source
stringlengths 620
29.3k
| target
stringlengths 12
1.24k
|
|---|---|
When I put the robber on someone in Settlers of Catan, does the resource I take HAVE to be random? Say I have 3 ore, 2 wheat, and a wood, and player B has a wheat, a wool, and a brick. Player B puts the robber next to one of my settlements and has to take one resource at random. Player B wants to get my wood so they can build a settlement, and I actually want them to take the wood so I can upgrade one of my settlements to the city. If they had to take a resource at random, they might get something else that would be sub-optimal for both of us. If I could just give them the wood, it would be to both of our advantages. Is the resource taken with the robber required to be random? If they want a specific resource and I want to give them that resource, can we just do that instead of player B having to pick randomly, possibly resulting in a situation that would hurt both of us, me by losing some I needed and them by not getting what they wanted? <Q> <A> Yes , the resource must be random. <S> Settlers of Catan has one of the best online FAQ 's that I've seen: <S> “Seven” and Robber - Can I voluntarily give a card to a game partner, instead of letting him draw it? <S> Answer <S> No . <A> If they want it and you want to give it to them, that just skips the step of trading back whatever "random" card they pick. <S> So it is random. <A> They have the pick the card from your hand without seeing what it is. <S> I don't see why you cannot tell them the one on the left is a wood if you want to. <S> They wouldn't necessarily trust you though, as you might be trying to trick them into taking something else knowing they wanted a wood. <S> (You might have 3 corn and 3 ore and want them to take a corn, for example.) <S> They might also tell you they wanted a wood, when in fact they wanted anything OTHER than wood in order to progress. <S> You revealing which card is wood then allows them to take anything else. <S> I don't think its ever in your interests to give useful information about the cards in your hand to the robber; you can always trade afterwards.
|
It must be random as Pat said, but you could immediately offer to trade whatever he draws with the card you'd rather give him.
|
When is the woodcutter worth buying in Dominion? So far I've found every card in Dominion has its own niche, but the woodcutter's seems to be exceptionally small. I only buy 1 or 2 if its the only card that gives +buys, otherwise a silver is better 99.9% of the time. Am I missing a key factor of the woodcutter? Is this the best way to use it? <Q> I recommend the insightful writeup at the Dominion Strategy blog. <S> It boils down to mostly what you said: <S> It also works well with Gardens, but in the long run it's just one of the least useful cards in the base set. <A> The utility depends entirely upon what's been placed into the initial setup. <S> If it's the only 3-cost card, it's pretty useful. <S> Remember: some people play with random card selection. <S> Also, it's a +2 coin and +1 buy action. <S> Silver is a +2 coin, but costs no action. <S> So it's essentially a silver that trades an action for a second buy. <S> Which is wonderful when trying to buy out the villages and other cheap cards. <S> If your options include villages and mines, having a short deck with village, mine and woodcutter <S> allows grabbing extra copper to convert to silver... <A> The time woodcutter stands out best is if there is a thief in play. <S> You now have almost a silver that cannot be stolen. <S> When i play dominion i keep a mental count of how many extra actions i have vs action cards in my deck. <S> If the action number gets high woodcutters become a much better card
|
+Buy can certainly be very key, so if Woodcutter is the only way to get it, Woodcutter is useful.
|
Source for significant historical events I'm designing a game that involves identifying historical events, and I'm looking for an online source that I can use to generate a set of event cards. For my prototype, I'm using a copy of the game Chronology , but to publish a print-and-play version, I'd need to find or create my own set of cards. If I could find an online source with a permissive licence, that might not be too much work. Other games like Chronology that could be used for prototyping would also be helpful. <Q> The best source I've found so far is the Wikipedia timelines . <A> I would look at The Timetables of History . <S> Even though they are on low-tech dead trees, the cross-concern linking of people and events is awesome. <S> I have used these books for RPG purposes and general entertainment reading for decades. <S> Especially for game design, the Timetables of History can help you unravel the skeins of history <S> so you know which strings to tug on for desired results. <A> It's Amero-centric, but you could use the cards from Chrononauts as a good starting place. <S> That link lists everything that happened in real life, but not any of the alternate timeline cards.
|
I find that the Timetables provide better information (and inspiration!) than the Wikipedia timelines because of the way they connect events, people, and ideas.
