked by multiple units in close combat (once for each unit that attacked it in close combat). <S> The Fight Back tactic may neither be used against or by Aircraft. <S> Air Checks are resolved as usual. <S> It seems reasonable to eliminate the restriction preventing a unit from fighting back unless it has a friendly unit adjacent to it (one example of "bold" morale in BattleLore) because close combat is much less common in Memoir 44 than the equivalent in BattleLore. <S> It also seems realistic. <S> Units would not always shoot back when taking fire from the enemy (e.g., seeking to gain ground, keeping cover, pinned down, saving ammo, or orders). <S> However, when in close combat, it becomes fight-or-die and (depending on the scale of distance represented by a hex) ammo becomes less of a question (knives, bayonets, fistfights, or picking up ammo from fallen soldiers). <S> Tanks would have a much more difficult time fighting back when attacked by soldiers, and artillery would be difficult to aim quickly and safely enough in the duress of close combat. <A> I personally like this element of the game. <S> If you know your opponent doesn't have cards for a section then pounce on it. <S> Also changing these rules would take away from the historical advantage/disadvantage of sides in terms of number of commands cards. <S> Here are a couple of ideas I could come up with: <S> Play a card and instead of doing what the card says, activate one unit in the section of your choice Do not play a card and have a rule saying you can activate one unit in the section of your choice. <S> Have a rule where you can play any card or no card and instead of doing what the card says allow 1 or 2 units to a section of your choice to retreat 1 or 2 spots to a more defensive position and not allow any forward movement or attacking.
|
Have a rule where you can skip your turn and instead discard and replace any number of command cards of your choice.
|
How can I get my heavy card stock game board to lie flat? I have a game board made of heavy card stock that doesn't lie flat at the creases, and the sections bow a little. Is there a way to keep it lying flat? Maybe a way to mount it? The board is from Commands & Colors: Ancients . <Q> From the discussion about protecting board sufaces comes the idea of placing a sheet of Plexiglas on top of your board. <S> That just might have enough weight to push it down. <S> If it doesn't you'll still have a flat albeit slightly tilted surface. <A> I've always just overbent the board at the creases, and it usually helps it lay flatter. <A> The simple answer is corrugated cardboard. <S> Cheap and effective, but it looks bad from one end. <A> You could try adhering the card stock to modeling plywood (the <1/8" variety) to add rigidity, but keep the board from being too thick. <A> Foam core board and spray adhesive <S> I had a similar problem. <S> The board in my case wasn't creased, but it was printed on flimsy card stock. <S> The board was black <S> so I bought a sheet of black foam core from a hobby store (Michaels in my case, but they carry it at Target, Staples, and many others). <S> I sprayed the back of the game board with some spray adhesive and glued it to the foam core board. <S> You can either cut the foam board to size before gluing or after. <S> I cut it before and it seemed to work okay, although it made lining up the board during gluing pretty critical and difficult. <S> You have several options about how to mount it: If you cut the foam board to full-size obviously you won't be able to fit the board in the original box. <S> Perhaps you don't care; or it could be a deal-breaker. <S> If you don't care, this is the best option as it will take the most wear. <S> You could cut the board at the seam (leaving you with two mounted boards that will lie flat but won't be connected). <S> You could leave the board uncut but cut two pieces of foam and glue them to each side of the crease. <S> This will enable the board to fold in on itself and the two halves will be connected by the crease. <S> Similar to above, you could try and cut through only the foam core backing and the foam, but not cut through the facing sheet that you intend to glue to. <S> This would supply one more layer of paper connecting the halves besides the game board itself.
|
Another option is to find a larger board from another game and glue your board to it, trimming the edges of the board and re-wrapping them with paper tape. I found a sharp Exacto knife was the best way to cut the board.
|
What is the best first development to purchase in Roll Through the Ages? Played my first 4 player game of Roll Through the Ages official last night. I've played the solo game quite a bit but I quickly discovered that the multiplayer game plays a bit differently! What development should be purchased first and why? <Q> @invisiblejon -The Late Bronze Age was developed months after the game as sold in the box. <S> I added some additional developments for those gamers looking for something meatier. <S> (The publisher didn't water anything down.) <S> ... <S> and I like Irrigation as a first purchase too! <A> First off, I'm assuming you're playing The Late Bronze Age version (which is far superior to the game as sold off-the shelf <S> – It's very clear that The Late Bronze Age version of the game is what was originally presented to the publishers, and they felt the need to "simplify" it to reach a wider audience by removing several really nifty mechanics). <S> Given that, Irrigation is the simplest first pick, although Leadership can be almost as good, if you're a little lucky and use it well. <S> If you can leapfrog to Quarrying , that's a great start <S> (it'll help you buy better advancements, and it combos very well with Engineering and Architecture later in the game). <S> If you're playing with three or four players, get Medicine <S> ASAP. <S> It will save you at least 3 points in penalties. <S> ... <S> and that's my 2 cents. <A> <A> I start off with Quarrying if possible. <S> It can rack up a lot of money towards developments. <S> Even if you only get an extra "bump" per turn (as opposed to one extra "bump" moving on the Stone track, when you acquire up 7+ goods), it's still a good chunk of money. <S> When you or other players roll more Empire Dice, then get some protection against, those Disasters.
|
In my games, I almost always purchase Irrigation first, because Drought can be really devastating to your score and Irrigation provides some defense against the fact that you can't reroll skulls in multiplayer.
|
What's a good table-topping material for tile-based games? On my polished wood table any disturbance (and I have kids, so you can imagine the disturbances...) can shift tiles around, which I then feel compelled to try to adjust to be flush with those around them. I want to get a mat to fix this, and was wondering if anyone has had experience doing this, and can offer advice. Thanks! <Q> Felt. <S> A thousand casinos can't be wrong. <S> Padded felt also makes it easier to pick cards/chits up off the table. <A> You could try some no-slip shelf liner (the kind you use for kitchen cabinets). <S> They're sold by the roll at various department stores, fairly cheaply. <S> They lay flat and can be cut into whatever shape you need. <S> If you can, I would splurge and err on the side of using a heavier-duty liner. <S> The cheap stuff is probably little better than a tablecloth. <S> For Carcassonne specifically, you'll want to make sure you cover as much of the table as is practical. <S> You probably don't want to artificially constrain the game if your no-slip surface isn't big enough. <A> At worst, your entire island will shift, instead of individual hexes. <S> I just picked it up recently from my local game store after seeing our island moved one too many times. <S> For other tile-based games, I would suggest a tablecloth like Egg of P'an Ku suggested, or a large piece of fabric (or felt) that you can get at a craft store -- you don't want any fabric to be TOO slippery, though. <S> You can even go one step further and get those no-slip rubber mats for rugs to place between the table and the tablecloth. <S> The only downside to that I could see is the tablecloth may occasionally get bunched up. <A> It was quite a bit of work to construct, but we made a mat to play games on that was baize on one side and leatherette on the other. <S> It's really nice playing card and board games on the baize surface - it's easy to pick up cards and tokens, as if from a slightly squishy card table. <S> The leatherette underside is heavy enough to keep it in place, and easy to clean if you discover afterwards that the table wasn't as clean as you thought. <S> I made an instructable showing how we made this. <S> It'd be nice to know of places that sell something like this. <A> For Settlers of Catan, a sheet of acrylic or pane of glass over the board can work wonders! <S> I have used both a pane of glass and a sheet of plexiglass. <S> The two are roughly equivalent to play on. <S> Pieces slide around a little bit easier, but not so much as to become a nuisance. <S> I prefer glass for its superior durability, but I have been using plexiglass at home for quite a while <S> and it works just fine. <A> I just took one of my old Bridge tables and is using that for most games, it works great as long as we're 4 players. <S> I also have a fairly cheap 8-sided poker foldable tabletop thing for bigger sessions (with the added bonus of drinkholders). <S> This means another table which is perhaps not an option for you but <S> both options can be folded and take very little space when not playing at least. <A> In addition to Kristo's answer , if you have a wood shop you likely have a router mat which would accomplish something similar.
|
You could also try a table-top gaming mat, or simply skip the tablecloth and just use a large number of the no-slip mats I mentioned above, and place your tiles directly on the rubber mats. For Settlers of Catan , there is an expansion you can get that consists of six interlocking long sections that frame the pieces in.
|
What are the most effective action combinations in Dominion? I've only played a few games of the base set, but I already noticed some very powerful combinations: Laboratory can be repeatedly combo'd with itself to draw a massive amount of treasure from your deck early in the game. Remodel can be used on Gold to quickly convert it to provinces during endgame. Share your favorite powerful combinations. <Q> Nobles Nobles combine very well with themselves, or with action multipliers like Throne Room, King's Court or Golem. <A> The dominion strategy blog has a bunch of interesting combos. <S> My favorites are: Black Market/Tactician : <S> Use the black markets ability to play (not neccesarily even spend!) <S> your money before the buy phase, to subvert the tacticians "throw away your hand" downside. <S> You got to keep your money AND play the tactician! <S> Quarry/ <S> Talisman : <S> Talisman lets you gain an additional card when it costs <= 4. <S> Quarry reduces action costs by 2. <S> Play a Quarry and Talisman together and for a single buy of a six cost action for $4, you get an additional one. <A> I'm a fan of the Scout combos: <A> With any other multiple action card: <S> 5 Victory point tokens for trashing a card that could cost you nothing if you played 4 actions: <S> No, seriously, the possibilities are endless. <S> There's a reason why card randomizers are so common... so that you play with a different set of 10 cards of the 112/115 available cards each time. <A> I feel like posting more combinations. <A> Just a couple I've encountered recently: Treasure Map + Watchtower - being able to put new Treasure Maps on top of your deck in the early game significantly improves the odds that you'll get two in your hand. <S> Counting House + Cellar - discard all your Copper, draw replacements, then put the Copper back in your hand. <S> Herbalist + Platinum <S> - really, this is just obscene. <S> Scrying Pool + City - <S> the Scrying Pool is so weak, and so cheap, and so horribly effective if you've got a lot of Cities in your deck. <S> Oh, and I forgot: <S> Counting House + <S> Vault - sure, you need +1 action to pull this off, but at a minimum it makes all the copper in your hand worth double. <S> Contraband + Gardens - especially if your opponent doesn't think to ban you from buying more Contraband with your Contraband. <S> It's not hard to average 3 cards a turn with this. <A> What happens when Golem fails to find two action card apart from other Golems? <S> Your entire deck (minus your hand) is discarded. <S> What happens when Golem finds one Counting House and nothing else? <S> Every single Copper in your deck comes into your hand. <S> It gets boring after a bit, but, man, is this combination fun to pull on your friends once. <A> When you are trying to cash in Treasure Maps, use Chancellor to reshuffle your deck if you missed the pairing. <A> Buy a Tactician and a few Banks. <S> I just discovered this one yesterday; combined with a Festival, I was able to buy three Provinces in one turn, and still have change left over for a smaller card. <A> This is a very slow process but it can come in pretty handy when there are limited avenues of income within a very thin deck.
|
I have not personally pulled this off but I have seen this in action - in which, you can use a Remodel card to remodel a remodel card so that you can increase your costs to gain a card of a higher value. Buy one Counting House, several Golems, and an extra Copper (or four, if you're going for Colonies), and you're guaranteed a Province every turn you have Golem and no Counting House in your hand. Ambassador/Curse : After you get your deck small, intentionally buy a curse to "upgrade" your ambassador into a sea hag!
|
Pre-drawing cards or tiles This goes for many games where players take turns to draw cards, but I specifically wondered about Carcassonne: Do you allow players to pre-draw tiles and look at those tiles before it's their turn ? So they don't have to wait until it's their turn, but somewhere between their last turn and their new turn, they can draw? I myself don't like this tactic too much, as the players now possess information which the game rules did not intend them to possess yet. Especially if you allow "discussion" or "persuasion" ( no, lay your road there and take it - aha, now I got the perfect hole for my cloister! ). Pro's Players can think ahead Game advances faster Con's Unintended possession of early information (only if the original order of drawing is broken:) less drawing choice for other players <Q> We've played it slightly different than tttppp ; we allow pre-drawing of tiles, as long as the drawing order remains unchanged, and there is no discussion of the tile you have pulled. <S> For example, if we have players 1, 2 and 3, and it is player one's turn, player 3 can draw their next tile as long as player 2 has already drawn their next tile. <S> Yes, tile drawing is random, but we prefer that the tiles are still drawn in order. <S> The no-discussion portion keeps the spirit of the game I think, because normally you wouldn't have pre-drawn a tile, and you wouldn't have that extra information from the pre-drawn tile. <S> Pre-drawing makes the game go much faster, since your decision making can be done in advance, as long as a player before you doesn't take the space you wanted, and our groups have no problem with it. <A> I would say that this is similar in nature to the question I raised about taking back turns / forgotten privileges <S> Taking back turns, and forgotten privileges <S> The excellent answer given was If no new information has been disclosed since a decision, then a player is allowed to take back any action or inaction where this is practical. <S> So, in this context, I would say it is fine to take tiles early, as long as it does not give a player any unfair advantage. <S> I think this situation is fairly reflected across all games, and not just carcassonne. <A> Allow it? <S> We require it. <S> In vanilla Carcassonne, that is. <S> In versions where you could make material use of that information (e.g. The City, once walls come into play) we disallow it. <S> We just assume that a person giving you advice is using the information on his tie to slant it to his benefit. <A> I have done this in the past. <S> The rule I put in, is that anyone who looks at their tile in advance of their turn cannot speak about the game. <S> You don't want that person trying to influence the play of other folks tiles. <S> Once a person has looked at the tile, they have advance knowledge and it would unfair to allow them to exploit it. <A> You've pretty much summed up nicely in your question, but I thought I'd answer anyway. <S> We've played three different ways with different groups of people. <S> Usually we play the original rules - <S> that is tiles must be drawn at the start of a turn. <S> This works well with smaller groups of players who don't insist on studying all the options. <S> With a large group of friends we have played that players are allowed to pre-draw and discuss. <S> This leads to faster play and advice based on tiles that are seen early. <S> It also causes a small amount of suspicion (are they recommending based on what they've got in their hand?), which can also be fun if not over analysed. <S> The third way is how we play with some of our friends more prone to analysis paralysis. <S> This is less fun as there is less conversation, but tends to speed games up. <S> One more thing to consider is pre-drawing near the end of the game. <S> For example if a player has their builder in play ( Builders and Traders ), then they may use two tiles in their turn, instead of one. <A> We allow pre-drawing of the next tile, but the drawer can't even look at it. <S> He just speeds things up by having it in his hand ready to go. <A> When I play with a larger group, we usually have the face-down tiles in a bag instead of on the table. <S> It's often simpler to draw your next tile right after you've played your turn. <S> In effect, the bag follows the turn order around the table. <S> You just need to be careful that you don't accidentally draw a tile when you already have one. <S> Also, you'll want to avoid pre-drawing when you're close to running out of tiles. <S> It's important that endgame tile draws happen in the correct order. <S> If your group has a lot of "aggressive negotiation" over tile placement, I would discourage drawing your tile until it really is your turn. <S> Otherwise you risk changing the outcome of the game. <A> 2 problems I see with it: <S> In standard Carcassonne play, you have choice of stack. <S> this reduces the choices ever so slightly <S> If you do not also limit kibitzing, you are allowing negotiation to improve playability of your next play as well as their current. <S> It's a subtle but powerful change with a strong personality. <S> One should also note that kibitzing is in fact part of the game by the rules.
|
We allow pre-drawing, but once a player has seen their tile they may not give advice on where to place the current tile.
|
Chess client for e-(g)mail I'm looking for something that would let me store the board setup and move the pieces manually so that I can play with a friend via email/msn. It doesn't have to handle mailing or anything for me as long as I can move the pieces around :) <Q> GamesByMail to play Axis & Allies, <S> and I noticed that it has chess as well. <S> All you need is an e-mail address to create a small profile, same thing for your opponent, and you're ready to play. <S> You should get e-mail reminders when it is your turn. <S> I haven't tried chess there yet, but if it's anything like A&A was, you should be in good shape. <A> Time for Chess <S> *? <S> It also has a great iPhone optimised site. <S> a.k.a. <S> Red Hot Pawn <S> ;) <A> There are many options for online chess. <S> A very simple site I use is itsyourturn.com. <S> You get email reminders <S> and it just does what you need if you want play chess with a friend. <S> For more advanced options look at freechess.org . <S> There are several different clients for it.
|
GamesByMail Scott Michtell just introduced me to
|
Starting Hands in Texas Hold'em How many possible starting hands are there in Texas Hold'em? <Q> 169 While Chris is technically correct <S> , as far as strategy is concerned, there is no difference between having an Ace & King of spades vs. Ace & King of hearts. <S> There is however a difference between having a suited Ace & King vs. a non-suited Ace & King. <S> Looking at it that way, there are 169 possible starting hands. <A> It depends on how you define "starting hand. <S> " <S> There are 52*51=2652 permutations of any two cards. <S> There are (52 <S> *51)/2 <S> combinations of two cards, if you treat (Card A, Card B) as being equal to (Card B, Card A), e.g. ace of spades, king of hearts as being equal to king of hearts, ace of spades). <S> the total is 1326. <S> That is (Ace of spades, king of spades) is considered equivalent to (ace of hearts, king of hearts).78 combinations of (x,Y) of two different suits. <S> That is (ace of spades, king of hearts) is considered equivalent to (ace of clubs, king of diamonds). <S> 13+78+78=169 different two card hands. <S> Reconciling different hand combinations: <S> 13 pairs times 6 combinations= 78 pair combinations.78 suited combinations times 4 (suits)= 312 suited combinations.78 unsuited combinations times 12 =936 unsuited combinations. <S> 78+312+936= 1326 hand combinations. <A> 1326 <S> According to Wikipedia, using the formula (52 * 51) / 2. <S> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poker_probability_%28Texas_hold_%27em%29
|
There are 169 different hands consisting of the following: 13 pairs (one for each of 13 denominations from A to 2.78 combinations of (X, Y) of the same suit.
|
How to minimize Puerto Rico setup time? It takes quite a lot of time to set up Puerto Rico, especially when switching between games with a different numbers of players; a quarter of an hour I'd say. The problem is that it is rather time consuming to separate the different types of chips, count the colonists and victory points, restrict the number of plantations, putting the buildings on the board, etc... I'm probably asking the impossible, but does anyone know a trick to cut down this rather long set up time? <Q> Certainly -- the trick is do all the prep work after <S> you finish a game. <S> Once you are done with the game, sort everything out for the next game. <S> These instructions all assume you will want to take into account the 2-Player <S> variant when sorting; if you want to ignore the 2-player variant, ignore the bullets flagged with two stars (**). <S> Personally, I play a lot of the 2-player variant because I have a hard time finding a third, so I have plastic bags labelled 2 Players , 3 Players , 4 Players , and 5 Players . <S> ** <S> For the 2-player variant, I have sorted out 2 of each production building and 1 of each purple building into one of the trays, and have the remaining buildings in a separate tray labeled "3+ Player Buildings". <S> ** I have removed three of each type of plantation, and placed the remainder of the plantations in one of the tray spaces. <S> * <S> * <S> The 2 Player bag contains: 65 victory points, 42 colonists. <S> It also contains all the barrels of goods except for 2 barrels of each type (per the 2-player rules). <S> The 3 Player bag contains 10 more victory points, 13 more colonists, and the remaining plantation tiles and goods barrels. <S> Alternately, if you don't ever plan on playing with only 2 players, the 3 Player bag should contain the base 75 victory ponits and 55 colonists. <S> You won't need to sort out plantations or barrels in this case. <S> The 4 Player bag contains 25 more victory points, and 20 more colonists. <S> The 5 Player bag contains the last 22 victory points, and the last 20 colonists. <S> Now all you'll have to do is fish out the necessary corn and indigo plantations to determine who goes first, and you're all set. <A> I think there's two types of answer to this depending on whether you mind longer putting-away times or not. <S> If you're happy to put some extra effort into packing the pieces away, then a huge amount of time can be saved by storing the components in bags related to the number of players. <S> For example a "3 player" victory point bag with 75 VPs in, a "4 player" victory point bag with 25 VPs in (100-75), and a "5 player" victory point bag with 22 VPs in (122-100). <S> To play with 4 players simple get out the bags for three and four players. <S> The same trick can be applied to the colonists. <S> There is an example of this being done very neatly here: <S> http://boardgamegeek.com/image/841793/puerto-rico <S> Assuming instead that you want to save time overall <S> then I know of a few other things that help. <S> The same idea behind having separate bags can be applied, by marking some of the victory point chips and colonists. <S> For example it wouldn't affect the gameplay to have colonists painted in three different shades of brown or the front of the victory point chips marked with small dots. <S> Alternatively colonists can be counted very quickly when they are flat on a surface by using two straight edges. <S> The trick is to push them into a triangular shape and then select colonists by the number of rows. <S> See this image , and the comments below it, for details. <S> A final obvious, but sometimes overlooked, way to speed up the game set up, is to distribute the tasks. <S> I usually end up doing this as otherwise some players have a tendency to stand back until the game is ready to begin. <A> I also have separate bags for the different number of players. <S> I include a card in each bag to indicate what exactly goes into that particular bag. <S> On the back of the card I indicate what is used in the game (which ships, number of prospectors, number of plantations, etc). <S> One other thing I do is sort the buildings and use a doubled-up rubber band to hold them all together. <S> This makes the layout of the buildings much faster.
|
If you write the contents of what the 3, 4 and 5 player bags should have, you can fill those up, and the remainder goes into the 2 player bag.
|
What are the most busted cards in Agricola? There's quite a few Occupations in Agricola that elicit a traumatized shudder from hardened Agricola players. I'm thinking of cards like the Taster, which basically allows one player to be in a position BETTER than being starting player during any round of the game, for the low low cost of 1 food per round. I've heard that a lot of groups have physically removed the Taster from their set, rather than have to deal with the imbalance it creates. Having said that, I've had very tight games both playing and playing against the Taster, and I completely crushed an inexperienced player who laid an early Taster in a 5-player game a few days ago, so I'm not TOO worried about "busted" cards. Even so... Have any cards been played in one of your Agricola games that seemed to tip the balance too far in favour of one player, too quickly? In our group, we groan when we see the Field Watchman (such a no-brainer) and the Wet Nurse; cards whose value is just a little bit too transparent. What about your group? Also, Minor Improvements tend to be a little bit better balanced on the whole (coming with costs and limitations as they do), but I'm sure some of them are a LOT better than others. Any suggestions? I'm never disappointed to have a plough of some kind among my opening seven... <Q> In statistics gathered from about 2000 games that used drafting , these occupations were picked on average earliest by the player who won the game. <S> See this forum post for the full details, and a list of the first chosen minor improvements too. <S> Edit: It turns out that several occupations are not included in these results as they were voted too overpowered by the game participants. <S> These are: Ratcatcher Taster Chamberlain <S> Lover <S> Wet Nurse <A> Ratcatcher ... just too powerful. <S> Taster ... changes the basic mechanic of the game, puts the people in 4 or 5 turn order in a really bad spot. <S> Mail Coach Driver ... messes with people as much as the Taster! <S> Everyone will have to modify their strategy accordingly. <S> I guess the cards "I" think are broken are the ones that change the game FOR EVERYONE, not holder of the card. <S> The Lover and Wet Nurse are good, but I can get a good card of my own and still compete. <A> Taster and Chamberlain were clearly overpowered - the latter being an almost guaranteed win. <S> Maypole led to poor sportsmanship, where opponents would intentionally bump the table to knock over the upright wooden fence piece "pole." <S> Ratcatcher and Lover are frowned upon, but we allow them. <S> We probably should ban Braggart in Moors, as it often results in blowouts. <S> Best regards <A> This is the list of card I've came across as being banned: <S> E occ Ratcatcher E <S> minor Wooden Hut Extension E occ Braggart <S> I occ Chamberlain <S> I occ <S> Taster <S> K occ <S> Lover <S> K occ <S> Wet Nurse <S> K minor <S> Reed Hut <S> K minor Broom <S> G occ Late Sleeper <S> Z occ <S> Mail Coach <S> Driver O <S> minor Guest Worker Z minor <S> Maypole <S> Z occ Herald <S> C occ Fortune Teller <A> I think the biggest mistake when card balance is discussed is people forget that playing an occupation costs 1 action + 1-2 food. <S> With that in mind, a lot of the "broken" cards become reasonable. <S> Earlier actions are more important so....... <S> You have to build at least 2 rooms to come out ahead on this one. <S> If you save up resources to build them in one go, the people who settle for building 1 room are getting that 3rd family member before you. <S> If you build 1 room at a time that's an another action spent on rooms. <S> Don't think this one is broken at all. <S> Chamberlain: <S> The most overblown of the broken cards in my opinion. <S> You get access to the later spots 2 rounds before everyone else. <S> The only ones that really matter are Family Growth w/o room & Plow+Sow. <S> Considering you're giving up a food/action for these and leaving them uncontested once they come up for everyone else, the card isn't so busted. <S> Mail Coach Driver: <S> More annoying than overpowered. <S> I'd put this in the same category as the Ratcatcher. <S> Not broken, just a bummer for everyone to deal with. <S> The benefit is obscene for its negligible cost. <S> I'll echo the other guy's opinion on why The Chief is given such a huge cost when much more powerful cards are cheaper. <S> Another that is situationally broken is the Braggart. <S> Depending on the improvements you draw <S> he's either worthless or an instant game winner. <S> If a player gets the Braggart then drafts a bunch of free or cheap improvements, you might as well just call the game before the first turn. <A> I can't believe nobody mentioned the axe. <S> In 2 player it's balanced, 3 player gets pretty great, 4/5 player where you can get the needed stone + additional things on the first move <S> it gets nuts! <S> I think our group will ban it in 4/5 player games from now on. <S> We just had a mini tournament and Axe ruled in every game it came up
|
Field Watchman , Head of the Family , and Braggart . Ratcatcher: You're giving up a stage 1 action + food so that everyone else loses 2 actions much later down the road. The only card I'd truly call broken is the taster. Without any exposure to game forums or outside advice, our play group outright banned Taster, Chamberlain, and Maypole after playing dozens of games with various combinations of the EIKZ decks. Wet Nurse: You're using 2 actions 1 food to play the nurse and build a room as opposed to building a room and using the family growth space (which costs no food and lets you build a minor improvement).
|
Determining which areas to use in 2- or 6-player Power Grid Pretty straight-forward question here: In the 2- and 6-player versions of Power Grid , you are instructed to use only 3 areas and 5 areas respectively, but it doesn't say how to pick the areas, leaving it up to the players. What are good recommendations for determining which areas are in/out? <Q> until we have the right number of areas. <S> I'm nearly positive <S> this is how the designer, Friedemann Friese, taught us. <S> If not then we picked it up from the earlier version of the game, the crayon-based Funkenschlag. <S> One tip: <S> when the new (current) edition came out I had a chance to play with the designer explaining the rules. <S> We used the pick-an-adjacent-area rule to pick our staring zones and were using the Germany map. <S> With six players we picked five zones, and the one left out was the center zone, leaving a ring-shaped map. <S> Friedemann immediately exclaimed, "We never playtested it that way!" <S> It turns out that's a pretty poor map to play on since you're restricted to expanding through other people's territory much earlier in the game than you normally would. <S> The result was an extra-long game that frankly wasn't as fun. <S> So the tip: if you play the Germany map with 6 players, do not eliminate the center territory. <A> I don't think it really matters so much. <S> But you could randomize it, or else agree to rotate through each of the possibilities on a game-by-game basis, to create as much variety as possible. <S> Many connoisseurs seem to think that Power Grid is much better for 3-5 players, mind you, so if the lack of hard-and-fast rules for how to set up <S> the 2 or 6 player games is bugging you, it might not be a bad idea to try not to play with that many players, so far as possible! <A> Generally, we decide as a group whether we want to use the more-dense or the less-dense areas of the map (at least on the U.S. map). <S> It's all about whether we feel like making everybody pay those high connection prices in the west. <A> We just let the guys who go first pick the areas one at a time. <A> I have always done it either a) randomly or b) let the newest player pick, which often leads to the same results as randomly. <S> :) <S> I have never had a case of only 2 players, but with 6 that seems to work pretty well.
|
We use the system where player 1 picks an area to keep, player 2 picks an adjacent area, etc.
|
When to make a continuation bet and how much in Texas Hold'em? I am aware of the idea of a continuation bet, where you bet again on the flop, after a pre-flop raise. However, I'm not that sure on when I should and shouldn't do it. I tend to do it if I get the idea (from other players checking, say), that other players have missed the flop, but it would be useful to have more specific things to look for. Also, how big should continuation bets be? I've heard between half and the full pot as a guide, with the higher end for if the flop has high draw potential (lots of hearts, say). Is that reasonable? How much does it make a difference if I have hit the flop or not? Also, how much of a difference is there between cash games and tournaments? <Q> What this "large percentage" is probably depends on what you are comfortable with and how aggressive you are, but I would estimate it would vary from 50% to 100%. <S> Continuation betting on every single flop will make you predictable. <S> You should also factor in how tight the table is - placing the bet more at a tight table and less at a loose table or against loose opponents. <S> Don't vary your bet based on whether or not you hit the flop. <S> This gives a signal to your opponents which will eventually allow good opponents to tell whether you hit the flop. <S> Vary your bet based only on the texture of the flop - as you mentioned, a flop with more draw possibilities rates a larger bet, although some flops may be so dangerous that you may not make a continuation bet at all (i.e. Jh, Qh, Kh) <S> if you did not catch a piece of them. <A> Assuming you play no-limit cash games: Personally, I like to cbet every single flop but only if i was the aggressor preflop (that means i raised before the flop <S> - no one re-raised me and there are one or more callers). <S> If the aggressor was someone else, you should be more careful: Obviously you want to raise the flop for value if hit something (and you think you are ahead). <S> In that case, your bet size should depend on the structure of flop (draw heavy means bigger bets). <S> If you miss, you have to consider to fold. <S> A few words regarding bet size: Bets <S> less than 1/3 the pot are meaningless in almost every situation (exception are thin value bets and so on in higher stakes games - you probably have quite a few things to lean, before you need to worry about such things). <S> Bets more than 1/1 <S> the pot are usually to much - you just don't get called by weaker hands often enough to make it profitable in the long run. <A> Every bet you make, must be for one of two main reasons: Bet for value Bet for bluff <S> Every time you bet, you have to ask yourself, why are you doing it, and continuation bet is not an exception. <S> I'm not gonna explain what the reasons mean as it's off-topic, but you can read about it e.g. here: <S> http://www.cardschat.com/reasons-for-betting.php <S> Your reasons for cbet should vary on what type of game you're playing, and what kind of opponents you're dealing with. <S> If you play a freeroll, or a low-stakes cash game, you better cbet only for value, because weaker opponents will tend to call you even with the lowest pair, or similar weak hands, thus making your cbets less profitable. <S> Also a lot depends on your table image, if you think other players see you as a tight player, you can bet for bluff from time to time, without any damage. <S> If they think you're playing loose, you will profit from value betting more. <S> The bet size shouldn't be less than 1/2 of the pot, and more than the pot, but this may also vary depending on the players, and the board texture. <S> If you're dealing with a drawy board, you should bet more than is the pot, to lower the pot odds for players waiting for the draw to complete.
|
I would say that you want to make a continuation bet a large percentage of the time if you have signalled you are in the lead and no opponent has signalled otherwise.
|
Possession and Masquerade - are these too powerful in 2 player games? Just encountered this yesterday. Player A plays Possession Then, it's player B turn (with player A deciding), and there's a Masquerade in the hand. Player A decides to play the Masquerade, Player A chooses the card to swap in both hands! Swapping a province for a curse is so delightful. But also it seems too much powerful. Am I doing something wrong? Note that it does not work with 3 players or more, because of the rotation of the swapped cards between the 3 players. <Q> Possession and Masquerade are just known to be wacky when used together. <S> That's just what happens when you have 100 <S> + cards at this point. <S> Donald X. Vaccarino said "Possession is a case where Masquerade ends up being a weird exception", but it's basically not worth special rules or changing the card for this one interaction. <S> keithjgrant is also right that if Possession is out, you'd better not buy Masquerade. :) <A> You can also do a similar thing with Ambassador. <A> Masquerade is a powerful card, but buying it in a game with Possession is of course a big risk. <S> (Even in a 3p game, if you get a lead, an opponent who Possesses you might have you pass a Province to an opponent who's not doing so well.) <S> If there are Cursing attacks that will make it difficult to assemble the $6 <S> + Potion cost, Masquerade can be worth that risk since it will also help dispose of Curses.
|
The only person doing something wrong is the one who buys a Masquerade into their deck while Possession is on the table!
|
Proper use of Dominion card Upgrade In what situations is Upgrade (Intrigue) useful? I have never seen anyone buy Upgrade in the games I've played where it was available. Whenever I play with Upgrade and Swindler, I always give Upgrade to my opponents in exchange for their 5-cost cards. They never know what to do with it... What are we doing wrong? How can we make use of this card? <Q> Upgrade is quite strong by itself for two reasons: <S> Trashing curses is obvious, but regarding copper: do not underestimate the power of having a really small deck! <S> You can use it to turn your Estates into Silver (always a good choice) or, even better, into a highly contested 3-cost card in a 3 or 4 player game (think Village in a pool where it is the only action-gaining card). <S> These reasons are enough for Upgrade to be something you want to have in your deck, and not only in one copy. <S> There are also, in my experience, two factors stemming from the kingdom card pool that "modify" <S> Upgrade's usefulness: <S> If the pool is very strongly combo-oriented <S> (lots of cards with +actions and +cards plus cards with +gold <S> and/or +buy), Upgrade may be too slow. <S> For example, in a pool with Festival/Smithy/Village/Nobles/Throne Room I don't think you 'd have the time to do enough with Upgrade before combos start exploding left and right. <S> If the pool has no +buy actions , Upgrade is stronger. <S> It's the only way you will have to gain a second card in your turn. <S> In this case, lots of Upgrades (3-4) can serve to turn your initial turn buys (2-4 cost) to 5-6 cost cards. <S> And finally, don't forget that if you have too many Upgrades you can always use one to turn another into a Gold. <A> Because Upgrade is non-terminal (that +1 <S> Action) <S> you can turn your Estates into Silver or middling 4-cost cards into more powerful 5-cost cards while still playing your other Actions. <S> It is tricky <S> , I won't deny that, but it can have some value. <S> I don't see it as the core of your strategy, though. <A> In addition to the +1 Card and +1 Action, Upgrade is one of only two "gain a card costing X more" (note: I'm ignoring Forge here) cards that has the word <S> exactly <S> on it (the other is Cornucopia's Remake). <S> Meaning that if you Upgrade a Copper or Curse, you get nothing back (assuming you didn't play a Bridge before it). <S> With Remodel and Expand, you must gain another card costing up to 2 or 3 more, even if the cost is lower than that of the card you trashed. <A> There are two key points here: <S> Your deck starts out bad. <S> Many cards are much better in the early game than later. <S> You can use upgrade to solve both problems. <S> Getting rid of your starting copper (and likely estates) will improve your deck. <S> So will trashing that first-turn buy <S> that's just too weak to get you to provinces later. <S> It's a non-terminal action, so it gives you a way to trash these cards without wasting turns, as you tend to do with something like chapel or steward. <S> And do remember: it's an upgrade . <S> You're not just removing a weak link, you're replacing it with something to strengthen your deck. <S> There are some great special cases, too, like upgrading four-cost actions to duchies in the end game, and trashing curses. <A> You can buy many Upgrade as early as possible in the game. <S> This is a really good starting strategy. <S> By many, I mean as much as 5 or 6 cards. <S> It will clean your deck so quickly from all the Copper and Estate , you will be able to upgrade your Upgrade into Gold and reach the Province much faster than you can imagine. <S> And don't forget to upgrade your Estate to Great Hall (instead of Silver ) if both are on the table! <A> Upgrade allows you to thin your deck with a non terminal action. <S> Being able to get rid of coppers and curses is almost always helpful. <S> You an also trade out poorly performing or obsolete cards for better cards. <S> Heck, upgrade an Upgrade to a gold :) <S> I love being able to thin my deck and will almost always grab 1-2 of these if there are no better deck thinning options available. <A> The biggest advantage of Upgrade is it helps to clean the junk (coppers, estates, and curses especially) out of your deck fast. <S> And then, when you don't need them, turn the upgrades into gold or other 6 cost cards. <S> Here as an example of game of how to use them effectively: http://dominion.isotropic.org/gamelog/201106/18/game-20110618-132616-55486cf0.html
|
You can use it to trash 0-cost cards that you no longer want in your deck (coppers and curses). You can use Upgrade to gradually improve your deck while also carrying out a larger strategy.
|
Good set of cards for teaching beginners We have 1 or 2 new people who are interested in joining our lunch Dominion games where I work. We'd like to teach them about the various rules unique to each of these sets: Base, Intrigue, Seaside, and Prosperity. Can anyone recommend a card set that will teach all the important game rules? Note: We've stopped using Alchemy's potions in our games and instead replace a card's potion cost with a 3-coin cost. <Q> I would not recommend any one card set to teach all the important rules from each expansion. <S> That may be too much. <S> For brand new beginners, I recommend the "Big Money" set from the first game. <S> I use this before the one recommended by the base set rules ("First Play"?) <S> because it teaches the trade off between money and actions. <S> First Play is really a preview of all the different card abilities, which may give the erroneous impression that the game is all about actions. <S> Otherwise, I'd play random sets (with some drafting) from the combined sets and teach the rules as they come up. <A> I'd suggest avoid extra actions for the first game... <S> Only use Throne Room/Expand if you have no +1 action cards, and don't use any +2 action cards. <S> Combos can be fun, but they can both extend the length of the game, and are harder to grasp for a newbie, often leaving them wondering why their turns are always short and boring while yours take forever. <A> Obviously no list is "best". <S> Chapel - While not a rule , your friends need to learn about deck management. <S> Mint would be a good substitute here. <S> Moat - Action/Reaction, defense for Saboteur or useful in combos with City. <S> Ironworks - a good Intrigue "choice" card. <S> I also had the Island in mind when selecting this. <S> Saboteur - token attack card. <S> Also chosen with Bridge in mind. <S> Caravan - Simple duration, pairs well with Throne Room. <S> Island - of the three "mats", this one has least room for error/misinterpretation by new players. <S> City <S> - might as well teach them that letting the veteran get all 10 of these is a bad idea! <S> Quarry/Bridge - for learning about the changing values of cards (esp. <S> with Ironworks and Saboteur in the mix). <S> Tactician - for combos, also to teach them to know what cards say <S> (e.g. "If you discarded at least one card...")! Throne Room - debatable. <S> I'm big into combos :) <S> Added: If you're playing with Prosperity a lot, then I would replace City, Quarry/Bridge, Throne Room with Venture, Bank, Grand Market .
|
I'd say having them read the rules and then play with a veteran (or better, play online with a veteran by their side) is the best way to learn the rules.
|
What are the differences between the four editions of The Settlers of Catan base game? I haven't played Settlers of Catan yet, but I've been considering asking my gaming group if they want to try it. As I understand it, Settlers of Catan is now in its fourth major version. If I do get a Catan box, should I just get the current (fourth) edition, or is there some reason to look for used copies of earlier editions? Edit : I forgot to mention, we will also be getting the 5-6 player extension. <Q> The new fourth edition has a few minor changes in appearance, and the biggest change is a new set of border pieces that surround the hexagon tiles to keep them together. <S> The most important thing to know is that they do not mix and match very well: <S> if you have the 3rd edition of Settlers, you should buy the 3rd edition of the expansions. <S> If you have the 4th edition of the base game, you should buy the 4th edition expansions. <S> So if you're just getting into it, I would suggest buying the new edition, since the corresponding expansions will be easier to find. <A> In Cities & Knights, there changed what some of the progress cards are. <S> The card that lets you disable an opponents city has been removed in the 4th edition. <S> I'm not sure what additions it was in, but one of my friends complained quite loudly when he realized they had removed the card. <S> Most of the changes have been minor and make game play easier. <S> My only complaint about the quality of the 4th edition is that I wish the frame pieces were sturdier. <A> There was a huge (and stupid) rule addition with the later editions, where if you run out of resource cards during a production phase, no one gets anything. <S> In the old rules (1999, Mayfair) there was no rule on it, so our group always played where you parcel out that resource starting at the die roller, and going clockwise. <S> The new rules also allow you to move the robber to a desert hex, which was not allowed before. <A> I also own the German version. <S> In this version there is no harbor tiles and the harbors are part of the sea frame pieces <S> (you can't change their location thou). <A> I own the German version (Die Siedler von Catan), and it has different (plastic) pieces for roads, etc. <S> The board pieces are a slightly different size, as well as the resource cards. <S> Therefore, if you plan on getting the expansions, make sure that you stick with the US versions.
|
I would get the 4th edition, since it's easier to find, and the expansions will be easier to get.
|
Is it unsportsmanlike to concede when you believe you cannot win? I've had a long running debate with some folks I play with regarding concession. Some argue that is it is unsportsmanlike to concede a game if you are not doing very well. I contend however, that if it often more frustrating to sit there and be miserable if you know the outcome of the game; this is particularly true of longer games such as Catan with Cities and Knights. Now, I'm not really talking about "just quitting" every time you don't get your way. And I'm certainly not talking about being rude, snide or otherwise contemptible in such cases. I've been on the other side of the fence too and it seem appropriate to "just call it" in many instances but some would rather drag it on. Is there an acceptable middle ground or technique for dealing with these types of situations? Where one person has clearly won before they have actually won? <Q> In a two-player situation I could see how this might be acceptable, but with more players I'd be very cautious. <S> For instance, it may appear to you that player three is the foregone winner, but perhaps player two has a victory Development Card, along with a Road Building that could catapult him to longest road, if he can just get another brick to make one more road along with it. <S> Let's imagine this would steal the longest road from player three, and result in the players being tied neck and neck. <S> To you, it may look hopeless, but for player two to refute your assertion that such is the case, he will have to reveal that he sees a path to winning, which could cause player three to be more cautious, resulting in the spoiling of player two's plan. <S> The last time I played I won, and was ahead the entire time, and yet until the very end at least two of the other players (six-player game) had a fighting chance, one unbeknownst to me (two victory points from Dev cards conveniently left in his lap). <S> It's not fair to the other players for you to decide it's time to call it. <A> Andrew raised some very good point on which I'd like to elaborate. <S> I don't like the idea of declaring yourself the winner. <S> In most games it is unlikely that you can do this with reasonable certainty. <S> Thus it is presumptuous and - like Andrew explained - potentially unfair. <S> I do however see some use in conceding a game under certain circumstances. <S> Tournament play <S> - Lots of CCG's play 3 games per round with a time limit of 20/30 minutes. <S> In such situations it can be preferable to concede a bad game early in order to ensure you have enough time for that 2nd or 3rd game in which you might at least even the score. <S> In games without termination mechanisms - like Monopoly - it is possible that the last two players develop a sort of stalemate even though one player does have an obvious advantage in assets. <S> Instead of playing until the table rots away one player could simply concede the game - or they could agree to end the game at a defined moment (X more turns, next full hour, etc) and simply call the player with the most assets the winner. <S> When a player has accumulated such a big disadvantage that it is highly unlikely for him to recover. <S> When the remainder of the game is short I'd still recommend playing it out but <S> if there are still an hour to play then I can understand why they don't want to go through that. <S> That said, in multiplayer games one player conceding can have a serious impact on the dynamics of the game so it is often worth exploring other options like playing for second and third place. <A> I would rather a player concede than that they make plays that are not in their best interest and thus play "kingmaker". <S> I haven't played Catan lately so this may or may not be applicable there, but I personally would rather someone: <S> Keep striving to improve their own score OR <S> Stop playing entirely and let the rest of us finish the game <S> Rather than see them purposely cause the game to end early in a way that doesn't help them, or make unfavorable trades just to entertain themselves (which will favor whoever is the lucky recipient). <S> If all players think the winner is clear, I've occasionally had my group just start a new game, but that's rare and usually only done with the approval of the "winning" player. <A> In a two-player game, that's easy. <S> Conceding shortens the game without changing the result, and is an act of good sportsmanship. <S> In a multiplayer game, it gets trickier. <S> That's because the conceding player may have assets that would affect the balance of power between the REST of the players. <S> In Monopoly, it could be that there is a "stalemate" between two players, with a third clearly behind. <S> Then what happens to his properties if he resigns? <S> Do they go back to the bank? <S> Does this open up the game for BOTH remaining players, or is one more likely to benefit than the other? <S> If BOTH remaining players agree, then the third player will do well to resign. <S> Maybe the resigner should distribute his properties in an equitable way before resigning. <S> But it might be that one player is benefiting from the stalemate, and will likely lose if the third player leaves. <S> Then it's essential that he remains in the game. <S> (Maybe he can leave physically, and let some other player "play" his game for him.) <S> In Diplomacy, a player resigns by declaring civil disorder. <S> But his pieces remain in place, and other players can make alliances with the individual cities to defend them against third parties. <S> So the resignation is "easy." <S> That is, his cities and cards remain with him (and out of play), but he doesn't continue playing. <S> Other players can use a Monopoly card or the robber to deprive "him" (his position, actually) of some of those cards. <S> This deprives other plays of the chance to trade with him (a minus), but also puts him in the position of NOT having to play "kingmaker" (a plus).
|
I believe that a player should be allowed to concede, if it doesn't affect the game, or if it affects the game in a POSITIVE way. In Settlers of Catan, a person should be allowed to "resign in place" as in Diplomacy.
|
What's an effective Small World strategy for new players? I've played one game of Small World. I thoroughly enjoyed it, despite losing badly. For one, I had no game plan, and was sort of just trying things randomly. Is there an effective, yet basic, strategy I can use next time to at least play with a sense of purpose? At the risk of asking too many questions at once... Should I always spend coins to get a race with more troops? How do I know when to decline an active race? Is there a good VP target to earn per turn? <Q> One thing I'm discovering about Small World (especially in games with smaller number of players) is that it's <S> not inherently balanced - your opponents can easily snap up amazing race/ability combos for cheap, leaving you with much less attractive options, just by random virtue of the seating order. <S> As such, you simply have to play a competitive game. <S> Don't just look at your race/ability combo in isolation <S> : look at it also in terms of how much it can do to hamper the efforts of the player currently winning the game (or the player most likely to stop you from winning). <S> Barring special circumstances, you will generally have two races on the go at once: one Declined race in as defensible a position as possible, and one Active race doing things. <S> The Active race has a lot of work to do: it needs to take lots of territory (to get points here and now); take defensible territory (to keep getting points while in decline); and also, crucially, mess with the opponents: oust them from defensible areas and force them to go into Decline at points that are disadvantageous to them. <S> In short, I'd agree with everything the other answers have said about this being a game about adapting to circumstances - Small World is nothing if not a game of taking advantage of opportunities as they arise - but <S> I'd add that it's not a game you can play without reference to how well the other players are doing. <S> If they have some good race/power combos going, then grab an aggressive race, get in there and do them over, as quickly as possible! <S> Defensive powers and play is all very well, but save it for when you're obviously in the lead... <A> These are just some general suggestions: Go for numbers early. <S> Whenthe map is still mostly empty, itseems like quantity of troops isslightly more valuable than quality. <S> I'm willing to give up a coin or twoon the first round to get a few moretroops. <S> Don't be afraid to abandon allregions and relocate all your troops. <S> Sometimes this is a very good thingto do. <S> Try to place troops on mountainsbefore declining. <S> They'll hold out alittle longer there. <S> Decline early to get two races working for you. <S> So on turn three you will already have two races working for you. <S> I'm not saying it's a great strategy, but it's not a bad place to start. <S> Beyond that you need to play off the powers you have. <S> The powers and races you get make a big difference in what would be a good strategy and what would be a bad one. <A> In general... <S> The number of troops is really important. <S> Until the endgame, don't fret too much about how many coins you're spending. <S> You should have have 2-3 races over the course of the game. <S> Target 8-11 points per turn once things get going. <S> Overextending yourself is dangerous. <S> Dwarves deserve special mention: they are terrible. <S> Your first race should try to spread to mountains, say 3 mountains and 1-2 non-mountains, then go into decline. <S> A bit on mountains: Mountains are valuable for in-decline races because they make it much less desirable for someone else to interfere. <S> For example, if an opponent has 4 troops to spare and already has a race in decline, she's better-off conquering 2 open non-mountain regions than conquering your single mountain region, even if you're winning. <S> She closes the gap with you by 2 territories either way, but she gets more coins versus her peers if she leaves you alone. <A> Should I always spend coins to get a race with more troops? <S> No. <S> Those are victory points! <S> Spend them wisely and be eager to grab VPs that other folks put down. <S> Most race/power tokens can be useful if used correctly. <S> Just figure out how you get extra VPs with the combo and keep focused on that. <S> How do I know when to decline an active race? <S> The easiest way to know is when your previously declined race has been wiped out or has been reduced to 1-2 territories that look like they won't last long. <S> It is better to decline too early, than too late. <S> Is there a good VP target to earn per turn? <S> 1 more than everyone else? <S> :) <S> Sorry, I can't give a definitive answer here as most of my Small World <S> experience actually comes from the game's predecessor Vinci . <S> Always try to get a few VP's per turn, this fits with my "Decline early and often" strategy. <S> Then make the most of your big turns. <S> Know who is your competition at any point and be sure to take a territory or two from them each turn if at all possible.
|
I believe that you need to earn VPs from declined empires as often as you can. So a simple strategy that may work reasonably well is to start with a race that has a high number of troops, deploy those into as many mountainous regions as possible, and then decline on turn two.
|
Examples of board games with good/interesting rules for trading? Trading is in my opinion often an overlooked aspect of rules for board games. The lack of such rules often results in players modifying or making up these rules themselves. While making up the rules can be part of the fun I was wondering if you know of any games that already have good such rules/mechanisms? Any examples of games that make trading and the interaction between multiple players when doing so an interesting part of the gameplay would be appreciated. <Q> Settlers of Catan is a classic game with trading elements. <S> Each player needs to build roads and buildings with various resources (wheat, clay, ore, sheep, wood), but most players will have scarcity in one or more of the resources needed; thus, they must trade resources with other players to be able to complete purchases. <S> The key is that you need all of the resources, at some points, to win the game. <S> There is no strategy where you can get by on just three or four of the five, so you must trade often to win. <S> Often times you will see resources traded at uneven ratios. <S> A few groups add more advanced sorts of trading, such as futures, but those are not allowed in the basic rules. <A> I always like that the rules for Civilization seemed to encourage bluffing when trading <S> -- you had to give them the number of cards you said you were going to, but you didn't have to be 100% truthful about what you were giving the other party. <S> (or maybe that was just the way our group played ... <S> I don't have a copy, so can't verify the rules for trading) <A> The idea of container is that a person has a number of elements to their island. <S> A group of factories <S> A group of warehouses <S> A Port <S> The interesting mechanic of this game is that a player must produce items in their factory and sell them to an opposing player. <S> They CANNOT sell to their own warehouses. <S> The opposing player then stores those goods in their warehouses. <S> An opposing player can then visit the port to purchase the goods from the warehouse, to then ship to "the island" in their container ship. <S> A player CANNOT visit their own port to purchase goods. <S> A player must set their own prices for goods in the factory and goods in the warehouse. <S> When the player ships to the island, a blind auction takes place to see who purchases the goods. <S> A player can choose to purchase them for themselves for the maximum bid, or choose to take the max bid in cash, plus a matched amount from the bank. <S> Each good is worth more at the end of the game to different players based on a random card drawn at the start, which makes the bidding process very important. <S> I love this game because you need to work with other players to beat them, its an odd feeling to sell cheap, so that you can buy back your own goods, but you are all competing in a real market situation with each other. <A> Twilight Imperium has an interesting trade mechanic: Each player has two 'trade contract' cards (varying from 1-3 in value). <S> When a trade phase happens (which in TI3 is a player decision) <S> you gain goods equal to the value of other players' contract cards you're holding. <S> Then you can trade your contracts to other players. <S> (This sequence means you don't start to profit until the turn after you made the trade.) <S> Not all races have equal contracts - trade-oriented races might have a 2 and a 3, while warlike ones have two 1s - so bargaining power is uneven. <S> But as an alternative to hosting a trade phase, a player can take the 'trade phase' order and use it to cancel all existing contracts... and a player who is the only one not profiting from trade will be tempted to do so, setting all the traders back by two turns while they reestablish profitable deals. <S> Contracts can be broken unilaterally at pretty much any time. <S> Going to war automatically breaks them. <S> So good trade deals can discourage conquest. <S> It's a nice interaction. <A> Genoa , or as it was originally published, Traders of Genoa. <S> Here's a game where just about everything that anyone does involves making a deal with another player. <S> And everything in the game short of future promises can be part of the deal - wares, small orders, large orders, privileges, messages, extra-move tiles, everything. <S> It's a little daunting at first, because you don't always know how much everything's going to be worth at the end of the game <S> and it's hard to cut tougher deals with the person in first place when you don't know who it is. <S> This is by far the best negotiation game I've ever played, much better than Chinatown or Who's The Boss? <A> Roll Through The Ages with The Late Bronze Age "expansion". <S> It's a dice game that's quick to teach, quick to play, and has trading (which people often forget about, but it's really very useful!). <S> Also consider <S> Bohnanza <S> (aka: That Bean Game). <S> Quick to teach, plays fast, and it's all about trading.