|
What is the difference between thickness and heavy stones? Thickness in Go describes a strong formation of stones. A heavy group is one that's over-concentrated. How do I know when my stones are thick, without going too far and becoming heavy? It seems like this can happen in just a very few moves. Are there any good tutorials that illustrate positions where a player turns a thick group into a heavy one? <Q> You know your stones are thick when they form a safe group that secures some territory and/or build some influence, threatens to attack... or just give you some kind of advantage. <S> There is no official definition for "heavy stones", but I think the term was used instead of the term bad shape for a group of 5 stones or more. <S> In any case, if you have a group of stones all connected together that doesn't do much to secure some territory or reduce the opponent's, then you probably have a bad, heavy, over concentrated shape. <S> -----EDIT----- <S> To add to my answer, I found some good definitions and examples of heavy vs overconcentrated and <S> heavy which might be useful to you. <A> The terms thickness and influence are precisely defined and very easy to differentiate once you got the idea. <S> Influence simply refers to a group facing the center of the board. <S> If a group create influence and at the same time is already alive or can make eyes very easily is called thick. <S> Note that a living group that is facing the edge of the board is not thick. <S> Distinguishing between thickness and heaviness or overconcentration is more difficult. <S> Heaviness refers to a group of many stones yet few eyespace. <S> Typically, it is created by trying to save too many stones, or by playing bad shape. <S> Overconcentration is a different phenomenon and refers to cramped positions, typically hand in hand with a violation of the wall+1 rule. <S> Overconcentrated positions tend to be extremely thick, far past the peak of efficiency. <A> I'm no expert (10k on a good day) <S> but if you follow the general rule of playing away from thickness <S> you should be off to a good start. <S> If you fail to play far enough away you could easily get over connected which could lead to a heavy group. <A> Thickness is indeed about the same as strength and comes with "eye potential" and "connectivity". <S> We only speak of thickness in the context of outward influence, while strong enclosed groups or groups with limited potential for expansion are rather called "solid". <S> Most of the answers get this part right. <S> But "heavy" is not at all the same as "overconcentrated". <S> Heavy stones are never thick: they may be large in number, but they lack eye potential, sometimes even making dumpling shapes. <S> They are weak and vulnerable. <S> More importantly, they are not easy to sacrifice, so they place a burden on the player. <S> Overconcentrated stones on the other hand can be and often are thick: if a player has created 3 or more eyes for his group, such investment was exaggerated, hence the stones are called overconcentrated. <S> Now if you start to fill all your eyes, turning it into a dumpling shape, a thick, overconcentrated group will become heavy indeed. <S> But this would really be a novice mistake. <S> Next to that, it is imporant to understand that "being thick, heavy or overconcentrated" can be an aspect of a local group, but also of the entire distribution of stones. <S> "Black is thick" means there are no easy ways to attack him. <S> " <S> White is heavy" means White has lots of burden. <S> "Black is overconcentrated" means he has invested too much in a few areas. <A> But there the similarity ends, because thick and heavy groups function differently. <S> Thick stones are those that you want to drive your opponent toward, because they are secure, meaning that your opponent's relatively few stones will suffer in the presence of your many. <S> Heavy stones are sometimes referred to as "dangos" or "clumps," awkward, insecure groups of stones that are easily chased by your opponent's stones, even if fewer. <S> They are stones you'd rather have your opponent stay away from. <S> Occasionally, if a group of thick stones have suddenly lost their "eye space" or foundation, they can become heavy. <S> On the other hand, a heavy group with new-found eyes can become thick.
|
Thickness and heavy stones are "similar," insofar as they involve a large number of stones.
|
Secret Mission Axis and Allies My friend and I sat down one day and made up some "Secret Missions" for all of the countries in the board game Axis and Allies. For example, if Japan takes Western United States, they are immune from counter-attack for one turn. Also, if Russia takes Berlin within 3 turns, they receive an additional 15 IPC's from the bank. There were 3 Secret Missions for each country, but I want to add more. Do any of you have any more suggestions? Please post them here as answers. Here are the Secret Missions! Sorry it took so long!!! Russia (U.S.S.R.) -Take Berlin by Round 5 and gain 25 extra IPC's from the bank -Take 3 German territories in ONE round and get 2 free tanks in any territory you control that has a factory (paying attention to the production limit) -Take 3 Japanese territories and get 3 free infantry in ANY territory you own (not including the ones you took that turn) Germany -Take London by Round 2 and gain 1/2 of the air units you used in the attack (rounding down to the nearest whole number. Example: you send 5 planes, you get 2 extra) -Control Algeria, Libya, Anglo-Egypt Sudan, Trans-Jordan, and Persia for ONE whole round and get 2 free tanks in Anglo-Egypt Sudan -Take all of Africa by Round 3 and get a Battleship in the Mediterranean sea; take all of Africa by Round 4 and get a Cruiser in the Mediterranean United Kingdom -Destroy 3 Japanese boats and get 1 free Cruiser in a sea zone bordering one of your territories -Destory all German boats (leaving none on the board) and get 3 free Fighters in the U.K. -Take Western Europe by round 2 and all of the units left in W.E. gain a +1 to their defense for the first round of marriage Japan -Do the "Pearl Harbor" attack and lose no units and get 2 free Fighters in Japan -Take China AND India by Round 3 and gain one free tank in any Japanese territory in Asia (excpet the ones just taken) -Take the Western United States and become immune from counter-attack for one turn United States -Take both North African territories AND one European territory by Round 4 and get 2 free Artillery in any territory you own that is NOT in Europe (except ones you have just taken) -Liberate an ally's capital and gain 10 IPC's from the bank -Take one island every round for 3 consecutive rounds and gain one Transport and 2 Infantry in Hawaii (if you own it; if not, put it in the Western U.S.) <Q> Pacific Dominance <S> For each turn that Japan controls all of the Pacific islands at the end of a full turn they are rewarded with a free transport or submarine to be placed at a factory of their choice at the start of their turn. <S> (This would require Japanese control of Hawaii, Midway, Australia, and New Zealand.) <S> Germans in the Atlantic Similar to the Sink <S> the Convoys <S> variant proposed by GWLlosa, if Germany has one or more non-transport naval vessels in the Atlantic Ocean at the end of a full turn, the UK must roll the die and surrender that many IPCs. <A> Germany holding all of Africa at the end of a German turn. <S> Perhaps with the reward of twice the IPC draw from African territories at the end of that turn. <S> The axis getting the US below 32 IPCs at the end of a turn, which requires them to take Alaska, Hawaii, Brazil, or some other non-Chinese territory. <S> Some sort of one-time IPC bonus for one or both axis powers if they meet up (i.e. German and Japanese units in a single territory ) <S> The ability to produce units in a captured factory on the first turn it was captured <A> SINK THE CONVOYS <S> At the end of the German turn, after the first full turn, if there are no transports in the Atlantic Ocean, Germany receives 2d6 IPCs from Britain (representing the economic damage). <A> Interesting idea. <S> Usually for those situations to occur something terribly wrong has happened to the opponent. <S> ie. <S> Japan being in Western USA Granting even more bonus via IPCs would only widen that gap. <S> So I would be extremely careful how you implement these "flavour" rules. <S> You might even consider the reverse and give a bonus to a player who took a bad beat. <S> Not to reward poor strategy but to balance out the game if it is completely one sided. <S> ie. <S> Britain gets 10 IPCs if there are no allied controlled territories in Africa. <S> Just a thought <A> One mission, secret or otherwise, that might have changed the course of the war (other than the atomic bomb), would be a German-Japanese link up in India, Persia, or somewhere in the Middle East. <S> It's not as far-fetched as it might have seemed. <S> Japan's Admiral Yamamoto wanted to launch an amphibious invasion of India, until he changed plans and headed to Midway. <S> Hitler originally decided to go after Russian oilfields in the Caucasus, then sent half the southern army to Stalingrad instead, capturing neither objective. <S> The Allies gave each other Lend Lease, the Axis, never, because they were separated. <S> Germany was short of fuels, and Japan was short of metals. <S> A link up would have allowed trading. <S> The result would have been worthy of a huge game bonus. <S> Also, understand the destruction they would have left in their wake. <S> Japan would have occupied India, Germany would have grabbed the Suez Canal (if the linkup was with Rommel) or penetrated the Caucasus, and grabbed Russia's oilfields, (if it had been Paulus). <S> Russia and China would have been inside a vast Axis ring, with Britain and the U.S. outside. <S> The Axis might have gotten at least a negotiated peace and one-third of the world. <A> I think A&A generally needs more sea conditions Because sea warfare tends to end once a major fleet is destroyed. <S> So how about this for Revised and 1942 only! <S> : <S> Axis: <S> The unexpected Royal Navy's match <S> (meant to be an initial boost to german production and an incentive to buy some fleet) <S> * Allies: <S> La Resistance's desperation * If no allied landings have taken place yet in europe, every round roll a dice ONCE at the end of Americans OR British combat move phase. <S> On a roll of 6, place an infantry unit in France, thus forcing a combat there or take the territory. <S> Meant to be a counter to the previous and to have the allies consider delayed or no landings, instead bombing or supporting russi
|
If German total IPC worth of naval units is higher than that of the UK, Germany gets an extra 3IPCs per round.
|
Why is it of high importance to control the center of the board in Chess? One reason for this is that from the center of the board, your pieceshave quicker access to the other parts of the board. Another is thatyour pieces often attack a larger number of squares. What others are there? I often find myself having control of the center, only to end upthinking "Ok, now what?". What advantages do I get, and how can Imake something useful out of these? <Q> In addition to the points you made, controlling the center means that your opponent will then have to form his or her attack on the wings. <S> Think of not only what it does for your pieces but what it means for your opponent's. <S> Picture the movement pattern of a knight <S> - if you control the center, the knight can attack all eight squares. <S> If your opponent's knights are forced along the side of the board they're likely going to be in the first, second, seventh or eight columns (files). <S> That means they're less effective. <S> ("A knight on the rim is grim.") <S> If you have control of the center, it's usually the time to start planning an attack. <S> Has your opponent castled? <S> If so, start getting your pieces aligned to make an attack on the appropriate side. <S> If you're playing more of a positional game it's time to start marching forward, taking up real estate on the board and placing your pieces and pawns onto squares that make it difficult for your opponent to move/develop his or her pieces. <A> Controlling the Center: 1) From the beginning of the game until the King castles, the center of the board is where the King is, and so it is the logical place to begin operations. <S> After the King does castle, the operations tend to focus on creating an attack on the flank where the King has moved to. <S> 2) <S> The middle of the board allows for the most mobility for all of your pieces but the Rook. <S> Knights have 8 squares in the middle, 4 on the edge, 2 in the corner. <S> Bishops have 13 moves in the middle, 7 in the corner. <S> The queen has 27 in the middle, 21 in the corner. <S> The more squares your pieces control, the more options you have later in the game 3) Moving a center pawn forward frees three pieces (Queen, King, one of the Bishops). <S> Moving a Bishop pawn forward only frees the Queen or the King. <S> Moving a Knight pawn forward only frees a Bishop, and moving the Rook pawn forward <S> only semi-frees the Rook. <S> So in order to get the most pieces developed efficiently, moving the center pawns are important. <S> Once they have been moved, it is critical that they remain as a shield at least until your King has been moved to safety. <A> Had opening books, ending books, and training/practice regimens centered (pun intended) on flanking strategies rather than strategies for controlling the center, <S> people'd push for controlling the flanks and not think about the center so much. <S> But the general premise holds. <S> Chess pieces have easier movement and larger fields of influence when in the center as compared to being on the flanks. <S> A knight for example, when sitting on a center square, directly covers 8 squares. <S> When sitting on an edge square, it covers only 4 squares. <S> For other pieces this is even more pronounced. <A> The center of the board is its crossroads, much like the center square in tic-tac-toe. <S> From the standpoint of chess, once you control it, you (usually) limit your opponents' options, including his power to attack you. <S> That's a major benefit. <S> As to how to attack your opponent with that advantage, study some tactics. <S> One way is to attack a target with all your pieces, force your opponent to defend, then move some of your pieces to a different target, probably on the other side of the board. <S> You can move faster than your opponent because you control the center, so you'll "hit" the second target. <S> A good exposition of these ideas can be found in "Chess Fundamentals" by former world champion Jose R. Capablanca. <S> It is an "old" book written by someone born in the 19th century, but it taught me how to play chess years ago. <S> It can also be found online under Googlebooks.