|
Container One of my favourite trading type games is Container.
|
What factors should I consider when choosing card sleeves? There seem to be a lot of options when it comes to card sleeves. What factors do I need to consider about different sizes, materials, and quality of sleeves when deciding which to purchase? How much larger should the sleeves be compared to the cards? What different materials are available, and how do they effect how well the cards are protected and shuffling? What sleeves seem to be the best quality? <Q> If the sleeves are to small then obviously your cards won't fit. <S> But the sleeves being to big can also have a number of negative consequences: sleeves can get in the way during suffling harder to nicely stack the cards <S> Probably most common are the sizes for the dimensions used in trading card games <S> but there's also an increasing selection for board and cardgames. <S> Next on the list is thickness and rigidity. <S> While thinner sleeves tend to be cheaper too they will also be a bit harder to shuffle and offer somewhat less protection. <S> If you play on clean tables that's not an issue but rougher surfaces (i.e. outdoor) can wear through the thin sleeves faster. <S> Finally there are many designs to choose from - especially among the more common sizes used for ccg's. <S> Anything from a clear plastic on both sides, over single colored backs to elaborate patters and themes can be found. <S> As a small addition I'd like to point out that shuffling with sleeved cards can be very different from what you are used to. <S> Stripping can be difficult because some sleeves tend to cling to each other. <S> Standard riffle shuffle is also harder because the sleeves do not grant the same fine control over the cards. <S> Probably the easiest way to shuffle is by separating the deck in two stacks and pushing the corner of one stack into the side of the other. <S> If the sleeves are sufficiently rigid it will be very easy to slide them together producing the equivalent of an almost perfect riffle shuffle. <A> Get polyurethane sleeves, not polypropylene. <S> The former are firm, strong, and have sharp edges that make them easy to shuffle simply by pressing two piles of cards together at their edges. <S> The latter are flimsy, floppy bags with cards inside them, and they're just as easy to manage as it sounds like they would be. <S> The brand I've used the longest is Ultra Pro, which manufactures card sleeves with opaque solid-color backs that are appropriate for just about any game that doesn't require you to see the backs of your cards (and is handy for those unfortunate CCGs whose card backs have changed over the years). <S> The only downsides to these are that they're not cheap, they tend to split with heavy usage over time (I can't tell if it's a function of age or not, though I bet it is), and every model I've seen has a little holographic dot on the front lower-left corner, which is less than ideal placement for games that use that space. <A> I sleeve the cards for my Card Driven Wargames, but be aware they never fit in the box right after that, and shuffling is way different.
|
Sleeves with simple opaque backs are favored in tournaments because they make it harder to mark cards. The most important aspect of sleeves is of course size.
|
Dominion - Defeating the Alchemist I have a friend who loves this card. I know that every time it's on the table, he will load up on them, and chain long turns that take ages. It's even more powerful when Scout and/or Apothecary are available, too. Obviously, I should be able to defeat this strategy by 1) beating him to it (which winds up being more of a luck thing), or 2) augmenting it with a particular card he may not have noticed on the table. But to me, that makes all Alchemist games very monotonous. I realize that sometimes an Alchemist deck is just the best strategy, but I also know that this shouldn't always be the case. What are the weaknesses of this strategy? Are there sorts of cards I should look for to play an alternate strategy that can still win out over an Alchemist-heavy deck? <Q> In the short term, cards that make him discard cards are the best way to go. <S> Minion is the best because it makes him discard all of them: <S> Other cards that help in the short term: (sadly, Ghost Ship does not) <S> In the long run, there are several strategies: <S> If Embargo is in play, Embargo Alchemist early on. <S> Destroy his cards using Saboteur or Swindler. <S> Destroy or steal his money using Thief or Pirate Ship. <S> Note <S> : These two cards will also flip his top two cards even if they aren't money. <S> Give him Curses, or use Ambassador to give him unhelpful cards. <S> One last note: Each time he buys an Alchemist, he's buying another action card. <S> If he's buying action cards, he's not buying money cards. <S> As bad as it sounds, Alchemist-heavy can often be defeated by Big Money decks, even if they have 5 Alchemists in their hand (and thus essentially start with 10 cards). <S> Also, make sure he isn't putting the Alchemists on top during turns he doesn't have a Potion in play. <S> Edit:It's been a while, but one thing I noticed I forgot to mention when I answered this in 2010: <S> Alchemist is only +1 <S> Action, which means unless they have a +2 Action card somewhere, they only have one action at the end of the chain. <A> Possession is great for making Alchemist fizzle. <S> Attacks like Militia, Goons or Torturer would also help significantly, as would anything that would help you cram Curses, Estates and Coppers into his deck. <S> If he's managing to get five Alchemists going, Masquerade could be fun, although by that time it may be too late. <A> If you're playing without Colonies, then Alchemist is often a weak card. <S> The opportunity cost of buying the 2 Potions <S> the strategy needs is quite big and a non-Potion strategy will be able to build an insurmountable lead in victory points if there are no +Buy cards on the board for the Alchemist strategy to catch up. <S> Just buy a single Smithy/Masquerade/Envoy+treasures and expect to beat the Alchemist player 8 games out of ten... <A> Powerlord's answer is quite good. <S> I'd add Masquerade to his list of effective counters, particularly if you can combo it with Goons or Militia. <S> (But then again, comboing Masquerade with either of those is ALWAYS a good time. <S> :-) <S> ) <S> When playing in Isotropic, I usually beeline for Alchemist when it's available. <S> Usually the other player does the same thing; I rarely lose when he doesn't, but it DOES happen, even when none of Powerlord's anti-Alchemist cards are in play. <S> In a 2-player game with no extra buys, an early two-Province edge can be damn near insurmountable. <S> On the other hand, if you don't get that edge, once he goes critical he'll be drawing his entire deck every turn. <S> Alchemist is one of the few cards in the game I regard as simply broken.
|
If you've got a set lacking any +buys and that has other powerful cards, you can defeat the Alchemist if you can get to the Provinces before his deck hits critical mass.
|
Getting started with trick-taking games (whist, euchre, bridge, pinochle, etc.) I've heard there are a lot of different trick-taking games out there, such as whist, bridge, euchre, pinochle, oh hell, hearts etc. I've heard a lot of good things about these games, but have very little experience. A few questions: What's the easiest way to learn one's first trick-taking game? What's a good trick-taking game to learn for someone who's never played one before? Which should beginners avoid? How easy are new trick-taking games to pick up after one has gotten a good foundation? <Q> Spades. <S> I think Spades is the easiest starting point, because is (1) easy and (2) <S> the point is winning tricks, making it more consistent with the logic of other games. <S> IMHO, spades shares more in common with the other games. <S> Hearts has the reverse logic -- you are generally trying to LOSE tricks, not win them. <S> If you start with spades, you spend your time thinking about how to win tricks. <S> That means you can switch to Eucre or Bridge or Pitch or whatever... <S> Or you can learn hearts next. <S> Spades to Bridge -- <S> > <S> play is the same; add "no trump" and dummy hand; bidding more complicated Spades to Euchr -- <S> > drop a bunch of cards from the deck, etc... but still win tricks Spades to Pitch -- <S> > <S> multiple versions exist; typically a varient of spades Spades to Hearts --> lose tricks, not win them Hearts to Bridge --> <S> more "moving parts" than "Spades to Bridge" <S> In any case, once you know one trick taking game, it's somewhat trivial to learn the rules and basic play of one more. <S> I'd recommend <S> you avoid Bridge as a first game. <S> The bidding is really complicated. <S> You can start having fun and start feeling competent much faster. <S> Pinochle is more complicated.... <S> What makes a game better for beginners makes it worse for experienced players. <A> The easiest is probably to play Oh Hell, with the ascending variation. <S> http://www.pagat.com/exact/ohhell.html <S> Everyone is dealt 1 card, and the trump is turned up. <S> Everyone decides if they're going to win that one trick or not. <S> Get good at that first, and the other games become much easier. <A> Hearts ...is the easiest with which I'm familiar. <S> I like Spades better, but it's a bit more complicated. <S> A quick search will reveal many, many sites that allow you to play Hearts online, and chances are good that your computer came with the game pre-installed, so you can play against a computer. <S> I'd bet a six-year-old <S> could learn it without too much struggle, and would be surprised if an eight-year-old couldn't. <A> I agree with Keith that Spades would give the best introduction to the genre as a whole. <S> I have not played bridge, so I can't speak to that, <S> however from my experience a good progression would be: <S> Spades - teaches bidding, fixed trump (always spades), and trick taking Euchre - teaches rotating trump (highest bidder decides) <S> Pitch - teaches tricks with different values and selective trick taking Pinochle (the king of card games IMO) <S> - teaches meld as well as expounding on all the rest As far as a good way to learn, either read the rules from a book or website to get the basics. <S> Although, the best way is to have it explained to you and play with someone who knows how to play. <S> A lot of these games are easier to learn by doing. <A> Easiest way to learn your first trick-taking game is to play a few open hands. <S> Give a brief overview, then just deal out a hand face-up on the table. <S> It matters to some extent what game you play, but more than that, just play several hands with everyone leaving their cards on the table. <S> Each play, you explain both the rules and the reasoning behind plays. <S> Once someone has a firm grasp of any trick-taking game, it is much easier to teach them another one, instead of starting from ground zero. <S> In fact, every time I'm teaching someone a new-to-them card game, I always start by asking what other games they already know. <S> I then use that <S> game(s) as a starting point. <A> I would not go with Hearts as it is almost the opposite of a trick-taking game. <S> The point is not to take tricks and the strategy is quite different from most trick-taking game. <S> We played a game as a kids called simply "trumps". <S> 7 cards each. <S> Turn over the top card of the deck. <S> Its suit is trumps. <S> Whoever gets the most tricks is the winner. <S> Next up in complexity (and way, way up in fun) is "contract whist". <S> 7 cards each. <S> Hearts are trumps. <S> Each player specifies a contract (how many tricks they will win) in order (contracts can't add to 7, so at least one player will not make theirs). <S> Play the hand. <S> 1 point for each trick with a bonus of 10 if you make your contract EXACTLY. <S> Repeat with 6 cards each (clubs are trumps). <S> Continue down to 1 card each cycling through the suit - H, C, D, S, NT - which is trumps. <S> Most points at the end is the winner. <S> The queen of trick-taking games - better than bridge (really!) <S> - is Nomination Whist. <S> It's pretty much <S> The Official Card Game of the Royal Navy and is always played for beer. <S> Sadly, I don't have many card-playing friends these days. <A> I would recommend MiniBridge which is a simplified version of Bridge (there is no bidding). <A> Bridge, spades, and whist form a "subfamily" of related games within this group. <S> Therefore, I would learn one of these three. <S> The other games are (mostly) different from each other, which is to say you don't get the 3-for-1 feature with any of them. <S> Of the three, spades, is the easiest, and therefore recommended by others. <S> On the other hand, I recommend bridge, because it is the most common of the three games, and will probably get a player further in social circles. <S> But in either event, one can treat the learning of spades or bridge as a prelude to learning the other.
|
However, if you're only going to actually learn one game, I have to say that I find Hearts and Spades to be the most boring. Hearts may be easy to learn, however it is counter intuitive compared to the rest of the games.
|
Tales of Arabian Nights -- Story versus Destiny and variants? In the ZMan version of Tales of Arabian Nights, you choose 20 points between Story and Destiny. I tend to do 10 of each or something similar. Is this the best strategy? Also, the game is very random, which I'm OK with, but are there any variants where there is some strategy or planning involved? Especially with some of the quests, it's like it doesn't really matter where you go on the board, just that you go somewhere. <Q> Been playing a fair bit of this over the weekend, so here's a few thoughts: <S> I haven't seen a particular reason to skew too far away (the furthest I've gone is D7/S13) <S> because there's no guarantee you'll get lots of story points. <S> The game is fairly random, but there does seem to be some (at least loose) correlation between your choice of reaction and the skills required. <S> So you can work around bad luck to some extent by being a bit more cunning in your opening skill selection and picking reactions that hopefully you have good skills for. <S> (This is admittedly still pretty darned random) 2a. <S> One good way of beating down the randomness is to aim for master-level skills (which let you shortcut the destiny die, and are generally-but-not-always good results), and remember to use any effects that let you skew the game in your favor. <S> (Blessed, Respected, Determined, to name three.) <A> I've pnly played the WEG version of this game once, so my memory is a bit foggy. <S> It was an interesting concept, but we had one player who rolled so badly that she hardly got to do anything the whole game. <S> The only strategy I tried to employ was try to make sure I had a chance for something interesting to happen every turn. <A> Here are two variants that my friends and I play with, each of which addresses your questions. <S> This is perhaps unsatisfactory but to beat the meta of how to split points is simple for us - we don't play with points! <S> We just go until it's time to stop, this way it really doesn't matter if someone is doing way better for no reason <S> and there's no competition. <S> A useful way to incorporate strategy is to allow users to pick a mastery at the beginning. <S> We started off with 2 talent, 1 mastery, but now just for diversity we do 2 talent, 2 mastery, and a lvl. <S> 1 treasure. <S> This last one can be great because treasures are really hard to come by (normally) and some of them open up new story options. <S> Choosing mastery and (possibly) treasure means that you can develop a personality and a strategy - for example, just today my friend was a pirate with seamanship and stealth and stealing who always robbed, while I was a bravo with appearance and weapon use who always attacked. <A> Our group ignores the story/destiny split and just uses the total as a victory condition. <S> (20 for a shorter game, 25 for about the same, 30 for slightly longer). <S> This does weaken some of the effects a little, but it saves pretending the game has any strategy at all and removes the fiddly tokens. <S> If the game is being really fun (or really boring!) <S> we may agree to adjust the target mid-game.
|
It seems that Story is a bit easier to get than Destiny (and there's a couple effects that convert Destiny to Story, plus some that remove Destiny), so I tend to skew a few points towards Story. I suppose you could invent your own variant where it's known ahead of time what will happen at each location instead of rolling for it.
|
When do trading deals become too unbalancing? I've played a few games of Settlers of Catan with friends and seen some deals emerge in the trading that don't seem quite right to me. When do deals that extend beyond the current trade become unbalancing? For example: Player A is planning to build a road that will block either Player B or Player C from longest road. So Player A sets up a bidding war between B and C to control this future behavior. B and C offer deals like: Any time I have two of (favored resource) I will give one to you I will never attack you with the robber At what point do deals like these cause the balance of the game to shift too far where it's not fun or as good to play? Balance seems to be the key in all games, and I just want to make sure deals like these don't kill it for the rest of the players. <Q> As ICodeForCoffee said in the " bribing off the Robber " question: <S> This would seem to be the same issue with the agreement to give extra resources to other players. <S> They could form an alliance to trade the resources, but not just give the extras "in the future" for a favor. <A> Deals in Catan are not binding. <S> There's no game rule to enforce the future promise. <S> Also, since the two players in question obviously established an alliance, your best bet is to ally with the fourth player. <S> In general, these and other types of trades are a good thing rules-wise because players farther behind allying for mutual benefit helps balance out unfair randomness in the game (assuming rational play, of course). <A> Deals can be "unbalanced" as long as they are "within the rules. <S> " <S> That is, either party can offer to trade RESOURCES at 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 in "domestic trade." <S> What you cannot do is to involve a "non-resource" consideration such as action. <S> I can't offer two resources for one resource and an "action" (e.g. refrain from putting the robber on me) even if the deal may actually be "balanced." <S> And the other thing is that you may trade only resoures currently IN HAND. <S> You can't offer to trade, say two resources in hand for one resource now and one resource "when you get it." <A> I'm pretty experienced with groups that have a similar play-style to yours. <S> The main deals that strike my groups as unfair are those which are 'kingmakers.' <S> That is, a player is threatening to hand the game to someone else unless a third party gives him something.
|
According to the rules of Catan, players can't trade unless they're both exchanging resources.
|
How can I play Dominion with 5+ players without expansions? I am going to get a Dominion expansion (probably intrigue based on its popularity) but in the meantime I'm curious about what I can do with just the basic set. I know it was designed for 2-4, but I don't see any real solid reason why it can't go to at least 5. I'm perfectly fine with adding any sort of house rules. The game ends when the provinces or gone or 3 stock piles are exhausted. I figure you could counteract running out of kingdom card piles by possibly adding a few more kingdom cards . To combat the number of provinces we could just add some regular playing cards at the bottom, since they won't go through shuffling too much. My games are pretty relaxed and fun oriented, so some little hacks like that would be fine if they let more people join in. Does anyone with experience with playing Dominion with 5+ players, with or without expansions? Any other strategies to making it possible for an extra player or two to join in? How will the game change with more people and is there anything I should keep in mind to make things run smoothly? <Q> To play with more than 4 players, the rules for Intrigue ( link - page 7) give the following guidelines: <S> Provinces = players x <S> 3 Curses = <S> (players - 1) <S> x 10 <S> Exhaust 4 Kingdom piles (instead of 3) to end the game. <S> Province pile still ends the game on its own. <S> Of course you'll need 3 more Estates per player at the beginning of the game, but for the Coppers you'll just have fewer in the supply. <S> All other rules are the same as in a 3- or 4-player game. <S> Keep in mind that more players can make a game feel slower, and can make some cards (especially attack cards) more powerful than in a smaller game. <S> Also, Intrigue is the only "expansion" that comes with the common (Copper, Silver, Gold, Estate, Duchy, Province, Curse) cards, but once you have it you can use those to boost your supply. <S> Until then I recommend using a few unused Kingdom cards to fill in the blanks. <S> Between the Base set, Seaside and Alchemy I found I had at least fifteen blank cards, which my wife lovingly inscribed with appropriate verbiage to reduce our need for unused Kingdom cards. <S> EDIT: <S> For awhile now Rio Grande Games has had a set of just the Base Cards for sale. <A> The primary mechanism when playing with 5 or 6 players using an expansion is just that you get 3 more Provinces per additional person playing (15 with 5, 18 with 6). <S> Putting a dummy card in (I recommend a kingdom card you're not using if you can remember - that way the card backs don't give away any info) will probably do most of what you need. <S> The other rule is that you have to exhaust FOUR kingdom piles with 5 or 6 players. <S> You can do that whether you've got the expansion or not. <S> All in all, you don't need an expansion to play with 6 players. <S> You just need 6 additional Provinces, and to play until 4 piles are gone. <S> Edit: <S> aslum points out that you also need 3 more Estates per extra player, and that technically you need more Curses as well. <S> The Curses and Estates will only matter, however, if you have Kingdom cards in play that promote buying or otherwise gaining from those piles. <A> Here, more than one player (up to all players) take their turns simultaneously. <S> If any play has an attack card, he announces it, waits for all others players to be ready. <S> (they can do as much or as little of their turns as they'd like, without knowing the attack card). <S> Then the attack is resolved, and play continues of people have buys or actions left. <S> It's fun and allows dominion to scale quite well. <A> We found that adding 2 additional kingdom card supplies per additional player over 4 also helps to balance the game out more. <S> Use the standard rules for a 3 or 4 player except that you add additional kingdom cards. <S> You will need 3 estates per player but we found that the blank cards provided in the sets can be used for extra estates. <A> And double victory points cards like estates, duches and province cards. <S> The rules are still the same but at least everyone has fun. <S> I play with at least 10 people at my local game shop. <S> And I also have all the expansions plus an app on my phone with tells me which cards to play with. <S> I run the app twice to give me twice as much cards to play with.
|
What I do to play with five or more is double the supply and make it so six piles are gone instead of the normal three are gone. The best house rule I've played with for large numbers of players is the simultaneous turns rule.
|
How long does it take to play Diplomacy? I guess this varies a lot from game to game, but I've seen everything from 120 to 360 minutes, and wondered where the average lies. If it's closer to 360, I don't think I will bother to buy it. I know how rarely Axis & Allies is taken out of its box... <Q> Odds are that you're not going to want to get it (which is tragic, as it's a great game), since it's a long-play game. <S> I've found that a game typically takes 4 hours or more. <S> Interestingly, new player groups and experienced player groups will typically take about the same amount of time. <S> New players take time because they're figuring out the rules, but they're not going to be nearly as Machiavellian. <S> Experienced players take time because they're creating plots within plots and being devious, which leads to protracted engagements on multiple fronts. <S> If you really want to make a game of Diplomacy cruise along, I recommend the following: 1) <S> Have an experienced player resolve all orders at the end of each turn. <S> That helps speed things along. <S> 2) Set a solid time limit for each turn, like five minutes. <S> Five minutes is very long for the first three or four turns, but by the eighth turn it's barely enough time to write your orders. <S> Yes, setting a time limit impairs your ability to engage in negotiations, but it'll make the game end in a reasonable amount of time. <S> Another option: <S> Play in one-hour (or two-hour) sessions. <S> Leave the board set up between sessions. <S> Long ago, I made a copy of the board, mounted it on foam-core, and stuck color-coded push-pins in it to "save" the state of the board between games. <S> Something nice about this is that you can do all the diplomacy and negotiation you want to, and you can engage in diplomacy between games. <S> That's a big part of Diplomacy <S> (go figure), and can make for a really fun experience. <A> I would say that its about 5 hours on average. <S> Its not that the game ends at that point so much as the game is agreed to be a foregone conclusion by that point, even when it might not have been, due to fatigue/disillusionment from the players :P. <A> I'd also go as far to say that 1/2 of all games are never 'officially' complete - more often a leading player and assumed winner is agreed upon. <S> I'd argue strongly that neither points detract from the game <S> , it's length and involvement is half the fun - but if you don't feel you have that sort of time to invest, it may be worth avoiding. <S> It's worth pointing out that Diplomacy has a lot less pieces to wrestle with than Axis & Allies and to a certain extent, an easier ruleset to learn. <S> Its slow point is diplomacy, which is easier to tweak, rather than the (very fiddly) physical move phases of Axis & Allies. <A> As the consensus opinion is: yes, it definitely will take you a whole day to get through a game of Diplomacy - why not play it as a PBM (or PBEM, or whatever kids are calling it these days) instead? <S> Just because something comes with a physical board doesn't mean you have to gather your friends and sit round a table. <S> A Diplomacy game is quite an undertaking, but you needn't complete it in one gruelling sitting. <S> Amortize the endless wrangling and backroom deals over a period of weeks - <S> the thrill of finally backstabbing your "dearest allies" will stay just as sweet! <A> My experiences have been varied, but much like @GWLlosa, I have found it to be, at a minimum, 5 hours. <S> We often take a weekend day - say a Saturday or a Friday holiday off of work - to play the game. <S> This way we can start around 10 AM, have lunch in the middle, dinner later and then stop whenever people are done. <S> It is a fun, quality game, just one I never plan on finishing. <S> That being said, I have heard of (but never been a part of) cut throat groups where the game goes much faster, but I think you have to have a group of people who are willing to backstab at the right times, and are willing to betray alliances for a win, something that tends to be less common amongst friends in my experience.
|
As mentioned in other answers, 4-5 hours is an accurate average length.
|
Minimum bid rule for Monopoly auctions Other questions have asserted that many people don't actually auction properties as instructed in the rules. Monopoly doesn't specify any rules to control the auction. I have seen auctions stretch on with many +$1 bids, making the process painfully slow. Seems to me some combination of eBay bid increments and/or Poker raise rules would be appropriate. What minimum bid increment rule(s) are recommended? Do these rule(s) lead to faster auctions? <Q> We have played with a minimum 1st bid of 1/4 the price of the property (to vary with property value, but to allow for unchallenged bids to be profitable from immediately mortgaging; this puts upward pressure on the 2nd bid, pushing it towards the mortgage price). <S> Incremental bids are then at least the no-house rent amount (and so also varies with property value). <A> Otherwise, set a minimum increase bid of $5 or $10. <A> Disclaimer: <S> We've never played with the auctions at home. <S> What I'm saying comes from experience with auctions in other games. <S> In my experience most unregulated auctions drag on with people outbidding each other with minimal increases. <S> The minimum bid usually isn't much of an issue. <S> If people want the item then the price will quickly rise to a certain level. <S> I'd suggest to use the "no house" or "one house" rent (or so) as the minimum raise amount for each auction. <S> That also has the advantage of scaling with the value of the property. <S> As for a minimum opening bid I'd rather go with the mortage value than the face value. <A> If you want to speed up auctions, have everyone submit one sealed bid (this is known as a first-price sealed-bid auction ). <S> The property is sold to the highest bidder for the price he bid. <S> Note - I haven't actually played this rule in Monopoly, but I did buy a real property in this kind of auction as it is the way property is usually sold in Scotland. <A> I have played around with the bidding system in the years since I asked this question. <S> We now play, and I highly recommend the following simple rule: <S> The minimum bid increment is 10% of the current bid, round up. <S> So an example auction of minimum bids would be: <S> A: $100 <S> B: $110 (+10 = 100*10%) C: $121 (+11) <S> A: $134 <S> (+13) C: $148 (+14) <S> A: $163 (+15) ... <S> This method is still to slow for my personal preference, but it is simple enough for a group that includes kids to actually use. <A> Let the auctioneer run the auction. <S> The Official Rules don't specify an auctioneer, but the least conflict of interest , on average, probably arises from having the player who landed on the property, and declined to buy, be the auctioneer. <S> Then run the auction as a proper New York auction - the type everyone is familiar with from movies and TV. <S> It is the auctioneer's responsibility to set a minimum price by asking if anyone will bid $X (any amount made up by the auctioneer). <S> If there are no takers at that price the minimum bid request is lowered until an opening bid is successfully solicited (essentially a semi-Dutch Auction). <S> This is commonly done by calling out "Do I hear $X" three times before adjusting the solicitation. <S> Then the bidding continues until no further bids can be solicited. <S> After each bid is recognized by the auctioneer, the auctioneer is responsible for soliciting higher bids that are any desired amount above the currently recognized bid. <S> Bids between the currently recognized amount and the solicited bid amount can only be made once the auctioneer calls out "Going once at $Y. ... <S> Going twice at $Y. ... <S> Going thrice at $Y and <S> SOLD for $Y." A valid intervening bid amount is only valid between utterance of the first "Going" and the " SOLD ". <S> Running the auction as a proper New York Auction allows the auctioneer discretion to run the auction efficiently, so the game is not unduly slowed, without introducing any artificial constraints on the valid bid amounts. <A> The newest standard edition (post 2008) rules say: Auctions <S> If you land on an unowned Street, Railroad,or Utility and you don’t want to buy it, the Bankermust auction it. <S> The Banker starts the auction by offering thespace to everyone for M$10. <S> Anyone can increase the bid by as little as M$1(even the Banker and the player who originallylanded on the space). <S> The highest bidder wins the auction, pays theBank, and takes the Title Deed card. <S> What if no one wants it?That’s fine. <S> No one pays anything.
|
If you're playing for "fun", as I typically do, we set the minimum bid to be face value.
|
How can I recognize games I should avoid buying if I only play with non-hardcore gamers? I started with this question about good games for new players and got plenty of good answers. But now I want to look at things from the other end and figure which games I should definitely avoid. I was thinking about buying Power Grid, Puerto Rico, and Arkham Horror to play with my family because they have tons of good reviews and are widespread. But when I asked if they would be a good choice at our local game store I was told to steer away from them due to complexity, and it seems there aren't many reviews on the complexity of games and friendliness to new people. I love board games to death, and when I see a 40 page manual I think 'bring it on!' and have no trouble sitting there for a half hour learning to play the game. Many of my friends aren't as hardcore, and they start to get bored if we don't get started in 15 minutes. What are some good ways to recognize if a game is probably not suitable for non board game enthusiasts? The outside of the box is usually unhelpful, and it can be difficult to figure this out before actually buying the game. Sadly I don't live very near a board-game store, so I can't try all of them out. If you list a game, please include why it doesn't meet the criteria, how this can be recognized, and its implications for the game. <Q> Instead of going on to list one game after another I'll try to find some common points to help you out. <S> I'd say there are three main factors in what might put off less hard-core gamers: <S> Upfront intimidation (should resolve during first game) <S> Continuous complexity (remains an issue indefinitely) <S> "Obscure effects" (should resolve after one or two games) <S> "Puerto Rico" is a good example of "Upfront intimidation". <S> If you take the time to read the rulebook upfront <S> that's gonna be a huge time investment. <S> For many casual players that might be intimidating having to remember all of it. <S> Having "Lots of bits and pieces" also falls into this category. <S> For some that's a turn on for other's not so much. <S> "Agricola" is much faster to explain upfront but much more complex during gameplay. <S> Handling all those bits and pieces, making sound decisions and trying to form some semblance of a strategy challenged me big time even after several solo games. <S> There are so many different aspects to keep track of, that it requires a lot of concentration. <S> "El Grande" would be a good example for what I classified as "obscure effects" (to your choices). <S> The game does not have much of upfront reading nor too many continuous choices. <S> The problem is that it usually takes a few turns before your choices have their effect on your score. <S> Some players don't really mind playing along and waiting to see what they get but others will find it frustrating. <S> Especially in the beginning. <S> This is something you can only find out through reviews or first hand experience. <S> Boiling it down to a few signs to watch out for: <S> Avoid games that... have lots of material. <S> (The more abstract the material the worse it is) take close to or more than 90 minutes. <S> (Anything above that is either complex or boring) <A> Agricola <S> My first and only game of Agricola involved about 30 minutes of setup and explanation before we got going. <S> It took a few turns to get the hang of it, and I think that's got to be on the short side of average. <S> I have two things going for me: <S> I'm probably more of a "hard-core" gamer than it sounds like your friends are. <S> I've played several games of Twilight Imperium, so I'm used to the core mechanic of choosing an action that no one else can do that round. <S> I think this review sums it up nicely. <S> Agricola is not a game your friends will be used to. <S> For starters, there's no direct interaction between players. <S> And the sheer volume of choices is likely to put unprepared players into a daze. <S> So if you're thinking about buying it specifically to play with that one group of friends, I'd recommend you stay away. <S> I'm not sure they'll like it enough to keep playing until they figure it out. <A> Axis & Allies <S> The 30mins+ Axis & Allies takes to set up the hundreds of peices would switch most people off - even before you get into the convoluted turn process and thick rule book. <A> Civilization (or Advanced Civilization). <S> It takes at least 30 min just to explain the framework of the rules. <S> Then more time to explain all the details of the different advanced and calamities if you want to explain those upfront. <S> (I usually leave those until later). <S> And it can take many hours to play a complete game. <S> The Advanced version actually is easier for non-hardcore gamers, because the changed rules make it easier to play a shortened version of the game. <S> But even then, it has a very high time-cost of new players. <A> The idea is to move pieces around the board, either in a "race" with others, parchesi or backgammon, or achieving objectives along the way; Monopoly, Easy Money, Life. <S> Among card games, those using the "standard" 52-card deck are better for non hardcore gamers; gin rummy, spades, bridge, poker. <S> Games using "specialized" cards peculiar to the game are harder, especially if they require a long set up time. <S> Agricola, Puerto Rico, etc. <S> I'd even put Axis and Allies (with its specialized cards) in that category, even though it's technically a dice game.
|
On the whole, I would say that dice games lend themselves more to non hardcore gamers than card games.
|
How are + Action cards used in Dominion? We were confused by the + action cards. It says you have to start at the top of the card and work your way down. so when do you play a second action card and are you allowed to play another action card if you havent done everything on the first action card. Also, can you total up all of the extra coins on all of your action cards and combine them for one buy? <Q> When playing a +Action card do not resolve the extra action until the current card is finished. <S> From pg. <S> 7 of the rules It does not mean play another Action immediately. <S> The instructions on the current Action card must be completed before playing any additional Actions. <S> (You don't have to spend everything you've gained in each turn BTW). <S> (also page 7, under Buy Phase) <S> The player may play some or all of the Treasure cards from his hand to his play area and add to their value the coins provided by Action cards played this turn. <A> You should think of actions, coins and buys as value stores that you add to and subtract from throughout your turn by doing certain things. <S> So, you start your turn with the ability to play 1 action and perform 1 buy. <S> Playing Village costs you 1 action (bringing you down to 0), but adds 2 back, meaning you now have 2 actions available. <S> Playing Smithy costs an action, bringing you down to 1, and you could still afford to play another card. <S> But Village increments the value so you can play the actions after you finish playing the Village, as opposed to being forced to play them immediately. <S> Similarly, buying a card costs a buy and a specific number of coins. <S> If you've played actions that gave you +1 buy and +5 coins in total, and you have a Silver, you can afford to buy up to 2 cards worth up to 7 coins. <A> + Actions add to your action total, but you do not play actions immediately. <S> Having said that, there are 3 cards that do cause immediate other actions: Golem forces you to play the other two action cards you turn up immediately, but you choose the order. <S> Throne Room causes you to play another action from your hand twice. <S> King's Court causes you to play another action from your hand three times. <S> There are also 2 cards that play coin cards immediately: <S> You don't have a choice whether or not to play the next coin card you turn up. <S> As soon as you play Venture, the top coin from your deck will be played, even if it is a Loan, Contraband, or Bank that you'd rather save until later. <S> A promo card. <S> When you play Black Market, you can choose to play some or all of the coin cards in your hand. <A> Here's an answer to your second question: <S> Yes, you should total all the coins on your (action) cards and combine them for your buy or buys. <S> (Note that you resolve buys after resolving actions.)
|
You should total up all the extra coins on the cards you've played for one purchase unless you have played cards with + Buys.
|
Handicapping an experienced Agricola player. One of my friends and I often play Agricola, and he's considerably better than me at it - I'm getting better, but he seems to be advancing at a faster rate, and it's getting to the point that although I like playing the game I'm finding it less fun to be constantly losing. Are there any good ways of creating some custom/'house' rules to disadvantage him slightly, so that we're a little more even? I don't want to make it impossible for him to win, or to make it too easy for me. (I know the purists out there will think this abhorrent, but hey, the goal is to have fun right?) <Q> Play an open game <S> If your friend is willing, why not play a completely open game? <S> All players show all of their cards and explain why they're taking each action. <S> If your friend really is significantly better, you could learn a lot by discovering why he makes certain moves. <S> Perhaps there's some critical flaw in your strategy that's preventing you from scoring enough points to be competitive. <A> Suggestion <S> I'd start you with one to three "traveling worker" tokens. <S> Once per turn, when it's your turn to place a family member, you can place a traveling worker token instead of a member of your family <S> (ie: You get to occupy and take an extra action.). <S> The traveling worker goes away at the end of the turn you used it. <S> You never have to feed your traveling worker tokens. <S> Functionally, traveling workers are members of your family that you can use one time, and you never have to feed. <S> Why? <S> Each traveling worker gives you two distinct advantages: It gives you an extra action, and it (may) block an action that your friend could have taken. <S> Agricola is all about efficient use of actions (and selecting the right things to purchase (and getting good combos)). <S> Traveling workers give you a little leeway. <S> Tweaking Adjust the number of traveling workers you start the game with until the games feel "right". <S> Given your description, I suspect that two traveling workers will do the trick. <S> If giving you traveling workers is so powerful that you win all the time, even with just one traveling worker, add a cost in food to using the traveling worker (like one resource unit). <A> Draft Occupations/Minor Improvements <S> The Family version of Agricola is a game of very low randomness. <S> If one player is consistently beating another, then the second player will just have to step up their game, there isn't really any satisfactory way around that! <S> Maybe I am a purist. <S> However! <S> The full game, with the occupation and minor improvement cards, allows for games where one player is significantly advantaged over another: some cards, occupations especially, are just better than other cards. <S> So here's what I'd recommend, to give you a headstart on your opponent: <S> deal two piles of 7 occupations, and then you pick the best one from BOTH piles. <S> Your opponent picks one from each pile, then back to you, until you have seven each. <S> Do the same for minor improvements. <S> (If your opponent really is thrashing you, maybe even pick two at a time instead!) <S> When you have great cards and your opponent has mediocre ones, it will be much more of an uphill struggle for him to beat you. <S> And now you are playing a game of Agricola that could have been created by the luck of the draw <S> - you don't have to make a new game that's Agricola in name only, and the purists remain mostly unirked :D <A> Forbid the strong player from taking the First Player action. <S> It's not terribly awkward to implement, and if you always get to choose the first action of the round you'll have a really significant advantage. <S> In a multi-player game he could always play last regardless of the start player marker, but that's likely too much of a disadvantage. <A> How about practicing and getting some revenge? <S> Steps for Revenge Visit play-agricola.com . <S> Play a couple games solo to get the hang of the interface <S> Advertise in the public chat channel that you are a beginner looking for a game Play five games <S> or so <S> I'll bet you can now beat your friend. <S> It worked for me, and I wasn't even purposely trying to get better. <S> By exposing yourself to different folks with different strategies, you will escalate your game play rapidly. <S> You can also learn by watching some games, those folks are really good over there! <A> If I remember correctly, Agricola scores with victory points. <S> You could simply give yourself a handicap. <S> It may not make you feel much better but it would certainly give you a reachable goal. <A> The problem with some of the other handicaps (especially the simple victory points handicap) is that it's not a particularly satisfying victory for the weaker player, and can feel patronising. <S> Never take 'Starting player' action. <S> Don't ploy, sow, or take grain until stage 2. <S> Never take food. <S> (If taking it for the starting player in the family friendly version, or for day labour, never use that food). <S> Don't take 'Family growth' until three rounds after it comes out. <S> The player who is handicapping themself shouldn't announce what their personal handicap is. <S> This prevents the weaker player from banking on the whatever the strategy is. <S> (For example, if they know that the stronger player isn't going to take sheep, they could let the sheep build up, knowing that it's not going to be taken). <S> The advantage of this handicapping mechanism is it remains a fun challenge for the stronger player. <S> It also can provide insight into alternative strategies. <S> For example when I played a game where I opted not to take sheep, I ended up not taking any animals at all, and I found that it wasn't as bad as I thought (I tied for first place). <A> The key to the game is using your card and actions as efficiently as possible. <S> Find what strengths you have in terms of feeding your family and build off that. <S> I find that I always win due to the fact that at the end of the game I have 5 stone huts and 5 children scoring 25 points in itself. <S> Just use your cards at the right time and make sure your getting expansions early in the game. <S> Remember that the more actions you have the more chance of filling your board up and getting a higher score! <S> Anyways good luck to you..
|
I suggest the stronger player secretly applies a handicapping rule to themselves. I suggest rules like: Never take sheep.
|
Rewards and punishments for card games With playing a long board game you have the satisfaction of the endurance and outsmarting your opponents. It's a struggle and winning is the glory. When you play something like poker or Uno you are playing several games over and over again. When I play with friends we play with points or with poker chips and have either rewards or punishments to the winner or the loser. We try and avoid gambling with poker but this can result in people going all-in after less than 10 hands. Do you have any suggestions for how you spice up games like Uno and poker to make them interesting without resulting to gambling? <Q> Chores <S> When we went on holidays we'd often play card games in the evening to determine who had to get up in the morning to get fresh bread from the bakery. <A> There is no poker without gambling <S> I haven't played Uno in ages, but perhaps the most fundamental mechanic in poker is the gambling. <S> There is a modicum of skill in games like 5-card draw, where at least the player has a choice of what cards to discard, but in the most popular poker games, like Texas Hold'em or 5- and 7-card stud, the best hand is deterministic (slightly over-simplified because the way the cards get distributed is obviously modified as people fold, but given that no one knows what the next cards are poker is still effectively deterministic). <S> Poker is only fun because although the best hand is fait accompli to an omniscient observer the winner is not; players can only know and play the odds of what's to come, which they do with their bets. <S> It is the betting and the concomitant broadcast of information (or mis-information) to the other players that makes the game, and without it Poker is like war (the card came) for adults: rote and pointless. <S> Now the "chips" don't have to be money, as others have suggested, but they do have to have real value. <S> Just playing with a stack of chips that hold no actual value to the players is meaningless because there's no disincentive to call every raise, which eliminates the ability to bluff and thus reduces the game to one played without chips. <S> In practice what I've found works best amongst adults is to pick a buy-in <S> that's enough money that people care a little about losing it, but not enough that they're going to be bent out of shape if they go home <S> empty handed-- <S> say $10-20. <S> Then to ensure games don't end after 10 games, put a raise limit of say 25 cents and a re-raise limit of once per round. <S> This naturally limits pot sizes and extends the game and works fairly well in practice. <S> With kids (assuming you're willing to teach them how to play poker at all) <S> a good system could involve one where chips can be purchased for doing extra chores and chips can be cashed in for privileges--with a side agreement on the chip value of various household tasks and treats. <S> Then the kids can tend to their "bank" between settings and potentially learn something about delayed gratification. <A> I prefer mild humiliation to any actual risk. <S> It tends to keep things good hearted and can easily be altered to suit any requirements. <S> Naturally, everyone should consent to the rules to make sure fun stays the top priority. <S> Here are some examples: doing pushups while singing the national anthem for 30 seconds. <S> wearing something until a different person looses, like a jester's hat, while playing. <S> Loosing your chair and sitting on the floor until someone else looses. <S> altering the words you say when declaring your actions. <S> IE every quantity has to be followed by a certain word, or every sentence must end with "your excellency" said to the winner. <S> The possibilities are endless :D <A> In order to give the chips value, you require that for anyone to "re-supply" their chips from the bank (that is, get more chips after losing all of theirs) they must perform some task; this can range from "Buy a round of beer" to "Is tasked with supplying the snacks next week" or whatever your group can come up with. <A> Pool the Winnings <S> I just remembered something my parents did with Canasta. <S> Instead of the looser paying the winner the looser paid into a pool. <S> When the pool would grow large enough they'd spend it on holidays or something else they both liked. <S> So if you're playing in fixed group that might be an interesting alternative. <S> If your group consists of different people all the time then they might not like that idea so much. <A> Food Poker and other games of chance can be played for fun using small foods. <S> Cookies and M&Ms are pretty good, though people concerned with germs and crumbs may prefer to use fun-size wrapped candies. <S> One interesting advantage of playing with mixed candies is that since different people like different candy, each "chip" takes on unique, asymmetrical value. <S> Some people will gladly gamble off their Milky Ways if it means a shot at winning some delicious mini Snickers, and vice-versa. <S> Just be careful not to eat away all your stakes before you've had a chance to win more! <A> One thing to keep in mind is that each "chip" doesn't have to have value, but the overall outcome (winning or losing) must. <S> For a party, or poker night setting where adult beverages are involved, I would suggest keeping track of the bill for everyone's drinks, then splitting the bill at the end of the night between the losers. <A> I had a group of friends who would play cards for water. <S> Hearts was the usual game. <S> A large glass of water was filled and placed in the center of the table. <S> Each hand, the person taking the most points (the loser) would drink the glass and refill it. <S> (In the event of a tie, everyone tied drinks a glass.) <S> It sounds like no big deal*, but give it a few games. <S> That glass of water will start to affect your play, especially with the queen. <S> (!) <S> Drinking too much water too quickly can be very dangerous to your health. <S> That said, we never had any problems. <S> YMMV. <A> Drinking Games <S> There's the classic stand-by of weekend college parties... <S> Any game can be a drinking game: <S> Make a mistake, take a drink. <S> Note <S> : This is not my cuppa tea, but it's an option.
|
You can play poker "without money" if you use chips.
|
Dominion: When to use Platinum and Colony I recently acquired Dominion: Prosperity (yay Christmas) and came across the Platinum and Colony Cards which are designed to be new Basic Cards (like Estate, Copper, etc...). My question is, should I (or do you) always play with Platinum and Colony even when you're not using Prosperity kingdom cards? Or do you only play with them if you're doing a Prosperity only game? Or do you use them whenever some (or certain) Prosperity cards are chosen as kingdom cards but otherwise you leave the Platinum and Colony to the side? <Q> From the Prosperity rulebook: If only Kingdom cards from Prosperity are being used this game, then the Platinum and Colony piles are added to the Basic cards in the Supply for the game. <S> If a mix of Kingdom cards from Prosperity and other sets are being used, then the inclusion of Platinum and Colony in the Supply should be determined randomly, based on the proportion of Prosperity and non-Prosperity cards in use. <S> For example, choose a random Kingdom card being used - such as the first card dealt out from the Randomizer deck - and if it is from Prosperity, add Platinum and Colony to the Supply. <S> Platinum and Colony are not Kingdom cards; when those are included, there are 10 Kingdom cards, plus Copper, Silver, Gold, Platinum, Estate, Duchy, Province, Colony, and Curse, in the Supply. <S> Use 8 Colonies for a 2-player game, or 12 Colonies for a game with 3 or more players. <S> Seems like there isn't much I can add to that! <A> Yes, there is what the rulebook says for choosing randomly. <S> But there are two primary effects of these cards and honestly I think the bigger issue is which effect matters more for you. <S> Platinum and Colony extend the depth of strategy you can put into a build up. <S> They tend to make for longer games, but games in which you could take things further. <S> This is a popular enough option that Androminion on Android has always including these as one of its settings. <S> Personally, I really like this effect and we usually include them in any setup. <S> On the other hand there are various cards in Dominion that seem to have been written on the tacit assumption that Gold is your final treasure goal. <S> Sure, they can be used regardless, but they are just less likely to be bought when platinum is in play. <S> If that is something you want to avoid, then leave them out. <S> (Other cards, like Mine, become more powerful, but not overwhelmingly so). <A> The Second Edition of Prosperity actually made an update to the rules regarding Platinum and Colony usage. <S> What was previously declared as "the rule" is now just a suggestion on how to randomize if you wish. <S> The official "rule" now is that you can include them whenever you want to. <S> Prosperity includes two new base cards, Platinum and Colony. <S> If you want to determine when to use them randomly, choose a random Kingdom card being used, and if it is from Prosperity, use Platinum and Colony.
|
You can include them whenever you want to; they are always used together.
|
When should Curses be used? Should Curses always be laid out as a supply pile even when no kingdom cards give curses? Or should the only be available when a curse kingdom card is chose? An extension of this question could be should Curses be able to be purchased without being forced to get them by a card. <Q> The Dominion rules contain the following note: <S> Note: <S> Curse cards are present in every game, however, they are rarely used in the basic game other than with the Witch card. <S> I believe you can buy them just like any other card. <S> The question is, why anyone in their right mind would ever want to! <S> Just to show off, I guess :D <A> There are some subtle situations where you need to have curses on the table even without an explicit curse kingdom card. <S> For example, the Swindler from the Intrigue expansion lets you trash opponents cards and replace them with cards of equal value. <S> If you're trashing a zero-value copper <S> you can replace it with a zero-value curse . <S> Without curses all you could do is replace it with another copper. <A> <A> Friend of mine bought one in a Garden-based deck - he had 79 cards and copper ran out. <A> "Should curses be available for purchase ?" <S> - Yes! <S> The most common scenario for purchasing curses (in a game where they aren't otherwise gained) is in a two-player game where buying all (at most) ten of them would end the game, resulting in a win for the player who does so . <S> Usually this requires some/all of the following: Watchtower in hand, so you can trash them immediately. <S> (Note: I was about to put Trader here also, but that doesn't trash the curses; you just don't get a curse...) <S> Talisman in hand <S> , so buying a curse gets you an extra. <S> Multiple buys. <S> This ("scooping" the game) frequently happens when one or both players in a two-player game are buying-up all of a few kingdom cards (e.g. Fishing Village, Bridge, City ). <A> If you don't have all the expansions they're great for proxying other cards if you don't have attack cards that would use them. <S> I only have the base set right now, and I've used curses to represent Colonies, platinums, and even more complicated cards from the other sets if everyone understands them. <S> The blanks are also great for this. <S> You can use kingdom cards as well, but I find its easier to forget that they actually mean something else.
|
When playing with "Fairgrounds" from the Cornucopia expansion I sometimes buy a curse just to have another type of card in play.
|
Is the Catapult expansion as cool as it sounds? I've often heard of the Carcassonne Catapult expansion, and I'm wondering, is it actually cool to use, or is it one of those novelties that will quickly wear off? Please give me your experience with this expansion. Thanks! <Q> I have seen it demoed before, and I have no intention of getting it. <S> It definitely seems like a novelty, or at least for a younger demographic. <S> Judging by the reviews and ratings on BoardGameGeek, I'm not the only one who feels that way -- on their 1-10 scale, the Catapult expansion is rated a full 2.5 stars lower than the main Carcassonne set itself. <S> Personally, I don't like the idea of adding dexterity to my strategy games, and the new tiles look overly cutesy, but I could see kids getting a big kick out of it. <A> I was given it and regard it as a few extra playing tiles. <S> The actual catapult thing is a worthless gimmick. <S> At the very least you need a house rule that the catapult must be fired from (say) 50cm away from the playing area. <S> Otherwise it's too easy to make the ammunition land just behind the catapult (often on the exact tile you choose). <A> I am playing this since it showed up. <S> Mostly because you can exchange a meeple against yours, or strike opponent's meeple(s) from the board or just score points (catching, shooting closest to circus tile you just placed), Especially exchange of meeples turns the rather stagnant play into an action pack thing. <S> Get rid of your prejudice and give it a shot. <S> Besides the extra tiles added with the Catapult (i.e. those roads!!) are wicked. <S> I guess only the princess and dragon or bazaars extensions had better.
|
The catapult among other extensions is one of the best improvements to the game.
|
Must a player take a jump in checkers? Is a player in checkers required to take a jump if one is available? What about a double or triple jump if that is available? <Q> In short -- for tournaments, yes . <S> I never played with forced jumps as a kid, but my father-in-law always plays with forced jumps. <S> So I did a little digging around, and this is what I found: <S> The American Checker Federation seems to be the only sanctioned checkers organization I could find. <S> According to the American Checker Federation, rule #1.20 <S> says <S> 1.20 <A> There are many variants of checkers/draughts , and for all of them (including the Checkers variant played predominantly in the English-speaking world), not only is jumping compulsory, it is also compulsory to keep jumping until all the jumps are completed. <S> Quote from the American Checkers Federation's official rulebook : 1.19 <S> If a jump creates an immediate further capturing opportunity, then the capturing move of the piece (man or king) is continued until all the jumps are completed . <S> The only exception is that if a man reaches the king-row by means of a capturing move it then becomes a king but may not make any further jumps until their opponent has moved. <S> At the end of the capturing sequence, all captured pieces are removed from the board. <S> 1.20 <S> All capturing moves are compulsory , whether offered actively or passively. <S> If there are two or more ways to jump, a player may select any one that they wish, not necessarily that which gains the most pieces . <S> Once started, a multiple jump must be carried through to completion. <S> A man can only be jumped once during a multiple jumping sequence. <S> However, the rules for selecting among multiple ways to jump differs from variant to variant. <S> E.g. for International draughts , the sequence with the most jumped pieces has to be selected, and for Italian draughts there are even further tie-breaker rules depending on the number of kings that are being captured. <A> There are many different Checkers variants , but I believe most of them use a forced capture rule. <A> I've always had the same rules that <S> this article does (Rule 9), if you can jump, you have to jump at least once, but you don't have to jump any more than that.
|
All capturing moves are compulsory, whether offered actively or passively...