|
Also consider that your opponent thrives to control the center, so you controlling it derails his strategy which gives you an advantage.
|
What is a positional game in chess? What does it mean to have a positional game, or to play a positional game?What is the opposite? <Q> Every position has both positional ("theory") aspects and tactical aspects. <S> Positional aspects would include the various imbalances in the position: pawn structure, space, center control, knights-vs-bishops, and pretty much anything else that would generally fall under the category "theory" . <S> Tactical aspects are just what they sound like: tactics. <S> I move here, he moves here, and in 4 moves I win his bishop. <S> A positional game is one that is primarily dominated by positional aspects. <S> Of course, every game has aspects of both, but in positional games the theory is much more pronounced. <S> I hear the term "positional game" especially often in conjunction with a closed center - a game in which pawns occupy the center, so attacks have to be mounted on the flanks (sides of the board), usually with pawns rather than pieces. <S> These games tend to be slower and less intense; it is not uncommon for a player to spend half-a-dozen moves or more moving his knight to its optimal position before pushing a pawn one square. <S> Because of this, many players consider positional/closed-center games boring . <S> "Positional game" may also refer to a game where an early endgame was reached, causing most of the game to be dominated by endgame theory. <S> Tactical games , on the other hand, are dominated by tactics. <S> For example, see the Fried Liver Attack or the Danish Gambit , which always lead to very tactical games. <A> “Tactics is knowing what to do when there is something to do. <S> Strategy is knowing what to do when there is nothing to do.” <S> – GM Savielly Tartakower (1887-1956) <S> In a tactical game, you calculate on (material) profit. <S> In a positional game you perform careful actions to improve your position, without expecting large profit in the beginning. <S> In most cases a positional game ends in a situation with interesting tactical options. <S> The following are some (common sense) rules-of-thumb when playing a positional game: 1. <S> In an open game, a (good) bishop is usually a bit stronger than a knight. <S> In a closed game, the action-radius of bishops is reduced and knights become stronger. <S> 2. <S> A doubled pawn is especially weak when isolated from other pawns. <S> 3. <S> Try to trade 'bad' pieces. <S> 4. <S> Try to rule the center and do not allow your opponent to rule the center. <S> 5. <S> Attack where you dominate or have more influence. <S> 6. <S> When you have a spatial advantage, do not trade pieces needlessly so that your opponent continuously needs to rearrange his pieces. <S> 7. <S> Ideally, your bishop and pawns are complementary. <S> For instance, your bishop on a black field (g3) and your pawns on white (f3 or f5). <S> This covers a maximum of fields. <S> 8. <S> First investigate on tactics, for instance by searching for possible checks or checkmates. <A> Positional players develop pieces and go for king safety early, play for good pawn structure, and pay attention to how many squares their pieces control on the board. <S> The opposite of a positional game is a tactical game. <A> A positional game is one in which you try to go for a better position, specifically control of key squares, particularly close to the center, or in the vicinity of the enemy king. <S> You often do this at the expense of other considerations in the game such as material. <S> Perhaps the best example is the queens gambit. <S> White offers black a queen bishop pawn (and some tactical chances). <S> If black accepts the pawn, white is likely to get a stronger center and the king side. <S> A century ago, it was considered bad for black to give white these positional advantages, but modern, particularly Russian players, have demonstrated that the material and tactical chances compensate for white's better position. <S> Another example is when you exchange a bishop for a knight to "double" your opponent's pawns. <S> Inflicting doubled pawns is a positional advantage, but some masters considered trading a bishop for a knight as "giving up the minor exchange" (on the theory that bishops were worth more than knights.) <A> In a positional game, the pieces remain in the game longer than tactical games and the middle-game is the dominant part of the game. <S> Generally speaking, Positional players are more inclined to finish their games as a draw. <S> there are balanced advantages in the position: if one player controls the center, the other one might have possession of a Column with heavy pieces.
|
A positional game in chess is one where you try to control the territory on the board.