|
Are the Goons un-fun? At my weekly boardgames night earlier this evening I was roped into an all-expansions, 6-player game of Dominion. A girl on the sidelines piped up: "You should take out the Goons card. It takes all the fun out of the game." Needless to say... one of the ten cards randomly selected was the Goons. Those of us who hadn't played with the most recent expansions inspected the card. Forcing everyone else to discard down to 3 did seem liable to slow the game to the crawl... but the card did cost a pricey 6. How bad could it be? I started with a 2-5 copper split and bought a Haven and a Trading Post. From there I was able to whittle my deck free of Coppers and Estates until it was a pretty efficient collection of Silvers and Golds. Even though the player who was buying up Goons was hitting me more turns than not, the three cards left in my hand tended to be worth 5-8 before too long, leaving me in a good position to keep buying Gold, Province and Duchy cards. I ended the game with 36 points; second place. The "Goon player" had a fairly crazy 48 points. What annoyed me about this is that he hadn't really needed to bother scrabbling to buy Provinces with the rest of us: just playing a lot of Goons and buying stuff had allowed him to amass a stack of victory point chips that left the rest of us in the dust. It's true that there was a pile of Secret Chambers on the table that most of us failed to buy; I could certainly have done with a few, to sculpt my hand against the Goons and dodge the Spy attacks that almost all the other players at the table seemed to be throwing around with abandon. But it still seems to me that there may be a fair accusation to be levelled against the Goons. For the price of a Gold, they're a much improved Silver - they can easily net you a couple of Estate's worth of free victory points every time you play them, with none of the downsides to the efficiency of your deck! And if that wasn't bad enough, they are also a really annoying attack, with, as previously mentioned, the potential to slow the whole game to half speed if they are constantly being played. Obviously no card in Dominion is unconditionally broken: for any card, there will always be a configuration of available cards that will combat it efficiently. But are Goons too far along the un-fun end of the spectrum? Was the girl at my group right to propose that they should be removed from the game for its own good? <Q> Personally, I like that goons opens up the possibility of winning without buying green cards as well as the possibility to have monstrous turns when you've stacked a few goons. <S> But fun is subjective, <S> if it's not fun for a subset of the players in your group, it is simply not fun for them. <S> Since being hit by 10 goons is no worse than being hit by 1, the number of players doesn't matter so much. <S> Contrast this with a card like witch, where the damage done scales in proportion to how many are played. <S> Messing with all 5 opponents isn't necessarily better than messing with a single opponent. <S> You still have to beat all of your opponents. <S> Imagine <S> you could either get 5 points, or cost every opponent in the game 3 points. <S> In a 6 player game, you could theoretically cost each opponent 3 points, for a total of 3 * 5 = 15 points, but you'd still only have a relative advantage on each opponent of 3 points. <S> If instead you took the five point gain, you would have gained 5 points on each of your opponents. <S> Even though the "net damage" increases with the number of players, the "relative advantage per player" is really the important metric, which is often number of players invariant in Dominion. <A> NO Goons is just an upgraded Militia. <S> Had your friend never played with Militia before? <S> All Attack cards are designed to slow down your opponents. <A> If you want more player interaction, a bit more competition, the necessity for on the fly adaptations, and everybody's fine with keeping attacks in, then go for it. <S> The choose between a more or less competitive game is one we have to make every time we sit down to play. <S> When in doubt, ask the other people what they think. :D <A> When Goons are on the board, you usually have a Goon-focused game. <S> Chapel has a similar property. <S> If you don't like Goon-focused games, don't put them in your kingdom set. <S> Goon games flow differently than non-Goon games, so it's understandable <S> you'd like the rest of Dominion but not Goons <S> Still, if you're new to Goons, give them a few more games before you pass judgement. <A> It seems like you didn't really seem to have much of a problem buying cards, you were merely surprised that he was able to win using the victory tokens. <S> So did it really make it un-fun? <S> Is goons broken? <S> I mean the attack is nowhere near as ruinous as Witch/Mountebank/Pirate Ship/Sea Hag. <S> Sure its a great card, but there are definitely ways to work around it, and it generally isn't an auto-buy unless you can make use of the +buy <S> and/or have +actions. <S> So I can't really justify "banning" it unless you just don't like attack cards in general. <S> For instance, spending time trashing cards really isn't that efficient against mass goons, because you could just keep the junk and discard it. <S> So maybe it might have been more effective to get a different 5 cost card rather than trading post and make use of that secret chamber you mentioned. <S> The bottom line is, ya goons is great, but for a 6 cost card, it only gives 2 buying power, and the attack is average. <S> It is basically a militia for 6 that trades what could have been more buying power for some victory tokens for the end game. <S> I definitely wouldn't leave it under the card tray where pirate ship is.
|
While attacks usually get meaner in Dominion games with more players, Goons isn't really one of the attacks that gets nastier in larger Dominion games. I think the real issue you're having is with attack cards in general.
|
What can dead Werewolves players be doing? When you've been lynched by the villagers or ripped apart by the werewolves, I believe the rules say those players are completely out of the game and should not contribute in any way. In the handful of Werewolves games I've played, some of those dead characters are put out that they aren't playing any more & decide they'll go and do something else, hence splitting up the party. Do people have any house-rules or innovative ideas for what dead players can be doing within (or around) the game as it continues? <Q> A simple game variant is that dead people can become ghosts. <S> This means that they still close their eyes, but do not vote. <S> During the day, they can still talk and participate in discussions. <S> Obviously, one's status is NOT revealed when one is killed. <S> It's up to the moderator to say when the game is over. <S> This changes the game, since it's not possible to eliminate 'leaders', but it can keep everyone engaged. <A> They can keep their eyes open and watch the rest of the game, and cannot speak. <S> Every morning they may write a clue in the form of a single letter (not using the player's initials) to show the people who are still alive. <S> The reason it's only the first person to be killed is that they haven't had much of a chance to participate otherwise in the game, not even in the first round of lynching. <S> It can also be quite good if you have new players in the group, as it gives the people still alive a focus for their discussion. <A> You mean I've been lying on the floor with my limbs twisted and an expression of ghastly terror frozen on my face all these times, and I didn't have to? <S> Man! <S> I wonder if perhaps people bitten by werewolves should become junior werewolves - or at least ghosts, who can silently haunt people they feel helped stitch them up, and perhaps suggest future victims to the werewolves by pointing? <S> EDIT - I didn't really mean that death should involve promotion to full werewolf status. <S> See my comment below for what was actually going through my mind when I typed that those bitten by werewolves should become a werewolf. <S> Whoops! <A> I've always played with just 8-9 people, so the dead just wait for the next turn, which is going to happen in a matter of minutes (and it's fun). <S> One of the "official" game rules actually have a role for dead people too, but I fear that it would make the game needlessly complex. <S> update : I kind of found out. <S> Those rules had people during the day first chose to nominees to be burnt, <S> then everyone could vote which one to burn between those two: this last vote could be cast by ghosts too, which anyway could not talk. <S> This is an extremely lame and boring rule: <S> it adds unnecessary complexity <S> it either forces the ghosts to keep the eyes closed during the night <S> (lame: it's fun to see what's going on!) <S> or it makes them way too powerful (just terrible)
|
A house rule I've played is that the first dead person becomes a ghost.
|
What is the logic behind the bean cards to be removed from the deck in Bohnanza? With 3 players, remove the Cocoa Beans from the game. With 4 or 5 players, remove the Coffee Beans from the game. With 6 or 7 players , remove the Cocoa Beans and the Garden Beans from the game. What's the logic behind this? Is there any reason cocoa beans only work with a medium number of players? I can see the potential logic of wanting to keep them occurring at a certain frequency, but how does that 'improve' the game. It they are common, players will scramble to get them due to rarity, and with more players they will be powerful in trade. These are key elements to the game, and I don't see why the rules specifically try to prevent these conditions that are just a natural part of the game. Same thing with coffee beans, why do the most common beans only work with a medium number of players? What effect will changing these rules have on the game? <Q> With too many players, these beans are too hard to make work: if you take a risk and plant one, at a competitive table you may never be allowed to plant another! <S> Conversely, with too few players, these beans are too easy to make work: you stand a good chance of just randomly drawing into them on your turn and making a killing. <S> I suspect the Coffee Beans exist to make up the numbers in games where the Cocoa and/or Garden beans have been removed. <S> They are a pretty generic bean, plentiful and of low value, unlikely to rock any boats. <S> I don't think the Coffee beans would be unbalanced in a 3/6/7 player game in and of themselves; but they need to be removed just because, if you'll allow me to mix my metaphors, too many beans spoil the broth. <S> The more types of bean you have in the mix at any one time, the more random the draws become, and the less easy it is to discern a hopefully optimal strategy. <S> (Equally, of course, too few beans makes it too easy to see the "best" plays.) <S> Keeping the number of beans in play down to 9 or 10 at any one time keeps it easy, but not too easy, to wrap your head around the numbers of what's going on. <S> If you just want a fun, random, noisy bean-collecting game where you don't really care about the finer points of game balance or cutthroat competitive strategy, I'd suggest that it's probably not worth your while removing and adding different types of beans between every game. <S> Depends entirely on your motivations for playing Bohnanza! <A> Ignore them if you like, they aren't mandatory. <S> Those are all listed after the main rules section under a heading entitled, "Variations based on the number of players" You can find a probable reason for those rules on BoardGameGeek . <S> To sum it up, the original German version of Bohnanza was for 3-5 players. <S> There was an expansion that included support for 6-7 players which added the 4 (Cocoa), 22(Wax) and 24(Coffee) beans. <S> This expansion was included for the english language release of the game by Rio Grande Games. <S> One can make an assumption that between the release of the expansion in 1997 and the Rio Grande version in English (2000) that it was felt that the additional cards led to a longer, possibly less satisfying game. <S> The variations based on number of players appears to be an attempt to improve, and definitely shorten the game (particularly with < 6 players). <A> Well, with 3 players, it is guaranteed that at least 1 player will draw more than 1 cocoa bean, which is a large advantage. <S> Not sure if either of these thoughts were what the game designers were actually thinking, but it's a theory.
|
It seems clear that the very valuable, very scarce beans will work best when there are neither too many nor too few players at the table. With increasing numbers of players, it seems likely that they would just get thrown away.
|
Correct/Recommended use of Masquerade in Dominion: Intrigue According to the rulebook, when using Masquerade, the cards passed between players must remain invisible until each player chooses the card to pass and places it down. I've always assumed it means that the passing itself is also done when the cards are face-down, which makes it the only card in the game that adds uncertainty to the number of VPs each player has. It was strange, but interesting to play nonetheless. Lately, however, I've begun playing "Androminion" , and noticed that when passing cards using Masquerade in this version, the cards are passed face-up. I've checked the rulebook again, and it DOES seem like this is a gray area: the cards to pass should be selected when all the cards are face-down, but what happens later is not specified. So - which is the 'correct' use of Masquerade? Passing cards face-up, so all the players can fully see the implications of this turn, or passing them face-down, adding a bit of uncertainty to the game? <Q> From the Intrigue rulebook: <S> First you draw 2 cards. <S> Next, each player (all at the same time) chooses a card from his hand and places it face down on the table between him and the player to his left. <S> The player to the left then puts that card into his hand. <S> Cards are passed simultaneously, so you may not look at the card you are receiving until you have chosen a card to pass. ... <S> I agree this is ambiguous, but I think your original interpretation is correct: the cards are not public and people only know what they passed and what they received. <S> There are three things that support my claim: <S> The rules do state that the card is placed face down. <S> The very next sentence says the card is put into the hand. <S> I believe that if the intent was for the cards to be revealed that the rules would have explicitly told the players to turn the cards over, or to reveal them. <S> The simplified description on the card (see picture above), is "Each player passes a card from his hand to the left at once. <S> " <S> The phrase "at once" implies that the passing should be done by all players simultaneously and that the only action they should be performing is the passing. <S> That is, no looking at what you're being handed, no turning over what you're handing off <S> so everyone else can see it--period. <S> Pass the card at once. <S> The card is called Masquerade , which is a party where the guests wear masks to disguise their identities. <S> I think leaving the true identities of what is passed a mystery to the party at large is exactly the spirit of the card's name. <S> The fact that Masquerade is the only way that to disguise how many victory points people actually have I find quite charming and not at all a reason to think the passed cards should be public knowledge (lots of Dominion cards of one-of-a-kind). <A> Every time you are supposed to reveal cards, the card will explicitly direct you to do so. <S> There are lots of cards that use the term "reveal" (e.g., Ambassador, Scout, Thief). <S> The reason these cards specify to reveal other cards is that the default is not to reveal cards. <S> Thus, since Masquerade does not direct otherwise, you should follow the default procedure of not revealing. <A> This is an old question, but I'm going to leave the answer here in case anyone else comes here looking for it. <S> "Pass" has a specific meaning, defined in the Intrigue rulebook like this: “Pass” – when a player passes a card to another player, he places that card face downon the table between himself and the other player. <S> The receiving player then takes thecard from the table and puts it in his hand. <S> A passed card is not revealed to the otherplayers. <S> A passed card is not considered to be trashed or discarded by the playerpassing it and it is not considered to be gained by the player receiving it. <S> Also, I logged the Androminion bug, so that should be fixed pretty soon.
|
Do not reveal the cards.
|
How do you play the Master Spy in Guillotine? Guillotine is a fun, quick, bloodthirsty little card game that would grace any group's collection. It is very simple, which is just as well, as the rulebook errs on the side of vagueness. There is one card, though, where it's hard to work out how the creators envisaged it to be played. The Master Spy goes to the back of the line after any action card is played. There are two ways of interpreting this. Either the action card is fully resolved, and then the Master Spy goes to the back of the line. This means that, basically, the Master Spy cannot be executed except fortuitously, when he is the only person left standing at the end of a day. The other interpretation is that the action card is played, the Master Spy goes to the back of the line, and then the action card is resolved. So, supposing you play an action that reverses the line: the Master Spy goes to the back of the line, then the line is reversed, and then THWACK! It's off with his head. The latter way of playing appeals to most of the groups I've been part of, simply because it allows for clever play (or at least as clever as you can get in a game like Guillotine). I do suspect us of approaching the game too much like diehard Magic: the Gathering rules lawyers: drawing a fine temporal distinction between a card's being played and a card resolving is probably not something that would occur to casual card players. I was wondering, if anyone else here has ever played Guillotine, how do you play the Master Spy? (I can't imagine Guillotine is a serious enough game for there to have been an "official ruling", but if there has, that would constitute an even better answer!) <Q> The Master Spy is quite hard to kill! <S> Boardgamegeek posed this question a while ago and got this response from Wizards of the Coast. <S> there is no way to play a card to get the master spy to the front of the line without him just going back after the cards effects. <S> For further reference, a secondhand account but the ruling was during a WoTC run game. <S> This is the way I've always played it as well. <S> He's the Master Spy! <S> Of course he's hard to kill :) <A> Pat's response is spot on, I think (and bonus points for the official response). <S> However, you can still influence whether you get to kill the spy. <S> The most obvious way would be to use a "Double Header" to kill two nobles if there are only two left in the queue. <S> Also, if there are as many cards left as there are players, then you could try playing a card that makes you kill no nobles at all that turn and hope that the other players will all kill exactly one noble - which would leave the master spy for you. <A> I actually found a funny way in which he can die early. <S> The card that reads "choose a player, the nobles will be randomly rearranged just before that player takes his next noble"(roughly). <S> My opponent, sneakily chose herself. <S> the spy moved to the back of the line. <S> then... the cards got randomly re-arranged <S> and she got lucky. <S> I see that the wizards may disagree, It seems to me that the card is played and the effect was to set up the randomness. <S> The final randomness only occurs after whichever player is chosen is done with their action. <S> It's genius to use it on yourself. <A> I have always been of the opinion that it is impossible to kill him until he's the "last one left standing" because he ALWAYS moves AFTER the action takes its effect. <S> We played tonight and a friend played the card that shuffles the line just before his wife would collect her noble. <S> Naturally, she played an action card that had no effect on the line due to the upcoming shuffle and argued that her card took effect when she played it even though the Master Spy was already at the end of the line. <S> As luck would have it, Master Spy popped up at the front of the line as a result of the shuffle and she claimed her card had already taken effect so she collected Master Spy. <S> I feel vindicated to see she was wrong as ruled by Wizards of the Coast. <S> That being said, we actually had a game where Master Spy was fourth in line at the beginning of the day, preceded by two high point cards and Unpopular Judge. <S> The first two players simply collected their heads without playing an action card. <S> I was third up, but prevented from playing an action card due to the Judge's flavor text. <S> My wife, who was next in turn, happily played no action card and snatched Master Spy from the front of the line since he hadn't moved! <S> So, it is possible to get Master Spy before the end of the day if the right set of circumstances arises. <A> There is only one way it makes sense and it is that he moves to the end of the line so you can't collect him. <S> Otherwise there is no point in them even changing his specific rule. <S> The card is resolved, then he moves to the end of the line making him impossible to catch without waiting it out or not playing action cards. <A> The Master Spy text is, 'After each action card is played, move this card to the end of the line'. <S> The text implies multiple action cards may be used in one turn, which at first seems to be against the rules. <S> But, it is possible for the Master Spy's effect to be triggered twice in one turn, such as with a 'Confusion in Line' action card (choose player. <S> Randomly rearrange the line just before that player collects his or her next noble). <S> According to a previous post in this thread, WotC official response implies the Master Spy moves 'prior' to collection. <S> Thus, the Master Spy will avoid being collected if randomly reshuffled to the front of the line, as he will just slip to the back of the line after the shuffle. <A> It has to be one of either two ways, and can't be both. <S> The card reads "after each action card is played". <S> 1). <S> "Played" means put on the table. <S> E.g. <S> I play double feature but the moment I put it on the table the spy moves to the end, and I collect the next two nobles (not the spy). <S> E.g. 2 <S> I play reverse the order of the line, the moment I put it on the table the spy moves to the end, then the line reverses and I collect the Spy. <S> 2). <S> "Played" means the execution of the text on the card. <S> E.g. I play reverse the order of the line and execute the action, reversing the order, then the spy moves to the end. <S> I do not get the spy. <S> E.g. 2 <S> I get the spy. <S> It has to be one or the other. <S> It rests on the definition of the word "played". <S> Either reversing the order works or double feature works, but not both or neither.
|
I play double feature and execute the action, collecting the master spy and the next noble, or a noble and the master spy depending on their order.
|
Fluxx - What counts as a 'play'? When the current rules in play are along the lines of 'Play 4', does that include any cards you have already played as the result of other actions / playing your Keepers, or do they have to be fresh cards from your hand? If I have 2 action cards and 2 keepers in my hand and I have to play 4, do I have to also play the keepers in front of me? (I've interpreted the rules as such in this case) (Zombie Fluxx in this case, but common to all variants of Fluxx I think?) <Q> One thing that may be worth clarifying (for new players) is that, if you've played one card already this turn and <S> your second play is "Play 4", you don't play four more cards; you play two more cards. <S> Likewise, if you start your turn with "Play 4" in effect and your third play is "Play 2", you don't play any more cards; you have already played more than your currently allotted number of cards for the turn. <S> Playing cards as part of an action doesn't count towards your Play 4 limit, though. <S> For instance "Draw 3 and play 2 of them" counts as one of your four plays for the turn, not two or three. <S> Playing a Keeper or a Goal does very much count as playing a card. <S> Creepers don't, of course, but they're a well-documented special case. <A> Yes, putting a keeper on the table in front of you counts as a play, but having a keeper on the table that you previously played is not a play. <S> (I'm not sure I understand your first paragraph, so <S> I'm trying to answer what I think you're asking) <S> If the current rule is "play 4" you do have to play cards from your hand (including rules, actions, and keepers) until either: You run out of cards <S> You play a rule card that changes the play <S> # rule <S> You have played 4 cards <A>
|
Putting a keeper in front of you counts as playing it, so yes, in your example you would have to play all 4 cards.
|
Do you know any good miniature wargame that is fairly easy to learn and play? I have various miniatures (sci-fi and fantasy one), some grounds (tree, hills, barricades) and many many dices. I host regularly every week in a Barcelona bar a boardgame meeting with new people to boardgames and from various language and nationality. I have many new enthusiasts, but few experts in gaming. I am looking something to propose for the occasional gamer, and at the same time, a miniature wargame that is fairly easy to learn and have fun to play. What is a bad suggestion: Dungeon & Dragons, any of Warhammer series, historical reconstruction of fights What is a good suggestion: A own made auto generated labyrinth game (I have plenty of tiles), a game with a 15 minutes creating character and quick battles, a game that can play several people at the same time. Can you please help me with some suggestions? <Q> We used to play Necromunda years ago--I'm not sure if it's still around. <S> Like Warhammer <S> it is/ <S> was a Games Workshop game, but I think it could suit your purposes. <S> It came with enough "terrain" in the box to support a game. <S> It would be well suited to a multi-player game (think of an urban gang-fight free-for-all). <S> Only a few miniatures were needed so that barrier is low and a quick gang could be set up quickly by new players while the seasoned set up the terrain. <A> Savage Worlds <S> Savage Worlds is an RPG system - but contains a strong game of miniatures combat! <S> The rules are "Fast! <S> Furious! <S> and Fun!" <S> as advertised. <S> You can learn the game from the book in an evening and teach it in minutes. <S> You can use all your minis, tiles, and terrain. <S> You can choose an existing setting or create one yourself. <S> Unlike many wargames, it's designed to handle many participants in a battle. <S> The rulebook is small and inexpensive. <S> There is an active and welcoming Savage Worlds community online. <S> I think it makes a good fit for your criteria and hope you give it a try. <A> It uses hexes that you could either incorporate in or toss and use whatever you have. <S> Most importantly it has a "simple rules" variation built in to the rulebook that allows for pretty easy pick-up-and-play. <A> Mordheim lends itself to a small model count pretty well, and the rules are available on Games Workshop's website for free. <A> Fuzzy Heros seems like a nice simple set of rules, though you'll probably want to adjust the theme a bit. <A> http://www.manticgames.com/Shop-Home/Dwarf-Kings-Hold.html <S> It's a very, very fast game with quick rules. <A> Quikwars, which is a simplified version of Brikwars , looks pretty easy.
|
Heroscape is a solid game that may you may be able to repurpose.
|
Do you need to buy a card when playing treasures in Dominion? So I ran into a situation where I had a single treasure, the Loan card. I wanted to play the Loan card but I did not want to buy any cards. So can you play treasure cards and not buy anything? I believe I read in the rules that you play treasures first, then buy cards. So I believe that means I can play treasures and not buy any cards. Thanks. Edit I just re-read my question and I failed to mention that I want to make sure I can use the "powers" of the treasure cards even if I don't buy anything. So in the example above I want to use the powers of the Loan card, but not buy any cards. <Q> That's fine. <S> From the Dominion rules: The cost of a card is in its lower left corner. <S> The player may play some or all of the Treasure cards from his hand to his play area and add to their value the coins provided by Action cards played this turn. <S> The player may then gain any card in the Supply of equal or lesser value. <S> He takes the purchased card from its Supply pile and places it face-up on his Discard pile. <S> He my not use the ability of the card when it is gained. <S> If the player has multiple Buys, he combines Treasure cards and any coins available from Action cards to pay for all of the purchases. <S> For example, if Tyler has +1 Buy and 6 coins provided by two Gold cards, he can buy a Cellar costing 2, placing it face-up in his Discard pile. <S> Then, he can buy a Smithy with the remaining 4 coins and place that face-up in his Discard pile. <S> If he wants to use all 6 coins to buy one card, he can buy a Copper (for free) with his second Buy or not buy a second card. <S> (bolded for emphasis by me) <S> EDITED , to answer Chris' edit <S> : Yes, it's fine to use Loan's "power" and then not buy anything. <S> As stated in the rules above, you play a Treasure card from your hand, in this case the Loan: at which point the Loan card's abilities kick in, and you carry out all the revealing, discarding and trashing. <S> Now you have (at least) <S> 1 coin in your pool that you could spend on a Buy: <S> but the rules make it clear that actually buying something is always optional, no matter how much cash or how many Buys you are entitled to! <A> No , you do not have to buy a card. <S> You are free to use the power of Loan or any other treasure played during your turn. <S> There is no obligation to buy anything just because you used the power of a treasure. <S> From the rulebook pg7, emphasis mine: <S> The player may play some or all of the Treasure cards from his hand to his play area and add to their value the coins provided by Action cards played this turn. <S> The player may then gain any card in the Supply of equal or lesser value and later on <S> Players do not have to use any or all of their Buys <A> Just to add something minor to the other two answers, you can also play treasure without buying anything to gain the benefits of other cards, e.g. Alchemist.
|
Players do not have to use any or all of their Buys.
|
What are the blue-backed cards in Dominion for? There is a set of one of each card, but with blue inner border on their backs instead of beige. What are they for? <Q> They are listed among the contents (on page 2) and the main use is detailed on pg 5 of the rules . <S> For example, the players can shuffle the Randomizer cards for all Kingdom cards and draw 10 to select the cards for the game. <S> Or, players can take turns selecting cards. <S> Players may also use the Randomizer cards as Placeholders to mark the card piles so empty piles are easily seen. <S> A lot of folks use a random deck generator, we have a list here at B&CG . <S> If you use sleeves, it may be helpful to use a different color sleeve for the randomizer cards so that they catch your eye easier. <S> Do not add them into the piles unless you want to change the balance of the game. <S> There are supposed to be 10 of each card, not 11. <S> Some game strategies revolve around depleting piles fast or unexpectedly and you would impede those by having 11 cards in each stack. <S> Also, since they have a different back, they will be noticeable unless you are using opaque sleeves. <A> This question about Dominion organization and setup has some related answers. <S> lilserf talks about an iPhone app that helps with game setup <S> my answer "fine the way it is?" <S> explains how we use the randomizer cards <S> if you're interested in using a computer program as a randomizer, Pat asked a question about which apps are the best <A> They were primarily intended to be used for randomizing, but most people use some sort of application for that. <S> However, as is suggested in the rules, they can also be used as placeholders to indicate depleted stacks. <S> This can be useful, as it's easy to lose track of how many stacks have been used up. <A> They are called the randomizer cards , and they are supposed to be kept separate from all the other cards and used to select 10 random kingdom cards at the start of the game. <S> I personally use one of many online deck randomizer ( my favorite) , for this and just leave them in with the rest. <S> You can cheat and try to bring them to the top of your deck when shuffling so you can draw them more quickly, but I've never played a serious enough game for this to be an issue. <S> Also, leaving them in will make the game infinitesimally different since each kingdom pile has one more card. <S> If you were running a tournament, you might want to leave them out for maximum fairness.
|
The blue backed cards are the randomizer cards.
|
Information gain from discarded tiles in Mahjong What information do you gain when another player discards a tile apart from seeing which tile it is? In particular from the position from which the tile is discarded. I neglect the timing side-channel in this context. You can sort your tiles, but no good player will do that, since it increases the information your opponents gain while giving you no advantage. As I understand the rules at http://mahjong-europe.org you can't regularly shuffle the tiles. In particular not between taking and discarding a tile. From this I conclude you can find out in which turn the discarded tile was drawn(all initial tiles count as a single turn), but nothing more. Is that correct, or did I miss a way to gain additional information, or hide information about when the discarded tile was drawn? <Q> Like you said, you can't shuffle your tiles at will, but if I'm remembering correctly, you can put the tile you just drawn anywhere in your "hand", so you can't know when the discarded tile was drawn (at least not if you haven't a perfect memory ;) ). <S> However, each player has his own discard location, so you can easily see all tiles he has already discarded and maybe find a pattern in his discards which may prove useful to guess what he is waiting. <S> A player which is always discarding quickly the tile he just drawn is also a strong indicator that he is close to finish. <A> In all types of mahjong except Riichi-mahjong, the tiles are discarded into the pool at the center, usually in no particular order. <S> From this, you can gain information about what kinds of hands your opponent might be going for. <S> For example, if your opponent discards a 5 of circles and a 6 of circles in two consecutive turns, you can assume that it is very likely that they're going for a hand consisting of few circle tiles, an outside hand (terminals and honors in every set), or something similar. <S> However, this depends on the style of mahjong you are playing. <S> To get more information about your opponent's hand based on the their discards, it is usually best to familiarize yourself with the types of hands that can win, and the point values associated with each hand. <S> Then, you can deduce the kinds of tiles in your opponent's hands based on the discards that you see. <S> Just keep in mind that a good opponent could also be attempting to trick you, so <S> while the likelihood of the tiles in their hands swings one way, it's not definite. <A> Generally, most people will organize their tiles in some fashion. <S> By watching both were they put the drawn tile, and where they pull their discard from, you can draw inferences on what they have in hand. <S> By looking at their set of discards, coupled to their hand organization you can often tell if they've changed hand goal mid-hand. <S> (For example, starting off going for a set of 3 chous and a pung, and deciding instead to start grabbing matches, instead. <S> Further, you need to keep an eye on the discards to prevent yourself from trying to make pungs from numbers which already have been discarded twice (tho' that's basic to mah jongg, many novices overlook that). <S> Often, I've found novices will hold a couple single tiles in order to make a specific combination hand, waiting to draw a second and take the 3rd from a discard, only to show grave disappointment when someone else discards the 2nd tile; it's not uncommon for them to visibly react, then discard the same tile. <S> The more frustrated their look, the more likely they are working some fixated strategy and/or are close to going out.
|
If you have a very good memory, you can remember what tiles were discarded by whom.
|
Best set of blank cards Where can I get a good cheap set of blank cards? Amazon sells them, but it is apparently difficult to get a pen to work on them. In my case I ask because I like bohnanza, but can't tolerate the illustrations. Others may have other uses. <Q> I was poking around the other day looking for the same answer. <S> Seems pretty cool, but it looks like you're limited to standard playing card sizes (i.e. no tiny Arkham cards). <S> Their complete product line appears here . <S> I'm not sure what size cards Bohnanza uses. <S> I'm in the midst of designing my own game <S> but I need different sized cards (1.5" by 2.5") <S> so their apparent lack of that size is kind of a deal breaker. <S> DeLano Service is another site that could get cards made. <S> Sounds to be a bit more fancy that what you're looking for, perhaps more like a prototype company that an supplier of blank cards, but perhaps they'd sell blank cards if asked. <S> (Note: <S> I have no affiliation with either site.) <A> Although not a particularly cheap solution, you could use a service like Artscow to print off this redesign of Bohnanza: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/239278/bohnanza-redesign-for-the-uppish-and-the-posh <A> I use blank name cards. <S> I get them from printers or stationers in boxes of 100 for about $1. <S> They're smaller than regular playing cards, and not as durable, but you can also get them in perforated sheets of ten (10) that will go through your printer. <S> You might find other sizes of perforated cards as well.
|
Plaincards.com sells software to design your own cards and blank cards to print your designs on.
|
Missions in Risk -- is Australia really an island? For some reason, I agreed to play Risk with my wife and her friend the other night, and we decided to try the Mission cards in Risk because no one wanted to go for global domination. I would soon be reminded why I don't play this game. One of the mission cards states "Control two islands". While there is nothing in the rules that states what exactly is an "island", to me, islands would be any of the following countries: Great Britain Iceland Greenland Indonesia New Guinea Madagascar Japan However, our friend also claimed Australia was an island, albeit a "very big island". Pulling up the Wiki Answers article as well as the Wikipedia article state that Australia is a technically a continent and not an island, partly due to being on its own tectonic plate. The Wikipedia article does mention that Australia has been dubbed the "island continent", which was enough to give our lawyer friend something to hold on to. Barring common sense, are there any rulings as to which countries count for the mission card? <Q> Australia is not an island. <S> A mission may require you to control an island. <S> An island is a territory completely surrounded by water and only connected to other territories by sea-lines, for example Indonesia. <S> See page 18 of the rules here: http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/Risk_2003.pdf <A> Within this context, I would define an island as a territory which is completely surrounded by water. <S> That said, from a mechanical standpoint there's no difference between an island and a landlocked territory. <A> Consulting Wikipedia , I see that the Secret Missions have been changed. <S> Unfortunately, I cannot find a full list of the newer mission cards. <S> Looking at the old cards, there are several of the form: <S> capture Europe, Australia and one other continent capture Europe, South America and one other continent capture North America and Africa capture Asia and South America <S> capture North America and Australia <S> As long as your set of mission cards contain missions worded similarly <S> then I think most reasonable people would grant you that Australia is a continent and therefore not an island .
|
By this definition Australia would not be an island, since in the game it's divided into two territories. The rules for the 2003 edition define an island as follows:
|
Games to learn a foreign language or to enrich your vocabulary in your native language? I like Scrabble for learning a foreign language or enriching my vocabulary in my native language. What other games also help you do that? Please submit one game per answer only - that works best with voting. If you want to submit multiple games, just leave multiple answers. <Q> In a Pickle (English). <S> For up to six players. <S> Can a giraffe fit in a phone booth? <S> Does a sofa fit in a shopping cart? <S> It all depends on how you size it up in this game of creative thinking and outrageous scenarios. <S> Try to win a set of cards by fitting smaller things into bigger things — there's some juice in a pickle, in a supermarket, in a parking lot. <S> Play the fourth word card to claim the set, unless one of your opponents can trump with a larger word. <S> The player with the most sets at the end is the big winner! <S> Includes 300 cards and instructions. <S> I can tell from personal experience that the game is quite fun, for native and non-native speakers alike. <S> It encourages thinking outside the box, re-interpreting words and defending your interpretation. <S> Someone puts a president in a jam, but then someone else puts that jam in a glass. <S> Or someone plays the card with the word "universe", thinking that no one can beat that, but then the next person plays the card with the word "dictionary" and wins the set (after all, "universe" is a word in a dictionary). <A> Fictionary (Balderdash) <S> There's a game called Fictionary by wikipedia, variations of which are known as Balderdash and under several other names. <S> In it, one player selects a very uncommon word from a dictionary and tells the other players what the word is. <S> It should be a word that none of the other players know the meaning of. <S> Then the player that picked the word writes the dictionary definition on a small piece of paper, and the other players all try to come up with a definition of the word that sounds plausible and also write these definitions on pieces of paper. <S> These pieces of paper are then shuffled by the first player and read in random order. <S> All of the other players select which meaning of the word they find the most plausible <S> (but they are not allowed to select their own invention). <S> Once everyone has made their selection, these selections are revealed. <S> Every player (other than the first player) gets a point if their definition was selected by another player or if they selected the correct definition. <S> Then it is the next player's turn to pick a word from the dictionary, and the game continues. <S> The best part of the game is the insane word definitions that you sometimes can't resist writing down, even though you know they will not attract any votes. <A> I enjoyed it the few times I played it, <S> though it suffers from all the same problems as Scrabble: one player with a phenomenal vocabulary can easily outmatch the rest of table; plus you will definitely need a good dictionary on hand to resolve disputes! <A> Why Did the Chicken...? <S> (English). <S> For up to eight players. <S> Each round, you'll have two minutes to create funny answers for a randomly generated riddle. <S> But know your audience: One player will be judging answers instead of writing them! <S> The judge's choices for the two best answers earn points. <S> When the game's over, tally up your points to see who's the life of the party. <S> So basically, each round there's: a randomly drawn question card, e.g. <S> "What do you get when you cross ... <S> with ...? <S> " <S> "What is the difference between ... <S> and ...?" <S> "What did ... say to ...?" <S> and two randomly drawn noun cards to fill in the blanks. <S> And then whoever turns that into the funniest joke within two minutes, earns points. <S> There are 20 different question cards and over 300 different noun cards. <S> The game can be useful in improving both your active vocabulary (by trying to come up with the funniest joke) and your passive vocabulary (by trying to understand other's jokes and wordplays). <A> Quizzle I have a board game called Quizzle in Dutch. <S> I couldn't find the English name - I'm not sure it even exists in English. <S> The idea is, every player has an 8x8 square board in front of them and places letters and "black squares" on it; players take turns selecting one or multiple letters that they can use, and then every player has to use a copy of that letter on their board. <S> This yields a crossword-like arrangement on every player's board. <S> At the end of the game, you get points for every horizontally or vertically oriented valid Dutch word delimited by either the edge of the board or the black squares. <A> Bananagrams <S> Though it may be too similar to Scrabble, as an answer to your question, in Bananagrams your playing a more or less solo scrabble board. <S> Playing tiles to make words in a "crossword"/Scrabble pattern. <S> When playing with others, there's a speed feel because when a player uses up their last tile, they yell "peel!" <S> and everyone else is forced to take another tile and added it to their pile of tiles. <S> It's pretty enjoyable. <S> I've rarely seen a game won by someone making a come back, once you're beating everyone a win is almost guaranteed.
|
Quiddler http://www.toycrossing.com/quiddler/basic-rules.shtml (follow the link to see the rules) is "a cross between Scrabble and Rummy" that might suit your needs - it's just a deck of cards with letters on really, so you could probably make your own if you needed to, and it'd be good for playing on trains too!
|
How can I make Dominion play better with 5+ players? I just got Intrigue, and it seems cool that it opens up the game to 5 or 6 players. However, the common consensus seems to be that its possible, but not recommended . Is there anything I can do to make Dominion play better with 5 or 6 people? <Q> The biggest problem with extra players that I usually see is down-time . <S> Dominion is partially a group solitaire game. <S> There is some interaction between players with attack cards, but otherwise your opponents turns won't matter a lot besides keeping an idea on what piles are low and the game end. <S> I find with 5 the main problem is "I know what I'm going to do, I just have to wait through 3 more people's turns to do it". <S> You also might want to tweak the number of kingdom card piles to somewhere between 11 and 13. <S> The first and easiest thing you can do is lessen the cards that take longer to resolve . <S> Spy, Throne room, Adventurer, Contraband, Counting House, Possession, and many others tend to make turns take a little longer. <S> This doesn't mean that they are bad in any way, it just means if you are worried about long down-times with 5 or 6 people you might want to forgo them. <S> Removing certain cards may annoy hardcore players who want a truly random layout, but my games usually aren't super serious and its worth it to fit in the extra person. <S> Another thing you can do if you are adventurous with 6 <S> is play 3 teams of 2 . <S> Turns pass from one team to another. <S> Both members of that team take their turns at the same time and have totally separate decks. <S> Their attack cards only affect the players on the other teams. <S> It helps to use attack cards that don't depend on order very much in case you both attack. <S> What do you do if one of you plays a spy and the other a thief? <S> What order do they go in? <S> The team mechanism is mainly to allow some simultaneous turns; you can play as a team and do some minor collaboration, like who should buy what or who should focus on attacks vs. victory points, or still make it every man for themselves and have the player with the most victory points win. <A> Not forever, but for a while at least, don't play with the cards that require a player to make a choice for every other player. <S> I suggest this because, if your group is inexperienced at Dominion, this kind of thing can easily slow the game down to a crawl. <S> Personally I find that a lot of my Dominion actions are really simple things like "buy a Treasure" or "buy a Province". <S> It drives me crazy if I'm waiting 5 minutes between each move when I'm just autopiloting my strategy. <S> Once everyone is experienced at Dominion, of course, they can get their moves done quickly and efficiently, even if multiple additional actions and draws are involved. <S> As long as the game is going pretty much as fast as it can go, there are no grounds can complaint. <S> But until then, it can be really frustrating to be sitting around non-interactively for minutes on end waiting to play a move that requires no thought on your part anyway. <S> So, yes, that's my suggestion: <S> phase the more complex and fiddly cards in gradually! <A> One suggestion I have is that, once someone finishes playing all their actions, have the next person start playing. <S> There is only one Treasure card that involves any other player doing anything, and that is Contraband, where the person to your left can name a card you cannot buy. <S> Having said that, if a player has a card that affects other players, they need to stop and wait for the other players to catch up. <S> Two non-attack cards this applies to are Masquerade and Vault. <S> If you're going to play an action that requires you to count cards (Counting House, Philosopher's Stone), count the cards in advance. <S> The only time you can't do this is if you have other actions that will affect the card count. <S> In the case of Philosopher's Stone, this is any card that causes you to draw cards (cards in your hand and in play are not counted by Philosopher's Stone). <S> For Counting House, this big one that affects this is Chancellor, as long as you have two or more actions this turn. <S> The Estates and Coppers make sure these piles stay at their respective starting numbers despite the number of players (12 and 32 respectively), as there are cards that may or may not manipulate these piles. <S> Increasing the number of Curses and Provinces is mentioned in the Intrigue rulebook. <A> Whenever my group has 5 or 6 for Dominion, I try to split it into two groups, either 3+2 or 3+3. <S> With Intrigue, there are enough basic Treasure, Victory, and Curses to go around. <S> Then when both groups are finished, you can switch and play with the other Kingdom with no additional setup time; then compare notes as to how the different groups handled the different boards.
|
I'm thinking of cards like the Spy, where you get to choose whether or not to trash the top card of each player's deck. This next part wasn't really what you were asking for, but for each player over 4, you should add 3 Estates, 7 Coppers, 10 Curses, and 3 Provinces to the game. Instead of trying to make rules about this, just use attacks that don't clash with others too easily, like militia and witch.
|
In Monopoly Deal, can you pay with houses or hotels? Can you pay with houses or hotels or do they remain with you forever? <Q> From the Monopoly Deal FAQ (scroll down to near the end): <S> Q - WHICH <S> CARDS <S> CAN I USE TO PAY OTHER PLAYERS? <S> (E.G. FOR RENT, BIRTHDAYS ETC.) <S> A - You can choose to pay: from your Bank (with money or Action cards that you've Banked as money), with Property cards, or with a combination of both. <S> Remember, you can only pay with cards that are on the table in front of you, never with cards from your hand. <S> You cannot pay with Houses or Hotels <S> you have on properties because they are not in your bank nor are they Property cards themselves. <S> If you had Banked them, you could use them to pay for things. <A> You can also pay with your house or hotel card if you choose. <S> source : http://monopolydealrules.com/index.php?page=house#top <A> The rules (which you can check on this Monopoly wiki page ) say that you absolutely cannot play cards from your hand. <S> You can put hotels and houses into your bank though.
|
However, if a player charges you money and you decide to pay with some of the property from your completed set that includes a House and/or Hotel, the House or Hotel must be placed on the table next to your property section until you complete another set and it can be placed on top.
|
Settlers of Catan play takes hours I was under the impression that the play time in Settlers of Catan was more modest than say, Risk. However it seems almost as long. This is often due to a lot of trading and talk which drags on for a lot of time as people propose variations on a declined trade. Have any of you found similar problems? How would you solve this? <Q> First, make sure you're following the rule that the person who's turn it is must be involved in all trades during that turn. <S> Assuming you're following that rule, it really shouldn't take that person very long to figure out all of the available trades. <S> If you start out by saying "I'm looking for sheep and ore. <S> Is anyone willing to trade those to me?", you can very quickly get a sense of whether any trades will be possible. <S> If anyone says "yes", you say "I have wood or brick that I'm willing to trade, are you interested in either of those? <S> " <S> Now you allow them to propose the precise details of the trade, or you let them say "I'm interested in brick" and you propose a precise trade. <S> There really shouldn't be much of a back and forth; either there's a trade that both of you are interested in, or there isn't, and it shouldn't take more than a few seconds to figure that out. <S> Yes, occasionally you will have a back-and-forth negotiation, but it shouldn't happen in the majority of trades. <S> It can take some practice to get into the habit of trading quickly and efficiently. <S> I'd recommend trying out Bohnanza ( bgg | wikipedia ) with the group; it's a fairly quick and easy game that consists almost entirely of trading, so if you play it, you will get in the habit of trading quickly and efficiently or else the game will drag on forever. <S> Beyond that, it's really a matter of being disciplined while you play. <S> In almost any game, if you allow people to take too long making up their minds or getting distracted by something trivial, it will take a while. <S> Try and set a reasonable pace for the trading by example and by encouraging other players to trade efficiently, and it should speed up after a little while. <A> If analysis-paralysis is your issue see here . <S> Its tempting to figure out every possible trade you could make, but its rarely beneficial or a good use of time. <S> If you've played the game a few times, solved your long trades issue, and still want quicker game <S> there's a few other tricks you can try. <S> Granted these will change the strategy of the game in minor ways. <S> play to 9 victory points. <S> use cards instead of dice. <S> Having one player do all the card picking can make things go a bit faster. <S> give the beginning of the game a little jump-start. <S> roll the dice twice before each player's turn in a 2 or 3 player game. <A> At Oxcon, games have a 1-minute timer available. <S> If you think someone is taking too long, you can force them to conclude their turn within a minute. <S> This works well, and games rarely take longer than an hour. <S> Alternatively, get a DGT cube or equivalent smartphone app. <A> You can also use the accelerated start: instead of placing two towns and two roads, you start placing (with the usual order): 1 town + 1 road, 1 city + 1 road, 1 road. <S> This rules made the game notably faster in my usual gaming group. <A> You asked how I would solve this... <S> well I wrote an app for that! <S> My friends and I have always had the same problem - especially if there is any drinking going on... <S> We find that playing with only 3 people is not so bad but 4 and above the games seem to get exponentially longer. <S> So I wrote an app <S> I call 'Time for Settlers' which does a couple things to help speed up the game - <S> and it really has helped us get more games into an evening. <S> 1) <S> It provides a turn timer - a time limit for each player to do whatever they are going to do in their turn. <S> You run out of time - your turn is over - with or without a completed trade. <S> This really helps people focus on what they need and get their trades done quickly at the beginning of each turn. <S> 2) <S> It rolls the dice for you. <S> Seems simple but this does actually help keep things going, and the app offers multiple rolling styles to vary the degree of randomness and/or roll distribution during a game. <S> A more even distribution can actually speed up a game too since most people place their settlements and cities where they have the highest odds - but sometimes regular dice do strange (random) things and roll a bunch of 2s, 3,s 12,s etc. <S> meaning that less resources are paid out and the game drags. <S> Together, the timer and the dice rolling really can speed up a game. <S> And as an added bonus the games tend to be more fun with the added pressure of time. <S> It has worked really well for us - it could work for you too! <S> Its free on iOS and Android: Google Play Store Apple App Store <S> Also, +1 for the answer provided by shrlck - we call this Tournament start and we always play this way now. <A> This house rule might speed up the game a little bit: friendly robber - doesn't block players with 2 pts super friendly robber - doesn't block at all, but gives additional resources on hex <S> he's standing on. <S> If settlement - take 2 instead of 1, if city - take 3.
|
Some minor encouragement to speed things up usually helps, and if not you can think about imposing a turn timer if you think its necessary. If you let everyone trade during the trading phase, discussions could take a while. I just combine two decks to simulate a dice roll.
|
Water damage on cardboard pieces Someone just spilled water on my Carcassonne tiles. The illustrations are coming apart from the cardboard (they're wrinkling). What's the best thing to do? How can I dry them with best results? <Q> Here's what I did, and they don't look bad. <S> Used my fingers to press out the wrinkles and squish the expanding cardboard back together. <S> Laid them down between two towels, put a textbook on top, and pressed down to get some more water out. <S> Pressed out the wrinkles and squish cardboard together again. <S> Laid them down between two paper towels (paper towels are thinner and I wanted to make sure they stayed flat) and laid several textbooks on top. <S> After several hours, squished with fingers again. <S> Dry paper towels and textbooks again. <S> The next day, I pulled them out and laid them on a dry towel. <S> At this point they're holding together really well and are only marginally thicker than the undamaged pieces. <S> The damaged piece on the left is only a bit thicker than the dry one on the right. <A> Customer Service at Rio Grande Games will replace pieces for a fee upon request. <S> I ended up with a set second hand that was missing a tile, and they sent it to me. <S> I'm not sure how cost effective it would be if a lot of tiles are damaged though, compared to getting a new set. <A> Manners dictate the clumsy culprit should offer to buy you a new set. <S> Beyond that, you can laminate the tiles. <S> That said, you have to see this from a cost-to-benefit perspective. <S> Unless this particular set is dear to you, I would buy another one. <S> Especially since laminating the damaged tiles also means laminating all of them; you don't want to make damaged tiles distinct from their intact brethren. <S> Short of that, you can try a one-sided pseudo-lamination by sticking plastic sheets only on one side. <A> The sad answer is that the only real shot you have at saving wet die-cut cardboard counters is when they're still wet, as far as I know. <S> If you immediately put them on a tray, or in a plastic box (if in layers, separate the layers with wax paper), and put them in a very cold freezer and leave them there for a long time (i.e. weeks or months), then the water freezing will tend not to mis-shape the cardboard, and gradual sublimation will happen very slowly over time and your counters should dry out. <S> Taking them out of the freezer later will require care as condensation will occur on the counter surfaces: best to bring them into air that's as dry as possible and as cool as possible, and have lots of blotting material ready until the counters' temperature gets warm enough. <S> If all you're concerned about is functional tiles that don't have separating layers, you can try re-gluing with a decoupage solution (good decoupage glue will dry clear), but I have never tried that <S> and I suspect such a project would require great patience and care (and again, I suspect would meet with more success if done while the tiles were still wet/damp). <S> In terms of this particular game where it's important to have relatively non-distinguishable tiles, I suspect this solution isn't going to produce happy results. <A> I used an iron set to Cotten. <S> Placed on a granite counter. <S> Pressed back, then front. <S> I pressed hard and straight down leaving the iron in contact for a good five seconds. <S> Could do three to four at a time. <S> Wiped moisture off counter with paper towel as I went along. <S> Took a few cycles on the wettest tiles. <S> Left flat on counter over night. <S> The iron did not burn the paper and the paper did not stick to the iron. <S> Turned out great. <A> I had a go at the straight in the freezer trick and it worked a treat. <S> 2 weeks of being frozen, they like they had just come or of the box. <S> I then put paper towel under and on top of them, before setting a mountain of cookbooks on top. <S> They did perfectly (Smallworld lives again!) <A> I actually had the exact same issue - someone spilled water on my carcassonne tiles, and I blotted/placed it in between paper towels under a textbook. <S> When they dried, I put a bit of white glue where the cardboard was peeling. <S> When the glue dried, I ran the pieces through a laminator without the plastic a few times - they came out good as new! <A> A more DIY answer: if the top has come off of the tile but not the bottom, then you could: <S> Wait for the remainder of the tile to dry. <S> Cover in paper towel and press it with heavy books until it's dry and as flat as you can get it (two blocks of wood and a vice can help with this). <S> Print out the image of the tile <S> (there are lots of images on the game's entry on BoardGameGeek: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/images/thing/822/carcassonne ). <S> Cut it out roughly, and paste to the top of your existing tile with PVA glue (white glue). <S> Make sure the edges of the image slightly overhang the edges of the tile, and that you cover the back of the image in only a thin but consistent layer of glue. <S> Take a bit of that transparent, self-adhesive book-covering plastic, and smooth it over the top of your pasted-down image. <S> Turn the tile over, and using a sharp knife (wallpaper knife, scalpel, that kind of thing) trace lightly around the edge of the tile, applying only a little pressure until you've cut through all of the overhang of the image and the plastic. <S> For bonus points, press it in the vice again to make sure it's as thin as you can get it; home lamination will nearly always be thicker than commercial printing, and waterlogged card will often swell.
|
Used a towel to pat dry the tiles. In the long run, you may find that the easiest, least expensive (in terms of materials and time) solution is to simply buy another copy of the game (and ask the water-spiller to help defray the cost, if you feel comfortable doing that).