|
Advice for an experienced gamer who'd like to play nomic games? I am an experienced board gamer (and card too), with a particular affinity for collaborative games (Shadows over Camelot, Pandemic, etc.). I would like to take this a step further by studying self-government games in the style of Nomic . However, the learning step appears to be a bit steep. Given that I'd have to find a few friends to play with, I'd like to find a good game for our collective first time, so as not to be too easily discouraged. So, what choice of nomic games would you recommend, and what general advice would you give me to organize this. <Q> For having played so many Nomic, I must recommend you to play with friends around a table in a place where there are a few games. <S> The reasons for that are hard to explain, but playing Nomic online implies one of the two followings: <S> The game is abstract and requires every player to keep his own trace of the current situation, like two chess players that only send each other the coordinates of their moves. <S> Many players are programmers that can change the website you're playing on, to add new kinds of elements. <S> Let's say you play with "points" and suddenly you decide to add "coins" and "blue turtles", and there is an hexagonal board, ... <S> You can't just add a comment in a blog to edit the players status and adding fields to the database. <S> But if you play around a table, you can add "Carcassonne pawns" and "Catane cards" in your game quite simply. <S> Also, you start with very basic rules. <S> Forget about mutable/immutable rules, for example. <S> Here is an example of starting rules: 1) <S> No rules can be added or changed if it is in contradiction with an already valid rule. <S> 2) <S> The players play their turn clockwise, each finishing his or her turn before the next player begins. <S> The players decide who plays first in the way they prefer. <S> 3) <S> At a player's turn he or <S> she can propose a new rule, a change in a rule or a removal of a rule, by writing it on a piece of paper in the exact form it is supposed to be added or changed. <S> Such an action is called a motion. <S> 4) <S> When a motion is made, all the players vote by raising hands if they accept or reject the motion, each one having one voice. <S> 5) <S> If more than half the voices accept a motion, it is put in the ruleset, at the end with a new number if it is a new rule; at the same place with the same number if the rule is changed; and crossed out if it is removed. <S> 6) <S> The winner is the one who sells the princess. <S> (Of course, to achieve such a goal, you must either change the rule 6) or introduce a princess and a way to sell her.) <A> The best online nomic is Agora Nomic (http://agoranomic.org/), which is played on several mailing lists. <S> BlogNomic (http://blognomic.com/) is also popular and less 'heavy'. <A> Reading your post reminded me of the two times I played Dangerous Parallel . <S> Both times were in school settings and the game appears to require/be most fun with lots of people, but I bet it could be easily amended for one player per country. <S> The Play and rules are very free-form, albeit more structured than Nomic, yet not as constraining as a game like Diplomacy. <A> So I'm a bit late :/ <S> Even though it seems like a lot to take in, if you really want to start playing nomic, there's no better place than Agora (except if you act fast, more on that in the next paragraph). <S> The thing is, <S> yeah, Agora is really intense, and <S> yeah, you're probably not going to remember all the rules. <S> But everyone who plays Agora has an extremely high tolerance for newcomers, because they are all still keenly aware of how difficult it was during their first days. <S> But wait, if you call in the next 20 minutes, you'll get this special TV offer! <S> B Nomic has collapsed. <S> The reasons are interesting but kind of irrelevant; Agora is about to pass legislation that explains it, so I'd point you to that ruleset when it gets updated. <S> But the cool thing is that there are a whole bunch of people who are really good at playing Nomic, and understand how to handle new players, who are starting a brand new nomic. <S> That is honestly a rare opportunity - there is no better time to start playing a nomic than during the formative years. <A> It's more of a party game than a straightforward Nomic substitute, and it's not directly cooperative, but Democrazy is a fun little game where the players vote on rules that modify the game itself. <S> Check out the videos at boardgamegeek for a demonstration. <A> See my collection of card images at https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=cf6505871eabaa8e&sc=photos#cid=CF6505871EABAA8E&id=CF6505871EABAA8E%213187&sc=photos .
|
One Thousand Blank White Cards is a DIY card game with nomic qualities; also suitable for forum play.
|
How does Rook compare in difficulty to other trick-taking games? How does Rook compare in difficulty to other trick-taking games? It is commonly played by older people in my area, and so my siblings and I learned it as small children. What games would be good to pick up, having that background? <Q> Of all the other card games I know, Rook is most like partnership Whist , with only a few exceptions: Tournament Rook uses the rook-bird card, which serves as the highest trump card (not a wild card: the rook-bird play still must follow rules of following suit) Bidding in Tournament Rook is done by point counting, not by trick counting (as with Whist) <S> : fives are 5, tens and fourteens are 10, and the rook-bird is 20. <S> (As with Whist, trump is not named until after the bidding has passed out.) <S> Tournament Rook sets aside a "nest" of five cards on each deal-out that is not used by the players to play the hand, nor are the cards visible. <S> This gives each hand 10 cards. <S> The winning partnership counts the points in their won tricks, plus any tricks in this "nest". <S> The two aspects of the game I like most (and which make it more interesting than Whist) are the "nest" and the separation of bidding and measure of "successful play" from the number of tricks captured. <S> There are plenty of other card games that assign point values to cards and both bid and measure success based on those cards (Mü, Skat, Tichu). <S> However, I can't off the top of my head <S> think of other games that also incorporate a kitty of cards taken out of play that get assigned to the winning partnership at the end of play. <A> I'd say that it's among easier trick-taking games, but not too simple. <S> Games of similar difficulty would be Spades, Euchre, and Pinochle. <S> None of the games have anything similar to the rook card. <S> Spades has a set trump suit. <S> Euchre and Pinochle use modified decks, and both change card ranks depending on the trump. <S> Pinochle is the hardest of the three, with a melding phase. <A> Try mini-bridge : <S> An advantage of mini-bridge over rook/spades is that it's deeper, but equally easy to learn the rules. <S> It also gives you a lot of upside in that you could move onto playing Bridge, which is the classic among trick taking games: more complex, more fun, and more rewarding. <S> Mini-bridge is being taught as an alternative to Chess in many schools among younger children, with the idea that they'll move on to play the real thing. <A> There was an answer deleted that had a good link with a complete answer, <S> I'll repeat it here. <S> Is the Rook Game Similar to the Bridge Card Game?
|
Spades, Euchre, and Pinochle each have team play with the option to "go it alone". Hearts also works, but you'd need to remember it's about avoiding taking points.