|
What is a safe and accurate technique for shuffling cards? Especially for games which involve frequent card shuffling by multiple players of decks of uneven sizes is there is a technique for shuffling which is quick and easy for everyone to learn yet also reliably random? Ideally this would work with cards which were sleeved. I'm asking in particular for games of Dominion but have run into this question around many other games involving multiple decks as well. Back in my days of serious Magic the Gathering playing deck shuffling was always a complex subject especially in tournament situations (and even in more casual play as keeping the cards undamaged was a priority) <Q> When I shuffle I use a mixture of two techniques: riffle and stripping (as defined quite adequately in the Wikipedia article on shuffling ). <S> Riffle separates adjacent cards while stripping cycles cards from the top of the deck to the bottom. <S> I use both because riffle alone will very slowly push cards in the bottom half of each cut down, but tends to leave the top of the deck the same; stripping mitigates this drawback. <S> Stripping alone takes too long to separate adjacent cards. <S> Early in the game when the deck is small (< 20 cards <S> ) it's very difficult--and unnecessary--to riffle <S> so I only strip. <S> Wikipedia points out that riffling can be hard on cards; however, I've found that damage typically occurs because the person isn't good at shuffling and either excessively bends the cards or doesn't get good interspersion between the cuts. <S> Being able to execute a bridge also reduces card wear as it evens out the bending and prevents the cards from acquiring a camber. <S> In fact, I think proper riffle shuffling breaks in cards and makes them less stiff and prone to sticking to each other. <S> It seems that you're looking for something potentially easier to learn the riffling, but nothing is as fast (vital in Dominion) or as reliable at randomizing a deck. <S> Honestly, anyone with reasonable motor skills should be able to learn to riffle with practice. <S> Wash shuffles are great for randomization but totally infeasible for Dominion since they take so long and take so much table space. <S> Weaves have the same end results at riffles, so if you weave you should strip as well. <S> A weave is easier for many people to do, but will damage cards quickly as you have to slam or wiggle the edges of the deck together. <S> Cards were made to return to their original shape when gently bent; they were not made to take stresses on their edges. <A> Adam did an awesome job of answering, so I won't repeat anything he mentioned there, but there's 2 things I want to add. <S> I like mixing regular strip shuffles with the variant where you pick up most of the deck like normal, but instead of depositing cards with a chopping motion on one side of the cards only, alternate the side you put the cards on by flipping the growing pile back and forth with your fingers. <S> This tends to mix things up a little better, and its pretty fun to do. <S> I also use a method where you pick up 90% of the deck like you were going to strip, but instead of chopping the cards into your other hand, gradually reduce the pressure of your thumb and middle finger holding the cards above your hand. <S> This will cause some cards to fall into your hand in a somewhat random order as they can fall from the middle, front, or back. <S> This results in a sort of combination of the effects of striping to cycle cards around and rippling to reduce cards keeping the exact same order through the shuffle. <S> As with any single shuffling technique, I wouldn't use it exclusively if you want the best results. <S> :) <A> From what I know of M <S> :tG, a common shuffling technique is to deal the cards to a number of piles, say about 5 to 8, randomly sending a card to each pile until all are used up. <S> Then stack the piles in random order. <S> That is, with cards in my right hand, I splash some amount off the top into my left. <S> Then I flip the left side up and splash some more so this new set is on the bottom of the left hand stack. <S> I'll randomly pick between top and bottom, sometimes even splitting the deck in my left and dumping some cards in the middle. <S> Its not highly random, but if you do it several times in a row, it seems to mix the cards up pretty well. <A> I've heard some praising reviews of shuffling machines . <S> I don't know how well they work with sleeved cards, but they are very quick, easy to use and fair. <S> They aren't prohibitively expensive either, and could certainly be justified for casual use if you play a lot of card games.
|
For Dominion, I commonly just use an under-over-hand shuffle.
|
How is Settlers of Catan different when playing with the 5-6 player expansion? I've read a few reviews , and these are the things I've picked up: game will be longer. This is totally fine and normal, but I'm curious, what's the average time increase? Ports are a little less valuable and harder to get, and trade with other players increases. Intermediate building between turns makes the robber a little weaker because its easier to get rid of resources. Are these accurate? What other differences have you noticed when playing with 5 or 6 people? <Q> The time increase depends a LOT on who is playing. <S> But probably double a normal game. <S> I think the fun payoff of the extra people is worth it, though. <S> There are still only one each of longest road and largest army, with two more people, so those tend to get stolen a bit more. <S> I suppose the increase in shoreline is not quite in direct proportion to the increase in acreage, but I don't think ports are dramatically different. <S> You add real estate to make up for the added players, so the overall ease of getting good position is about the same, I think. <S> That said, if everybody knows what they want it can go pretty fast. <S> And yeah, it can save you from the robber, although IMO the robber would be way overpowered if you couldn't do it. <S> I think that 5-6 is the most fun when you do it with Seafarers, perhaps the scenario with the fog-of-war, since now you can have everybody exploring in different directions. <S> Pretty cool. <A> I have played the 5-6 player version using the extra building phase and using the normal rules. <S> Here is my assessment assuming that you are playing with people that know how to play the game: <S> With the Extra Building PhaseIf you play with people that know the game, this actually makes the game go faster. <S> After every turn, someone yells, "Anyone building?!". <S> There are still times during the game where there are shortages in resources. <S> At least 50% of the time, you will get a unanimous "NO!". <S> However, for those times that someone wants to build, it helps speed up the game because you are able to get your settlements and cities on the board quicker and ultimately win the game faster. <S> Without the Extra Building PhaseThe game is slower due to the "robber effect". <S> If you're getting rolls left, right, and centre, you can easily end up with 10-15 cards in your hand by the time your turn comes around...especially later in the game when you've built up some cities. <S> However, it is more likely that someone in the 5 turns before you will roll a 7 and then "BAM", your plans of Catan domination go down the drain. <S> So much for building those 2 cities and collecting that development card on your next turn! <S> That's the potential for 5 victory points in one turn. <S> I've actually seen (on multiple occassion) <S> someone get screwed out of building 3 cities in one turn because they happened to be getting their wheat and ore rolls <S> one right after the other. <S> Long story short, it can take a lot longer to build what you need to build to get those VP's when you don't allow building between turns with 6 players. <S> With that said, it can be a pretty fun way to play as well if you have the time! <S> Hope that helps! <A> I find it's slightly easier to get boxed in - even with the additional real estate, there's still only a few sweet spots that everyone will cluster around and fight over. <S> Ports are slightly less valuable, but I find that's balanced by the fact that most players avoid the water so you have more room to work. <A> Just like the 4-player is tighter than the 3-player, the 6-player is tighter than the 5-player. <S> The 'special build' really slows things down, but is pretty important to keep your hand culled to stay under 8 cards.
|
Building in-between turns is probably the biggest contributor to the game going longer, since you have an extra phase to do it in.
|
Strategies and kingdom cards for a strong opening in Dominion? Dominion is a game of widely varying strategies and paths toward victory. But the most important part of any winning strategy is a strong opening. How can I tell if a kingdom card is a good opening card? What are some of the best cards to buy in your first 4-6 turns? What are some good tactics for getting to your later game strategy as soon as possible? This question discusses evaluating kingdom sets in general. , and this discusses general tactics. This is sort of a combination of both, focusing on openings. :D <Q> Good cards to buy early: <S> Chapel : this is close to a must-buy if it is on the board. <S> Sea Hag : <S> another almost must-buy so that you don't fall behind on curses. <S> It's less valuable in a multiplayer game (because if everyone else is firing it, the curses will run out quickly, and then it just takes up space in your deck). <S> Ambassador : functionally trashing your deck while bloating your opponent with bad cards. <S> Ambassador/Silver/Ambassador can be a devastating opening. <S> Militia : especially in 3+ player games, this is brutal. <S> Less effective if a Library is on the board. <S> Moneylender : <S> trashing + accelerating you to 5/6 coin cards. <S> But, it can potentially clog your deck in the mid/endgame. <S> Envoy / Smithy : these cards accelerate the entire game. <S> Big Money buys 4 provinces in 17 turns, on average. <S> Purchasing one of these cards lowers that to 14.5 turns. <S> Cutpurse : also deadly in multiplayer games, but still great for slowing your opponent early. <S> Less valuable as an attack late in the game, but it's still worth a Silver if you have actions to burn. <S> Trading Post : if you open 5/2, this is a great card because it trashes your junk into silvers, which also allows you to save your initial buys for non-treasure cards. <S> Mining Village <S> : trash early for a 5/6 coin hand. <S> Baron : <S> useful early for an easy 4 coin. <S> Can clog a deck later in the game, but its ability to give you an extra Estate and an extra buy can sometimes tip the balance in a close game. <S> Loan : <S> useful for trashing coppers without costing an action and can also be used to cycle your deck, getting new cards shuffled in faster. <S> Quarry : <S> useful if there are expensive actions in the set (King's Court, Forge, Peddler, and game-changing 6 cost cards like Goons). <S> Pawn : there are many times where the +buy or +coin will be useful; in the worst case scenario, it's a self-replacing card (+1 card/+1 action). <S> Because it only costs 2, you probably want to buy it earlier instead of wasting a 7 coin hand on it. <A> The process I currently follow is: Scan for broken combos Scan for power cards ( <S> most of the list from philosophyguy's answer Look for a quick path to anything found in step 1 or 2 using your starting split <S> Look for blocking strategies if step 3 failed or you are seated poorly <S> If none of the above provide a good path to victory, fall to your default strategy (be it Big Money or other traditional buys) <S> As you get better at the game the combos you recognize in step 1 will increase and the number of cards you can juggle increases. <S> A two-card combo is relatively easy to spot; three or four-card combos are a bit trickier. <S> There is probably room between steps 4 and 5 to look for solid combos that can enhance your preferred play style but are not game winners in themselves. <S> Hoard + Salvager is a good example. <A> <A> Thrash your opponents' decks. <S> If there is a Curse-dealing card, be the first to get it, and get as many Curses in other people's decks as possible. <S> This hurts them, and protects you. <A> Various combosBig Money combined with a card-drawing strategy will usually beat out a plain Big Money, and of course there are tons of great combos or specific cards that can boost your ability to get to your mid-game very quickly. <S> However, this answer is very supply-dependent, and what you really need to do is take a minute at the beginning of the game to decide what cards will play well with others. <A> There are also some similar answers on early game strategy: Transitioning to Dominion late-game and Evaluating a Dominion Kingdom set .
|
Trash your cards!Get a trashing card, and max out its trashing capacity every time, even if you think, "Oh, but I might need that copper later".
|
Does anyone have a way to modify Ticket to Ride to accommodate six people? I recently bought Ticket to Ride to play at our monthly game night, which consists of three couples, i.e. six people. Stupid me, didn't read the five player limit before ordering the game. I've played a few times now, and I really like the game, but can't think of any way to accommodate an extra player. So, am I stuck making someone sit out or putting two people on one team if we want to play this with six people? Or has someone else come up with some modification to make this work with one extra person? <Q> The obvious approach is to simply reduce the number of carriages each player has available, by enough to allow another player to join in. <S> Normally each player has 45 carriages. <S> In the 5 player game that makes 225 carriages available to place on the board. <S> Divide by 6 instead, and you get 37 carriages per person. <S> So your only issue then is where to get your extra carriages. <S> You can either make substitutions yourself, or buy one of the other versions (e.g. Ticket to Ride: Nordic Countries , or Ticket to Ride: Märklin Edition ), which come with other train colours. <S> I wouldn't expect to see any other significant balance issues with the extra player - Ticket to Ride is a pretty straightforward game. <A> It's very well written and playing in pairs doesn't just mean a straightforward teaming up as you only share half your information with your partner. <S> Complicated on first play... <S> but all the best games are! <A> You may want to consider adding stations (or increasing the number of stations if you have Ticket to Ride: Europe) if you find the board gets too crowded and people are blocked completely from their routes too often <S> (Note: too often. <S> It should be allowed to happen sometimes) <S> A Train Station allows its owner to use one, and only one, of the routes belonging to another player, into (or out of) that city to help him connect the cities on his Destination Tickets. <S> Stations may be built on any unoccupied city, <S> even if it currently h> <S> as no claimed routes into it. <S> Two players may never build a Station in the same city. <S> Each player may build a maximum of one Station per turn, and three Stations throughout the course of the game. <S> To build his first Station, a player plays and discards one Train card from his hand, and places one of his colored Train Stations on the chosen city. <S> To build a second Station, the player must play and discard a set of two cards of any one color; and to buil <S> his third, a set of three Train cards of any one color. <S> As usual, you can replace any number of cards by Locomotives. <S> If a player uses the same Station to help connect cities on several different Tickets, he must use the same route into the city with the Station for all of those Tickets. <S> The Train Station owner does not need to decide which route he will use until the end of the game. <S> A player is never required to build any Stations. <S> For each Station a player has not used, four points are added to his score at the end of the game. <S> Remember that each Station played <S> allows its owner to use one (and only one) route belonging to another player into that City for the purpose of completing a Destination Ticket. <S> If a player uses the same Station to help connect cities on the paths of several different Destination Tickets, he must use the same route into or out of the city with the Station for all Tickets. <A> Ok, we tried a method that worked for us (family of 6). <S> Using the original US map we divided up into three teams. <S> Each player was given two cards and could only keep one. <S> There was no "sharing" of information just trains. <S> We each were given 4 train cards to start the game and we were off. <S> New tickets could only be drawn when you finished your original route. <S> Two tickets were drawn and only one could be taken. <S> It made for a very quick and frantic game but was enjoyed by everyone. <S> Since we are all familiar with the routes we could guess our team members goal and help connect our trains quicker. <S> We have played this way a few times and so far no major snags (except when someone gets the track you wanted before you). <S> It was actually a very simple and nice solution to our six player problem. <A> Play the Ticket to Ride Map Collection: Volume 1 – Team Asia & Legendary Asia. <S> Play the Team Asia in the form of 3 teams of 2 persons. <S> Playing in form of teams it is far more tense. <A> We had 45 pieces each and using 3 stations it worked just as well as five players <A> We played with scrabble letters for trains(on the US version). <S> Played it twice no problem. <S> Loads of competition :)
|
Ticket to Ride Asia has a double-sided board, one side for up to 5 players playing individually, and the other side for 6 players in 3 pairs. I have played TTR Europe with six players several times using an extra set of train pieces from TTR Nordic.
|
Creating Scenarios for Mansions of Madness OK. So Mansions of Madness is practically here. I know I can't be the only one who's hotly anticipating this game. The only question I have about it is this: The game comes 5 scenarios included, each with 3 variations, for a total of 15 unique games. Can the included scenarios be hacked, modified, customized or remixed? Can entirely new scenarios be created from the existing components? I know that there are people out there who have had their hands on this for some time already, and I want to know what they think. Sure, 15 scenarios is a lot - especially since players won't know exactly what path they're on until they uncover late-game clues. But I'm interested in the answer to this question from a re-playability standpoint, especially with regard to community-created scenarios vs. officially released expansions. I don't have anything against official expansions - I just imagine that if the game is as good as I expect, my group will be ready for something new well before FFG is ready to release one. EDIT : Now that the game has been out for a while, the community really seems to be supporting it. BGG has a number of scenarios and tools for crafting your own. <Q> Ok, so I'm answering my own question, at least in part. <S> First of all, I think the internets were greatly deceived when they spread the idea that each of the five scenarios (there are indeed 5) had only three variants. <S> Some of the scenarios had what looked by my calculations to be upwards of 40 permutations. <S> Second, the Keeper's role is much more dynamic than I had previously realized. <S> It strikes me that the Keeper's game is similar to the Demons' game in claustrophobia , a truly wonderful asymmetrical 2-player game. <S> Like the Demons, the Keeper accrues Threat over time, which he must pay for all his actions. <S> It seems to me that the vagaries of Keeper play will keep even an identical scenario from playing out the same way twice. <S> Finally, I think that the answer to my hackability question is a resounding no . <S> The thing that has me so excited about MoM is that it provides narrative out-of-the-box. <S> The game does a lot more storytelling than most. <S> That very quality seems to make it hard to vary beyond the included scenarios. <S> Each card is tied tightly to a choice or combination of choices and the stories will fall apart if not constructed properly. <S> This is my opinion as of having read all the books, but having played zero games. <S> I will update this answer if that opinion changes. <A> I think creating your own stories will be quite doable, but you will be strongly constrained by the chrome in the game . <S> Or, you will reuse the cards "clue 1, clue 2, clue 3" etc, then hand the user a new clue when they find the ones from a scenario you've exhausted so far. <S> I especially think new scenarios with "pieces missing" will be a strong way to play. <A> However, it's far more a stripped-down Dungeons and Dragons than a traditional board game. <S> You'd effectively have to: Come up with a game-style concept (e.g. Monsters, monsters EVERYWHERE!) <S> Come up with a story to justify that concept (e.g. A witch is opening a plane to the Cthonic regions in exchange for the resurrection of her sister) <S> Come up with a set of hidden objectives (e.g. get out before you're used in the ritual, stop her from opening the gate, kill her and her undead sister) <S> Come up with a set of clues (e.g. Discover how to interrupt the ritual successfully and safely) <S> Come up with a time set (e.g. The 5 stages of the ritual, each one summoning progressively more horrible thingummies) <S> and then work out how to layout the board to fit the story, and how to prevent the players from reaching the objectives too soon. <S> The main issue is the clues, which have to look like the provided exploration cards , but have to be changed. <S> The most obvious solution is to simply use existing clue cards, but tell your players to ignore the flavour text, and instead at the point of discovery, hand them your own prepared cards. <A> The way I see it, you could just place the clues 1A 2A 3A etc. <S> and when they find the clue you have written down on a piece of paper what the text should read. <S> Same with event cards. <S> When time runs out for the event card and you flip it, you just have another text that corresponds to the number on the event card <A> To people who play Arkham Horror, there is known to some an application called Strange Eons. <S> This program helps players create their own game content. <S> It is hoped that Strange Eons will at some point support MoM as well. <S> Then people will be able to write their own stories, with their own unique story elements. <S> Until then, producing your own scenarios would present an inordinate amount of work.
|
Having played the game about 4 times now, it seems to me that designing a new campaign for Mansions of Madness is possible, as everything, including which powers the Keeper has, is entirely mix-and-match.
|
What is a quick way to test or simulate card strategies for deck building games? Dominion is the specific example I would like to play with but this certainly applies to any game that involves decks of cards being shuffled and drawn. I often see references to various simulations that people have run or built to test theories but whenever I dig through their code I seem to discover their simulation was custom-built for one or two test cases. The question I am asking: How are people making these simulations so quickly? I assume that there are a few preferred (or common) ways to do this seeing how many times I see people talking about their simulations. What is a good starter kit for me to learn how to do my own? Answers that will help: Specific languages, libraries, helpful mathematic formulae, links to projects, and typical pitfalls to avoid. <Q> I admit I don't have much experience in actually doing this, so I have no idea <S> how well any of these actually work and can't make any guarantees myself. <S> But I'm sure there are others who can, and these are probably some great starting points: dominion simulator python framework <S> similar project <S> vdom java simulator <S> Here are some I found for Magic: The Gathering. <S> Once again, I can't make any personal guarantees: <S> MTG Studio <S> (don't know if it actually supports simulations) Magic Workstation <S> If you are anyone else has more feedback on any of these, I'd love to here it! <A> I'm one of the guys working on DominionSim (although the googlecode version isn't up to date*) <S> and we're trying to implement all the cards/rules, not just build for one test case. <S> That said, we still have a ways to go implementing cards. <S> The way DominionSim in particular works: it's written in C# to test a specific behavior you write a Strategy class that implements IStrategy we've done several simplistic strategies using the base set already supports 2 to 6 player games supports "tourneys" that play all the strategies against each other at least once <S> Theoretically once we've implemented all the cards it'll be pretty easy to test new ideas, although at the moment it would still require downloading the source code and adding your own IStrategy implementation written in C#. <S> I may investigate implementing a rules-based Strategy like those found at the Simulate Dominion blog at some point, so that folks could just mess with a rules file and not need to recompile or know C#. <S> * <S> Hopefully the latest version will be publicly available soon <A> Geronimoo's Dominion Simulator seems to be the current Dominion simulator of choice, at least by the guys on dominionstrategy.com. <S> It has only existed since June, I think, so didn't get mentioned in the accepted answer which is otherwise very comprehensive.
|
A sourceforge project Dominionsim is also mentioned here
|
What happens when playing Throne Room / King's Court *twice* with Caravan? What happens if you play: Throne room, choosing a Throne room, each time choosing a Caravan? King's Court, choosing a King's Court, each time choosing a Caravan? Specifically, what will your play area look like at the start of your next turn? How many cards will you draw at the start of your next turn? This is different from this question ; it is more complex than that! <Q> If you have a chain of Throne Rooms or King's Court, you need to retain the cards necessary to correctly process everything on the next turn. <S> For your examples, discard the initial card (whether Throne Room or King's Court). <S> The remaining Throne Room is sufficient to indicate that each Caravan needs to be played twice at the beginning of your next turn. <S> On the next turn, each Caravan would be played twice for a total of +4 cards. <S> Two more examples should clarify the remaining edge cases here. <S> Example 1: <S> Throne Room (1) Chose Throne Room(2), doubled by (1) Chose Throne Room(3), doubled by (2) Chose Caravan(A), doubled by (3) Chose Caravan(B), doubled by (3) Chose Throne Room(4), doubled by (2) Chose Caravan(C), doubled by (4) Chose Caravan(D), doubled by (4) <S> In this case, you will retain All 4 Caravans obviously (ABCD) <S> Throne Rooms (3) and (4) as they directly modify the Caravans Throne Room (2) as it will indicate that Throne Rooms (3) and (4) need to be doubled, subsequently doubling the Caravans again. <S> Throne Room (1) can be discarded as it is has no effect on the Caravans next turn. <S> Example 2: <S> Throne Room (1) Throne Room (2), doubled by (1) Throne Room (3), doubled by (2) Caravan (A), doubled by (3) Caravan (B), doubled by (3) Caravan (C), doubled by (2) <S> In this case, all cards will be retained. <S> Throne Room (1) is needed to indicate that Caravan (C) needs to be doubled next turn. <S> King's Court will work the same general way, it just makes for even messier examples. <S> I've distilled this answer from a BoardGameGeek thread where the answers were provided by Donald X. Vaccarino, the designer of Dominion. <S> He recommends (as do I, for what it's worth) that you use some sort of tree format to help lay everything out as I've done above. <S> It will help remind you which cards are affecting which in these tricky situations. <A> Donald (the game designer) answers this question in an extended thread on BoardGameGeek; here is his algorithm for what you do: <S> If you TR or KC a duration card, leave out the TR or KC with the duration card. <S> [It's tracking that you doubled or tripled that card] <S> If you TR or KC a TR-or-KC used on a single duration card (and up to 2 non-duration cards), don't leave it out. <S> [It's not tracking anything.] <S> [You still leave out the one that hit the duration card though.] <S> If you TR or KC a TR-or-KC used on two or three duration cards, leave it out. <S> [It's tracking the extra doubling/tripling done by the latter TR or KC, which also stays out.] <S> Therefore I am going to go back on my ruling from yesterday for what happens if you KC a KC <S> a KC used on 3 duration cards. <S> The 3rd KC stays out obv. <S> The 2nd one stays out; it's indicating that the 3rd one hits 3 things. <S> The first KC is doing nothing and so goes. <S> If instead you KC a KC, and that one KC's 1) a KC for 3 duration cards, 2) a duration card, 3) <S> a non-duration, then you would keep the first KC out, as now it's indicating that the 2nd KC got to hit 3 cards, necessary for that 4th duration card to be tripled. <S> In short, the rule is to leave in play as many TR/KC as are necessary to track what is happening, but no more. <S> The full thread is here ; my quote from Donald is on page 3. <S> So, in response to your specific scenarios: <S> TR-TR-Caravan x 2 <S> : All four cards stay out; Donald recommends placing the cards in branching format so it is clear that the Caravans were both played by the second TR. <S> All four stay out because the first TR is what allows the second TR to play both duration cards twice. <S> If you played one Caravan and one non-duration card with the second TR, then the first TR would be discarded at the end of the turn. <S> KC-KC-Caravan <S> x 3 : <S> Same deal; all five stay out. <S> If you only played one Caravan with the tripled KC and played two non-duration cards, then the first KC would not stay in play. <A> The answer is still answered on page 4 here: http://www.riograndegames.com/uploads/Game/Game_326_gameRules.pdf <S> You would only need to keep out whichever card(s) <S> directly affected a Duration card. <S> For example, if you TR a TR, then play 2 Caravans on that second TR, you only need to keep out the second TR, and I would probably arrange it and the 2 Caravans in sort of an inverted tree format, with the Throne Room above and between the Caravans.
|
The basic rule is given in the Seaside Rules , pg4 If you play or modify a Duration card with another card, thatother card also stays in your play area until it is no longer doinganything.
|
What strategies can you use as a Renegade in 4 player games to maintain your cover? So in 4-player Bang!, there is a Sheriff (wins when all others are dead), a Renegade (wins when all others are dead) and 2 Outlaws (win when the Sheriff is dead). So your typical game opens with the two outlaws shooting the Sheriff, the Sheriff shooting the Outlaws, and the Renegade being forced to shoot the Outlaws so that they don't kill the Sheriff too quickly. This has the effect of telegraphing to all players involved who the Renegade is; the resulting game devolves into a shootout with no subtlety or strategy; everyone knows everyone's situation and there are no surprises. Are there better or more optimized strategies for these situations? Or does the game only hit its stride with more players involved? <Q> I'm not sure Bang! <S> is really about maintaining cover, anyway. <S> Even for big games, it seems like ideal Bang! <S> strategy is... 1) <S> Outlaws try to spike down the Sheriff roughly ASAP, though they can sometimes wait until most players have long-range guns before exposing themselves. <S> 2) <S> Once the Outlaws are dead, the Renegade immediately tries to kill the weakened Sheriff before he gets time to recover. <S> The only subtlety I see is that, if the Outlaws are having a tough time, the Renegade should stop shooting them. <S> You're right, though, that in 4-player, because the range is so short, Outlaws don't even need to wait until long-range guns are out. <S> And there's no moment of wondering who the Renegade is -- in larger games, that moment is brief, but it does exist. <A> Well in a 4 player game there is no real incentive for anyone to hide. <S> The Sheriff can kill anyone since the worse case is killing the renegade first who is at best is only a temporary team mate. <S> Anyway you look at it they will need to kill all other players anyway. <S> But if the sheriff knows who the renegade is they might just ignore them to focus on the outlaws so that they have a little more help. <S> Both outlaws just need to focus on the Sheriff as there is no real incentive to kill the renegade since it takes away from damage they can be doing to the sheriff. <S> Now if they can't do anything to the sheriff then it might make more sense for them to work on the renegade. <S> As for the renegade you need to deal with the fact that both outlaws will be wanting to kill the sheriff and the sheriff will probably want to focus on killing the outlaws first as there is more incentive to kill them first ( <S> 3 cards and they only have the goal to kill the sheriff). <S> Honestly I think its in the best interest of both the renegade and the sheriff for the renegade to play a little more on the deputy side <S> then they would in a bigger game as it can help the sheriff survive both outlaws. <A> There is still a bit of strategy to be had. <S> If the Sheriff is clearly getting the upper hand, then try shooting him instead of the outlaws for a while. <S> Plus, it can add in a bit more distrust into who is an outlaw, which can cause them to shoot each other. <S> Also, the outlaws might want to kill the Renegade, because there will be one less person to be attacking. <S> Still, if you know who the Renegade is, in general, you should ignore him until the end of the game, so it doesn't really matter if he's caught.