|
Timing Rules in Seven Wonders There may or may not be a clear definitive ruling on this in the rulebook, but it's something that keeps confusing me in the actual play, so I'll ask anyway. Here are several questions that, when put together, should illustrate the points I'm having difficulty. I play a card that gives me one coin for each brown card in front of me or either of my two neighbours. I personally keep forgetting whether this counts cards that came into play this turn, but a quick check of the rules summary clarifies that yes, these cards are counted. I mistakenly play a card that I (and my neighbours) have insufficient resources to build, when I look closely. Obviously I cannot play the card - but I take it I can still discard it for 3 coins, or to build a section of my Wonder? I mistakenly play a card that I (and my neighbours) are short of resources to build: let's say short by one stone. However, it fortuitously happens that one of my neighbours has built a one- or two-stone quarry this turn. Can I pay him the appropriate fee and build the card? Or can I still only discard it for coins or to build a section of Wonder? My first suspicion was that all building happens simultaneously, so I can't use materials that aren't available at this point - but if the card mentioned in my first example derives benefits from cards played this turn, why can't this? We could get all MtG on this and break it down into discrete phases: the buy-resources-from-neighbours-phase, the build-with-resources phase, the reap-benefits-from-just-built-cards phase. But that all seems a bit anal for Seven Wonders. Is there an easy solution to the problem of looking left and right to see if your neighbours have the resources you need, and having to ask "errrrrr... so did you play that quarry this turn, or not"? (Apart from not being so scatterbrained, obviously!) <Q> 1) Nothing to say for me here ;-) <S> 2) <S> I'm not sure about the actual rules, but I think the penalty of disallowing everything else would be too harsh, as the player loses a complete turn. <S> One could argue if only the three coins should be allowed or building a part of the wonder as well. <S> Personally, I would allow both. <S> 3) <S> Again, not 100% sure: as you cannot use coins that you got this turn, you shouldn't be able to use any resources that have become available in the same turn. <S> My thinking is, everybody builds at the same time and hence completes their building at the same time, so you can't get anything out of another building to complete your own. <A> Answer #1 <S> - Yes, any brown cards played by neighboring players count toward earning coins this way. <S> Answer #2 - This question is unanswered and not clarified by the official rules. <S> You can only change the action you intended for the card you selected if you can't perform the action you intended for it. <S> In your case, since you can't build the structure as you intended, you can choose between building the next stage of your Wonder or Discarding it for three coins. <S> This problem can be avoided by having each player verbally declare what action they intend for their chosen card before the cards are simultaneously turned face up, then turn them face up and apply those assigned actions accordingly. <S> Answer #3 <S> - No, you cannot count your neighboring players newly acquired resource this turn toward the construction of your chosen card. <S> This question is answered in the FAQ section on the official website of the game developers here, http://rprod.com/index.php?page=download-2 <A> Bear with me here, I'm new <S> so I'm not sure it's the best place <S> but I just find your situation 3 a very interesting premise for a new way of playing 7 Wonders. <S> Personally, I've never encountered a situation where someone couldn't play a card that happens he could play it because of a new reveal card from a neighbor. <S> But, allowing this kind of dynamic you could had a great deal of bluff to the game especially with smaller groups (3 or 4 players). <S> Since you know after 3-4 rounds what cards are in your neighbors <S> hands you could anticipate the cards they might play and play something you couldn't. <S> On the other hand, your neighbors would be in the same situation and could adjust their strategy to prevent you from playing your card. <S> Could be interesting to give it a try.
|
You cannot change your mind & apply a different action to that card by choice, reason being that a player could change his intended action in response to a card played by his neighboring players.
|
How do Mine and Watchtower Interact? When playing Mine while having a Watchtower in hand, can you put the upgraded treasure card on top of your deck instead of in your hand? <Q> Yes, you can. <S> The card you get from Mine is definitely gained , therefore you can react to it with Watchtower and put it on your deck (or trash it!) <S> if you like. <S> There's not usually much reason to do so, but the cards don't actually conflict <S> - you can use them both in this manner if you really want to. <A> Yes From the Prosperity rules <S> pg. <S> 5 <S> : <S> Watchtower <S> - ... <S> If a gained card is goingsomewhere other than to your discard pile, such as a card gained with Mine (from Dominion), you can still use Watchtower to trash it or putit on your deck. <S> I think it's great that Dominion always includes blurbs in their rules for each card. <S> They seem to have anticipated most rules questions. <A> Watchtower says you can reveal the Watchtower from your hand and either trash or put the gained card on your deck. <S> Found a game log reference on councilroom.com showing this exact situation: bandito plays a Mine.... trashing a Copper.... gaining a Silver in hand.... ... revealing a Watchtower and putting the Silver on the deck.(bandito draws: a Silver, 3 Coppers, and an Estate.) <S> http://councilroom.com/game?game_id=game-20101207-185856-0ab1f05b.html
|
Yes Mine says you are gaining a card.
|
TTR: Destination ticket value changes in the America 1910 expansion The BGG summary for the expansion mentions this: a complete replacement deck of the 141 cards from the original game deck: 30 Destination Tickets (4 cards have a reduced value from Ticket to Ride) What were these reductions and why were they necessary? <Q> Which tickets were changed? <S> The following destination tickets received a decrease in value: <S> (Source: this post by Days of Wonder Forums user " Baron Von Schmidt original ") Sault St. Marie to Oklahoma City : <S> now 8 points Los Angeles to Miami : <S> now 19 points Los Angeles to New York : <S> now 20 points Seattle to New York : <S> now 20 points <S> Tickets <S> Probably Over-valued <S> The claim is made (in this post by Days of Wonder Forums user " Caboose ") <S> that Alan Moon (the game's designer) said the ticket values were not supposed to be the shortest route between two cities. <S> Lacking the context that this may have been said in, I believe the intent was to put to rest worries that some ticket values were mistakes or misprints, rather than to deny all connection between tickets' values and their minimum lengths. <S> ( This post by Caboose from several years earlier shows (s)he had previously believed the issue was due to a misprint.) <S> Additionally, if the changes were to "fix" the tickets to match their minimum lengths, they didn't fix all of them. <S> It's been pointed out (in this post by Days of Wonder Forums user " DiscJet <S> ") <S> that the Los Angeles to Chicago ticket and the 1910 expansion's Las Vegas to Miami ticket are each worth more than their shortest length. <S> I conclude that Mr. Moon decided the four changed routes were somewhat over-valued, at least for the 1910 rules (if not in general). <S> Attribution Note: <S> I got the idea to look through the Days of Wonder Forums from aramis' answer . <S> I don't have access to my copy of Ticket to Ride and the 1910 expansion at the moment, so I can't verify the route lengths or values myself. <A> Point values were probably corrections as they probably intended the point values to be based on the shortest path. <S> For example the Seattle - New York ticket was 22 in the original game and is now 20 is the America 1910 expansion. <S> You can get from Seattle to New York with 20 trains. <A> Days of Wonder stated in their forums that the 1910 changes were to reflect the shortest route valuations. <S> (I can't find the post right now.) <S> Likewise, all other tickets adhere to that basic rule.
|
It appears that the minimum number of trains required to complete a destination ticket was the starting point for assigning each ticket a point value.
|
In Pegs and Jokers, is it legal to split a seven card between my peg and my partner's peg? In Pegs and Jokers, there are two teams of three each. Player A has four pegs in the castle and his fifth peg is two holes away from going in to have all pegs in the castle. Player A wants to play a seven card and move his last peg two holes into the castle (he would then have all five pegs in his castle) and use the remaining five moves to advance a peg belonging to his partner to his left. Is this legal? <Q> I think it depends on the variant that you're playing. <S> This site lists the rules that come into play here. <S> First, the basic rules: <S> ... <S> When playing a 7, you may either move one of your pegs forward 7 holes, or split the 7 between two of your pegs, moving them 1 and 6, 2 and 5 or 3 and 4 holes forwards. <S> Of course the split move can only be made if you have at least two pegs in play. <S> ... <S> When, and only when, all five of your pegs are in the home (safe) position, occupying the five holes of your home track, you use your turn to move the pegs of your left-hand partner, if that player still has playable pegs. <S> If left partner's pegs are also all home, you move the pegs of the next partner around the table who still has playable pegs. <S> As I read this, the ability to move your partner's pegs depends on the state of the game at the start of your turn. <S> Player A still has pegs out, so he would not be able to split the 7 with his partner's peg; he only has one peg out, so he could not split the 7. <S> If you're using Arizona Rules, then it would be allowed: Throughout the game, you may move <S> any of the pegs belonging to your team ( <S> so for example any of 20 pegs in the 8-player game with 4 on each team). <S> Therefore you may discard without moving only if you are unable to play a card (other than a joker) that moves any of your team's pegs. <S> and this situation is explicitly mentioned in the North Carolina Rules: <S> As in the basic game, you can only move your own pegs until your last peg is home. <S> After that you move the pegs of the partner nearest to your left. <S> Because it's explicitly mentioned in the last variant, I do not think it is permitted in basic play. <A> We ordered a Pegs & Jokers board and it came with rules. <S> It does specify that the 7 or 9 can be split with your partner to the left, when moving your last peg into your castle, as long as that partner has a peg in play. <A> This would be legal the way we play. <S> Putting your last peg in the castle using say 3 of a seven and finishing your move by moving your partner's peg on the outside track the rest of the seven say 4. <S> (or any other split of a seven combination). <S> Our group have agreed to use the "Basic Rules" with one variation (Don't have to use the Left Hand partner, your choice but only one at a time) AND the addition of the Arizona rule of 9 being split( part forward and the other part backwards) <S> We find this speeds-up the game and makes for a better game.
|
In the basic game, except in special circumstances described below, you may only move your own pegs. You can use a split move to take your last peg home and move your left hand partner's peg with the remainder.
|
What is the name of the following chess opening? What are its pros and cons? At some point, when I was young, I learned an opening that involves the following moves: possibly after moving queen's pawn to the centre (d4), move out king's knight to above the bishop (Nf3), move knight's pawn up one (g3), move bishop up behind knight's pawn (Bg2), castle on king's side (O-O). This results in a very tight and turtle-like defensive formation that was sufficiently aesthetically pleasing to my young self that, in the years since, I've found it quite hard to get out of the habit of using it as my opening. (I'm not a chess expert in any way, I hasten to point out if it's not already obvious, though I do usually beat other casual players.) Is this a well-known opening and does it have a name? Given my apparent overwhelming predilection for playing it, what are its advantages, and what weaknesses does it have that I should watch for my opponent being able to exploit? Any recommendations for taking my opening game to the next level would also be appreciated! <Q> Moving your bishop like that is called a fianchetto . <S> There are a lot of openings which fianchetto the king's bishop; what you are describing sounds somewhat like the King's Indian for white. <S> However, it takes two moves, and weakens your kingside (specifically the f3 and h3 squares), giving your opponent potential areas to attack. <S> For example, a common plan for black in many openings (if his pawn structure allows it) is to force the trade of bishops by Bd7 , Qc8 , and Bh3 . <S> Once the bishops are traded, your king would be very vulnerable to attack. <S> Traditionally (beginning with Steinitz ), it was taught that one of the goals of the opening phase was to control the center by occupying it with pawns. <S> However, Nimzovich introduced hypermodernism , which states that the center should be controlled from a distance by pieces, not occupied by pawns. <S> Neither view is more correct than the other - even today, both have very strong Grandmaster supporters, and accepted opening theory draws from both sides. <S> I mention this because yours is a hypermodern opening. <A> It's been always considered to be a good opening. <S> It's like the King's Indian Defense, but with an extra tempo for White, and can transpose to many other openings. <S> You can see most of the popular openings here . <A> This is NOT a King's Indian Attack, because d4 has been played. <S> In the KIA, white plays d3 and e4, not d4. <S> The classification of an opening requires moves from both sides, not just white. <S> For example: This position, which arises after 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 e6 3.g3 <S> b5 4.Bg2 Bb7 is sometimes called the Romanishin System. <S> But it is only a Romanishin System if Black has played ...Nf6 and ...e6. <S> The Romanishin System is mostly just a sneaky attempt to get into a Catalan while avoiding some of Black's sharper replies, which is why Black plays ... <S> b5 to restrict White from playing c4. <S> Or, there is this position: <S> This is a Dutch Defence, because Black has played ...f5. <S> If Black meets 1.d4 with ... <S> f5, it's considered a Dutch Defence regardless of how White then proceeds. <S> So, you see, Black's replies are quite often important in classifying the opening. <S> As to whether it is good or not - that rather depends on Black's replies. <S> Against the Dutch Defence, for instance, this would be the main line, but against a slav-style setup with ...c6 and ... <S> d5, it would be considered rather innocuous.