|
If the renegade can come out early and get the sheriff to focus on the outlaws then it is easier to build up some strength while killing both outlaws and leaving the sheriff in a weakened state.
|
Can I use sleeve protectors for Dominion cards and still fit them back into the box? I am considering getting card protectors for my dominion game. Do the cards still fit back into their slots in the box? The ones I was thinking about were the ones advertised in the box with dominion from Mayday Games. <Q> I use the Mayday games sleeves for all my Dominion cards. <S> The sets of 10 Kingdom cards will still fit in their slots in the box just fine. <S> More numerous cards (like the Treasure and VPs) <S> either will not fit at all, or will have to be jammed in pretty tightly. <S> Personally, I put Dominion, Intrigue, Seaside and Alchemy into two "long boxes" that you see used for CCGs, with little labeled tabs I printed from BGG separating them. <S> This takes up a lot less room than the 3 large boxes and half-size Alchemy box, and makes the game portable. <S> Prosperity is still in its original box since I'm out of space in my long boxes. <S> I keep all the Kingdom cards in their original slot, but keep Colony and Platinum in some of the larger unused slots rather than the ones labeled for them, because I don't like the tight fit. <A> Just to offer another point of view, I also use the Mayday sleeves for my Dominion cards. <S> My solution was to just not sleeve all the Coppers, since I have yet to play a game where I came anywhere close to using all of them. <A> When I sleeved some of the cards from Dominion: Dark Ages with premium Mayday sleeves, they wouldn't fit back in the box. <S> The card slots aren't even close to being wide enough because the card sleeves make the cards a little taller. <S> I found that strange, because I had no problem with Dominion, the Dominion base card set, or Dominion: Seaside. <S> To fix this issue I ordered an Organizer for Dominion made by ElephantCraftsShop. <S> It claims to hold at least 1500 sleeved cards, comes with special inserts for tokens, and fits into any full-sized dominion box. <S> I'll let you know how that works when it comes in the mail. <S> Here's a link to what it looks like. <S> https://www.etsy.com/listing/469564688/organizer-for-dominion-board-game?ref=hp_rv ... <S> After receiving this in the mail, assembling it, and filling it with cards from Dominion, Dominion Update Pack, Dominion: Seaside, and Dominion: <S> Dark Ages, I realized I still had a major project in front of me. <S> Yes, It can hold about 1,500 sleeved cards, but I found that I couldn't easily get them out when they're packed that tightly. <S> So I removed my Coppers, Silvers, and Golds, and put them in the yellow base cards box. <S> Then I had to make my own card dividers for the rest. <S> I spent hours cutting out tabbed dividers from poster-board and sticking labels on them. <S> It was a huge project. <S> It's pretty awesome now that it's done, but this product is not a complete solution as of itself. <A> I also used the Mayday sleeves. <S> I've conslidated Dominion and Intrigue into one box by removing the inserts, and putting each type of card into a snak-sized ziplock. <S> I might be able to get one more box integrated in.... but will be tight. <S> I was unable to get all of it in the tray, however, due to the coppers and curses no longer fitting their slots. <S> Which is why I went to baggies. <A> I use the premium Mayday sleeves as well and own both Dominion (1st edition) and Dominion Update Pack. <S> I sleeved them all except the blank cards and randomizing cards with premium Mayday sleeves. <S> I moved all money to a separate place — I use the yellow base cards box to hold Copper, Silver, and Gold in the three compartments. <S> All other cards fit comfortably into the original box.
|
I have no problem fitting the cards in the original box in the correct slots, except for Coppers.
|
What do you do about contradictory rules of Pit? The rules of Pit are oddly contradictory. For n players choose n commonities, add in the Bull and Bear, shuffle and deal out the cards. The rules state that everyone gets 9 cards. Doh! With the Bull and the Bear added in that doesn't work. The way we reconcile this is two people have 10 cards which gives them a significant advantage, e.g. they can simply hold a single card of a commodity to effectively eliminate whoever ends up going for that commodity. Are there better solutions to this? <Q> The rules in my copy of the game note that two people get 10 cards. <S> Generally these will be the two people left of the dealer. <S> If you call Pit with a Bull and all 9 copies you get double points for that commodity. <S> Of note, it is courteous to remind people that they have 10 cards in hand but only need 9 of a commodity. <S> New players often end up holding all 9 of a commodity while desperately looking for a phantom 10th because they are used to seeing their entire hand match. <A> In the group where I've often played Pit, we discarded the Bull and Bear cards before shuffling. <S> It makes the game simpler and better, in my humble opinion. <S> That being said, we can still debate which is the best solution if you do want to keep those cards. <S> MrHen's solution may well win that honour. <S> A different option would be to discard two cards at random every time you deal. <S> The advantage is that the playing field is level; however, there are up to two commodities that cannot be completed. <S> But in this version, all players are equally likely to be affected. <S> I could see a few variants of this variant: <S> Make the discarded cards secret. <S> At the end of every round people are going to be frustrated that their chosen commodity was unwinnable. <S> Now all commodities of the discarded type are effectively Bear cards. <S> Start a timer for (say) 30 seconds when the round starts. <S> At the end, if no one has won yet, play is interrupted and one of the discarded cards is made public. <S> Players try not to give away that they were close to finalizing a "doomed" commodity. <S> Play continues for another 30 seconds and is interrupted again to make the last card public. <S> Chaos ensues. <A> Deal 9 cards to each player, leaving the last two face down. <S> (These leftovers are called the "widow" in some games.) <S> That means that a complete set of 9 can't be completed for two of the sets in the game. <S> A player can call a corner while holding 8 cards if he willing to gamble that the 9th is out of play. <S> After corner is called, check to see if the 9th is in the widow. <S> If it is, the score is as normal. <S> If it's not, the person holding it gets a bonus (+20) and the person calling the false corner gets a penalty (-20). <S> We always played with spoons. <S> In the middle of the table, one fewer spoons than the number of players. <S> Once somebody gets a corner he quietly picks up one spoon. <S> As they notice, other players pick one up until there are none left, leaving one player out. <S> Everyone with a spoon gets 20 points. <S> Note that it's excellent form to continue to pretend to trade after you've picked up your spoon, leaving the unobservant desperately trying to improve his hand while everyone else snickers behind their cards. <S> Double hilarity if two players continue to trade with one spoon left on the table. <A> Another option (for BULL & BEAR) - Include both the Bull and Bear cards - AND 7 random cards of one complete commodity set of 9. <S> Thus two cards which are two different commodities would be discarded when using the Bull & Bear card. <S> Thus no one will know which other commodities have an extra card. <S> But you just need a set of 9 to win/corner the market. <S> And the normal Bull and Bear point rules apply. <S> So having Bull card the player gains bonus points. <S> Having the Bear card the player minus points. <S> And having both Bull & Bear loose double points. <S> And obvious there are two commodities that could not be finished unless you had the BULL card.
|
Make the discarded cards public. All players will have TEN cards at all times. You cannot call pit with the Bear in hand; you can call Pit with a Bull and 8 copies of a commodity.
|
Settlers of Catan Data I'd like to do some statistical analysis on Catan games, but to do that I need data. Does anyone know of a place I can find empirical data on Catan play? The stronger the players, the better. Awesome datasets include: Records of tournament play Log files from electronic Catan games, with preference for strong human play Analyses I'd like to do include: Empirical win percentages as a function of seat Total resources-spent by the winning player, by type Final assets of winning player, including all settlements, cities, roads, and development cards Total quantity of trading by the winning player Really, I'd be happy if I could perform even one of those analyses. Also, I can code, and I was a quant at an energy trading firm, so I'm not afraid of getting my hands dirty if necessary. <Q> I have a couple of friends who used to play a lot of settlers online. <S> Apparently there was once a site that had a lot of settlers data, but it went down. <S> You can see some of the archived data at the settlers 3d web.archive.org page . <S> There is now a forum in its place. <S> Maybe some of the posters there have a backup of the data? <A> There are a few problems with finding data. <S> The first is finding any data. <S> I would recommending emailing/contacting sites that offer Catan or Catan-esque games for play to see if they keep records of games played. <S> I found a short list of potential sites with a little searching via Google. <S> (Do note that I have not verified any of those sites.) <S> The second problem is that even after you find the data it isn't likely to be what you need. <S> Catan has a lot of information being passed around. <S> The more details you can give someone about the data you need the more likely they will be able to find it for you. <S> These details include what information you need (board layouts, <S> resources gained/traded, positions of the robber) and the format you want the data (text logs of a server, CSV, XML.) <S> It is also possible someone else has already done the analysis. <S> What problem are you specifically trying to solve/analyze? <A> and he probably has them. <S> Settlers link here .
|
While the World Boardgaming Championships have Puerto Rico data posted online, I couldn't find the same stats for Settlers, BUT I think you could get ahold of the gamemaster
|
Eurogames suitable for playing outside We're planning a camping holiday and are expecting to be outside for a fair amount of it. Most of the board games we enjoy have lots of small pieces, or require cards to be displayed on the table. Are there any Eurogames that would stand up to a strong gust of wind? <Q> Travel Editions <S> There are travel editions of some very good boardgames that are specifically designed to have more durable board states than the standard games. <S> For example... <S> Settlers of Catan plays 3 or 4 Ingenious plays 2 <S> I've played the Ticket to Ride Card Game on a train - I think you could probably manage it outdoors, if you had a card table or something. <S> A bungee cord strapped across each face of the tabletop could help everyone secure their cards and could be used to secure boards for games that have pieces substantial enough to survive some breezes. <S> I'm not sure if it's a "Eurogame", but <S> Abalone is an abstract with substantial, heavy pieces. <S> At least, my '80s vintage edition is. <S> Dice games might be a good choice. <S> Zombie Dice would be a great choice for a quick game outside, especially after a few beers have dulled everyone's strategic minds a bit. <S> But Roll Through the Ages is an excellent game by any standard! <S> I've only played the iPhone implementation, but game state is maintained with pegs, not pieces, so it should naturally be wind-resistant: <A> As you've realized yourself games with light parts will be susceptible to wind. <S> This is difficult to answer as it always depends on the strength of the wind but let me try... <S> Blokus - <S> By the time those tiles fly off the board you probably don't want to play outside anymore <S> anyway... <S> Mesopotamia <S> - Might be borderline with the wooden pieces but the board itself should hold together well enough. <S> Tavel variants of games - Most of them will have pieces that are either magnetic or get stuck into the board. <S> Amazing Labyrinth <S> - Aside from the treasure cards there shouldn't be much of a problem. <S> Trick taking card games - Not really euro games <S> but since the cards don't stay on display for long they should work quite well. <A> Other than looking for particular games, you can look for ways to play your current games outside. <S> Replace paper money with poker chips <S> Use small figurines or pewter pieces instead of lightweight pawns <S> Place the board inside of a larger container/box so that pieces will not fall into the grass <S> Paper weights (or your legs) can keep cards pinned down Bring rain prevention gear; standard board game boxes don't like getting wet <S> Other tips: <S> Remind people to play more casual; the environment will be different and that should feel good not stressful <S> Feel comfortable asking people for information. <S> Don't make people lean over everything to read what is before you; just tell them when they want to know <S> If people seem more interested in running around playing frisbee or exploring that is okay ; board games are great fun but don't pressure people into playing them <A> The Climbers - Doesn't involve any cards or lightweight pieces that can fly away. <S> You build a large mountain ouf sturdy wooden blocks that have six differently colored sides. <S> Pawns can only travel on their same color or neutral gray, with the objective of reaching the highest point. <S> You get to pick up pieces of the mountain, changing their placement and orientation to allow for more moves, but at no point does it get into a situation where playing outside would be a problem. <S> In fact, this game benefits from being able to take a look at the mountain from all angles, and people may be more willing to get up on their feet to consider moves than they would being glued to a dining room chair at a big table. <A>
|
Puzzle Strike works well outside since the chips are much less susceptible to wind than cards in similar deck-building games (like Dominion). Bohnanza - There are cards but with some stones or other items on top they should stay put.
|
What is the broader acceptance of resignation? Games that have developed a strong professional circuit generally consider resignation a courteous behavior. Some consider not resigning discourteous. This question is about the rest of board gaming: When (if ever) is resigning acceptable? <Q> I would say that resignation is perfectly acceptable as long as 1) <S> It was preceded by a good-faith effort to play optimally. <S> 2) <S> All parties who are affected by the resignation agree on its timeliness. <S> The only times I feel a resignation is discourteous is when it negatively impacts people who were depending on your continued presence; for example, if Japan were to unilaterally resign from a game of Axis & Allies despite the objection of Germany. <A> Many people I've played with have a "See it through to the bitter end" mentality. <S> Especially for some of the longer games, like Advanced Civilization, Pax Britannica, and Supremacy. <S> Then again, in those, the game is multi-player, and one player dropping out will drastically alter the flow of play; further, all three have victory conditions that can change the apparent leader to a loser in even the last turn. <S> I see nothing wrong with offering a resignation, but I also often see it as discourteous to simply walk away. <S> My usual experience with resignations in long games is one of two situations: <S> Player has to leave for work. <S> Generally, if this was known before hand, no big deal. <S> Player is frustrated, losing, and a jerk; player scatters pieces and/or flips board. <S> On the other hand, while no one I've played with saw offering to resign as inherently discourteous, neither was it discourteous to ask the attempting to resign player to play it out in multi-player games. <A> It depends on the type of game: <S> In a game between more players , it depends on the game: <S> If the game has rules for resigning, or players can agree on a set of rules, resigning should be allowed. <S> However, if resigning would spoil the game for any of the other players, all players should be encouraged to play out the entire game. <S> Option 1 is easy: when you're playing chess, there is more honor (and a sign that you atleast understand the game of your opponent) in seeing when you are lost, then in playing on and hoping the other person will make a mistake. <S> When I see I'm lost <S> and I'm sure the other person knows he's won, I will usually resign. <S> Unless when I want to learn from the other player, in which case I'll say "I know you've won, but I want to strengthen my endgame for a bit by watching how you do it" or something like that. <S> Option 2 <S> : for example in Monopoly, a resigning player could just donate his property to the bank, if the other players agree. <S> But there might be cases where the other players don't agree, for instance when the quitting player will probably be hitting one player's hotels the next turn - <S> the other player may feel his odds of winning decrease when the player goes. <S> One small tip: if you do insist the game is played to the bitter end, take away the bitter . <S> Grab something to drink and/or to munch on, make jokes, have a conversation. <S> Thank the player for continuing to play, apologize that he still has to play but explain that this allows the other players to end the game as it is supposed to be played. <A> One thing to keep in mind is resigning isn't a means to avoid losing, but a recognition that you have lost - you just haven't finished going through the motions. <S> In a two-player game, this should be fairly simple - you resign, opponent wins, you start another game. <S> In a team scenario (like Axis & Allies), the entire team should resign as a group - if a single player just packs up and leaves, the other team members should be allowed to fill in the blank spot. <S> (Assuming they wish to continue the game). <S> In a multiplayer scenario, it really depends on how the interactivity works. <S> Dominion can easily manage a disappearing player, but Settlers can't. <S> Generally, I'd err on the side of allowing someone to bow out, especially if he knows he can't win, but the ultimate winner is still unknown. <S> If it's fairly obvious that someone is going to win (or if it really doesn't matter who wins), I'd rather sweep and reset than force someone to suffer through the remainder of the game. <A> That's funny, I was going to use A&A as a perfect example of a game where I would consider it very rude not to resign, although I was thinking about the Axis or Allied players retiring together as a group <S> --I agree that one member of an alliance resigning unilaterally would be in very bad taste. <S> The criterion I use is that a player should resign when it's obvious that the victor is obvious but that achieving the stated victory conditions will take a long time. <S> A&A is the quintessential example because of how hard it is to captured the "island" of Japan, Great Britian, and North America. <A> In a two player game, the time to resign is when it is certain (or almost certain) that the weaker party will lose, given the playing abilities of both parties. <S> That could be a disparity of as little as two pawns in chess (at the master level), or a piece, major or minor, for weaker players. <S> There are some multiplayer games like Diplomacy, where a single player can "declare civil disorder" without substantially affecting the chances of other players. <S> On the other hand, if you are part of a pre-set "team" (Axis and Allies), it's better to resign, if at all, as a team. <A> In board games played online that have score values resigning may be considered rude. <S> For example, if you forfeit in Scrabble Online, you prevent your opponent from scoring, thus ending their opportunity for a high score value (which is tracked and viewable by opponents).
|
In a game between two players , I would encourage resigning.
|
How do I tell potential game designers their ideas are bad? Many groups of gamers will eventually attract potential game designers. I love testing games or playing with mechanics and enjoy play testing or theory crafting. But a good boardgamer does not a designer make and I find that most ideas are terrible or have already been done a few times. This also encompasses most of the fan variants and expansions for games. People, generally speaking, have no idea how to make a game. Unfortunately, I have problems being too direct or speaking in wild absolutes. This tends to make these potential designers (who are often friends I would like to keep) offended or defensive. This question boils down into two parts: How can I explain my objections or concerns clearly without being too direct or aggressive? What are these potential designers actually expecting from me? Am I putting myself on too high a pedestal in thinking they want me to respond as I have been? <Q> As a game designer, I know I want the truth from people I show the game to. <S> I also know that most people just don't give critical feedback. <S> By "critical," I mean a skilled judgment or analysis, as in "critical thinking. <S> " I've been involved in enough creative endeavors to know that most think only as far as, "I liked that," or, "That sucked. <S> " I've shown short films to an audience, watched them laugh uproariously, and then say, "It was OK," when asked if they liked it. <S> So I've learned to take feedback for what it is, and not to hang too much of my own self-worth on it. <S> I don't know if your game designers have grown the requisite thick skin or not. <S> But this combination of factors makes me able to give you advice about giving feedback - good or bad. <S> I know it seems easier to say, "That was fun!" <S> but both kinds of feedback should follow the same rules. <S> When someone asks you to test a game, if you don't want to put the effort in to provide decent feedback, just politely decline. <S> If you decide to accept, you now have a responsibility to think about the game and what you like and don't like about it. <S> Instead of just a blanket, "This rocks!" <S> or, "That was awful," you owe the designer the courtesy of considering the question, "Why?" <S> And then you can give the designer the answer to that question. <S> For instance, I have an RPG in playtest right now, and something like, "I felt like it was too hard to succeed - <S> even things my character was good at seemed out of reach," is good feedback. <S> It gives me something to look at, or even questions to ask the playtester. <S> And I would rather have critical negative feedback than thoughtless positive feedback. <A> My tips: Understand the expectations. <S> Is your friend asking you to playtest, debug, and improve the game with critical feedback? <S> Or does he think it's great already, and just wants to play it with you? <S> Ask him what he wants from you before playing, even! <S> State your criticisms as opinions where possible. <S> Instead of <S> "this is a bad mechanic" try to go for "I don't personally like this mechanic because of X". <S> Even if you think that EVERY right-thinking gamer will share your opinion of the mechanic it's ultimately your view of the situation, and stating it that way instead of as an absolute is a less confrontational path. <S> Instead of just criticizing elements you don't like, dig down into them. <S> Ask questions and try to find out why your buddy used that element in the first place. <S> What was the goal of that element of the design? <S> What "feel" is it supposed to evoke? <S> Heck, sometimes this kind of digging will reveal to them that they don't HAVE an answer for these questions, making the element's weakness clear. <S> Upon re-reading I see that my tips are largely things you already acknowledge as the problems (knowing the expectations, avoiding wild absolutes) but perhaps this will help to some degree regardless. <A> Put it in writing; edit it, and reread it after writing it but before delivering it. <S> Be prepared to explain in more detail, but don't be over-detailed in your initial list. <A> I would tell people WHY something is bad without telling them that it's bad. <S> E.g.: <S> Mechanic X takes up a lot of time. <S> Mechanic Y causes people to focus on the mechanic, and lose focus on the game. <S> Then let the designers decide for themselves whether "takes up a lot of time" or "causes a loss of focus" is good or bad.
|
Don't be confrontational; it just makes life harder. Include a list of things you do and don't like about the design, rather than just the bad.
|
Strategy for succeeding at Crisis skill checks I've played my first real BSG game last week with three players and the humans got wiped out before we even jumped once... I did some calculations to figure out if things get easier or harder with more players. What I found out made me wonder how player manage to beat the crisis cards at all. Average difficulty of a crisis is 9.95 points.Average value of a skill card is 2.14 points.Average chance of a skill check in a crisis card is 58.6%. Every human player gets 5 cards in his turn.Every cylon player gets 2 cards in his turn (when revealed). Assuming every card can be put to good use in a skill check we can calculate the amount of points the humans can field and the amount of points the cylons can field in every full round (where every player had his turn). The difference is the amount of points in favor of the humans. That divided by the number of players and 58.6% is the amount of points in favor of the humans per skill check. Depending on the number of players/cylons the points in favor of the humans are: 2:1 ... 9.753:1 ... 11.892:2 ... 5.493:2 ... 8.054:2 ... 9.753:3 ... 5.49 Aside from the best case scenario at 3:1 there is no situation where it reaches the average of 9.95 points per skill check. The destiny deck is roughly balanced (average of -0.1 points per check) so we can ignore this. Conclusion: Aside from somehow drawing more cards the humans cannot win every skill check even if they were to play their cards perfectly. Question: So how should the humans approach the skill checks on the crisis cards to win as much as possible? Option 1: Discuss which ones to fail and which ones to beat. Doesn't work so well since the cylons will also know when they need to fight a check and when they can save their cards. Thus the ratio of cards remains the same. Option 2: Use XO's exclusively to draw additional cards. One additional card per turn would be enough statistically. Option 3: Try to undercut every crisis just a little in the hopes that the destiny deck will make at least some of them pass... Other Options? <Q> Crisis Deck Management <S> You haven't put much emphasis on crisis deck management, which is important. <S> You can scout to bottom deck crisis cards. <S> Roslin can select one crisis out of two on her turn. <S> Boomer gets to see the next crisis before it is revealed. <S> All of these abilities can mitigate the damage caused by failing a crisis. <S> Track Destiny <S> You can keep track of destiny, so you can avoid playing when its stacked against you. <S> Evil and clever brig hack <S> If you can get around the players personal objections to this, having a player (even human) in the bring increases the number of skill cards drawn per crisis. <S> Imagine everyone is in the brig. <S> Then you can cycle through the skill deck, getting all of the best cards into players hand before ever having a crisis check. <A> I don't know if there's a flaw in your analysis somewhere <S> (I don't see one at first glance) or not, but it doesn't seem to reflect my experience with the game (and I've played a lot, though I haven't played a 4 or 3-player game in a while). <S> In fact, we usually way overshoot what we need. <S> The only time we start thinking "should we just let this check fail" is when things start to get really desperate, which usually only happens about twice a game. <S> So I guess I wouldn't recommend any of your options as a standard course of action. <S> I've found that it usually isn't too hard for the Humans to pass most checks. <S> Since this was only your first game, I suggest playing a couple more times to see if you have similar results. <S> It may have been a fluke. <S> I have to say I've never seen the Humans lose anywhere near that fast. <A> In our games we frequently don't attempt to pass some crises - either because we're pretty sure we don't have the cards to do it <S> (so why waste what we do have) - or because the Fail result of the Crisis isn't that bad. <S> Using XOs in general is good, of course, and the humans should use them wherever possible <S> - I wouldn't use them exclusively to draw cards, but on occasion that's useful. <S> There are also a few extra ways to manipulate skill checks: <S> Declare Emergency can lower the difficulty of a skill check by 2 Boomer can auto-pass a skill check once per game <A> Your data is fine, but your conclusion is flawed. <S> You're right that total card effort for skill checks is below total skill checks on a per-skill check basis. <S> However, you're failing to see that failing a single check through card conservation allows a pool which makes the next several checks succeed. <S> Let's use your example of 4 humans and 2 cylons. <S> You show 9.75 points possible (per check) with a difficulty of 9.95 per check. <S> Let's simplify the numbers and say that the players all together can amass 9 points per check, but the difficulty is 10. <S> If the players tried their best every check, they'd always get 9, and the difficulty each time would be 10, and they'd always fail. <S> However, let's say the players completely skip the first skill check, and suffer then consequences. <S> What happens? <S> For check #2, they STILL HAVE the points/cards from the first check. <S> So now, they have 18 collectively <S> (they drew 9 more each turn), they spend 10, and pass check #2. <S> Now for check #3, they have 17, they spend 10, and have 7 left. <S> Check <S> #3 <S> they have 16 total, spend 10, pass, etc. <S> So by skipping one check they can succeed at all of the next 8 checks. <S> Most of the time, in real game pay, the players experience this in reverse (overspending on the first few, and running out at about check #9), but the math is the same either way. <S> Make sense? <A> The number of players does not directly change the difficulty of the game. <S> I feel like i makes it easier to play with less just because there is less stuff to track. <S> This happens because the amount of cards drawn in total by all players directly balances out to the number of crisis that happen. <S> More players have a wider variety of cards but not more than less. <S> The cylons cannot poison every check. <S> In fact they must often help out. <S> It is very easy to figure out who is responsible if someone just keeps contributing negative cards. <S> Once they humans have identified the cylon using executive actions victory becomes easy if a lot of damage was not already done. <S> A good way to pass a check without throwing a lot of effort is to let only one person contribute cards if they say they can. <S> If anyone does not do it and adds cards anyway they are most likely a cylon. <S> If the one person clearly does not make an effort to pass, it is only one loss and <S> then you know who the cylon is.
|
In my experience, the Humans usually don't have much trouble passing checks.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.