|
The advantage of fianchetto-ing your bishop is that it very quickly puts the bishop on the long diagonal, its most powerful position. That would be the King's Indian Attack .
|
Where can I get these Carcassone expansions? Where can I find the mini-expansions for Carcassonne? I've seen there are several such as "The Cathars" and "Crop Circles" but don't know where to get them, my local board game store doesn't have them. <Q> First off, the expansions you have listed are official. <S> Depending on which expansion you're trying to find (and which print run) may be a little challenging: <S> The Cathars (BGG) <S> (German: Die Katharer) was originally released in the German magazine "Spielbox", and then again in the set "Der Carcassonne Almanach". <S> It was re-released in the US as part of the "Cult, Siege and Creativity" set (although it was renamed to the "Siege" in the set, explaining why you may have had a hard time finding it, and apparently the artwork was altered for the US release as well). <S> Starting in 2010, the Crop Circles ( BGG ) (German: Die Kornkreise) can be found in German versions of the base game. <S> I'm guessing it will be released in an anthology set (like "Cult, Siege and Creativity") at some point, but that's speculation on my part. <A> Rio Grande Games is supposedly going to start carrying the Crop Circles expansion sometime this year, but it doesn't appear to be there yet. <S> The Cathars is available from them as part of Cult, Siege, and Creativity . <A> A look at the boardgamegeek.com entries for them will lead you quickly to some available retailers, as well as ebay sales of them. <S> Further, BGG has a sales system which allows gamers to sell used supplements. <S> Many other online sources are available, as well, and many of those advertise on BGG. <S> Here's a partial list with the BGG links... <S> The River King & Scout Die Katharer <S> The Count River II Mini Expansion Cult, Siege and Creativity <S> Der Tunnel <A> You can purchase most of the official expansions, mini-expansions and replacement parts (individual meeples, tiles, etc.) at http://www.cundco.de/ ... <S> it's all just in German though! :(
|
You can buy them at various online stores.
|
What is a good opening for Go on a 13x13 board? I have been playing a lot of Go recently at lunch but we are playing on a 13x13 board instead of a 19x19. I can't seem to ever win! I am beginning to think that my opening is leaving me in a bad position. I generally start by playing 2 of the 4,4's (my opponent mirrors) then I do a lower approach on one of his corners. This is based off the same way I would start on a larger 19x19 board. Any advice? <Q> A standard opening is often based on where you would put handicap stones.4 <S> -4 is what you play and it's correct <S> but people more and more agree that 3-3 is better on smaller boards since it secures the corner and since you're on 13X13 it's not too small of a move like on 19X19. <S> For the fuseki you can try to use asymmetric stones 4-3 and 3-3 or 4-3 3-4 like black or white below: <S> White also can play safety with two 3-3 <S> But maybe you don't lose because of the opening? <S> 13X13 is a different game, the center is worth more points than on 19X19. <S> (worth 2 corners + 1 side) and there is less middle game and more life&death + endgame <S> (maybe this is where you fail?). <S> Usually you shouldn't mindlessly launch an attack. <S> Try to secure 2 corners and develop towards the middle while trying to reduce the opponents territory. <S> On 13X13 the number of groups you can keep alive is smaller. <S> On 19X19 you should make a maximum of 5 or 6 groups when on 13X13 <S> I would make a maximum of 2, like on 9X9. <S> You coud also try a variant of the chinese fuseki for 13X13: <S> In conclusion I think you fail at appreciating what move is urgent since the board is smaller. <S> Having your game reviewed would help a you a lot. <A> The 4-4 spot in the corner is a well balanced move on the 19x19 board. <S> It has some influence on the corner and gives you strength in the center. <S> I don't like it as much on the 13x13 board because the center is small and strength facing outwards often turns into over concentration. <S> The main use of a strong group is to attack weaker groups elsewhere on the board - it can of course help to do this on the smaller board as well, but it is usually not worth as much as on the bigger board. <S> Therefore I feel like the 4-4 is too center oriented, I prefer to open with a more territory oriented move that goes for immediate profit. <S> My choices for opening on 13x13 are 3-3, 3-4 and 3-5. <S> If you want some crazy fighting you can start with your first move in the center but have to know what you are doing with such a move. <S> You should also choose more territory oriented josekis than you would in 19x19. <S> As a former 3dan I am by far <S> no pro <S> , so please take my advice with a grain of salt. <S> 4-4 is not an unplayable opening in 13-13, but I find it harder to utilize than the other moves I suggested. <A> 13x13 is a bit of a faster game than 19x19, but the same general principles for fuseki apply. <S> (This is the main difference between 13x13 and 9x9, where the board is small enough to preclude a real opening) <S> The 4-4 is a center-facing move, emphasizing influence over strength. <S> It leaves you open to losing the corner with an opponants 3-3 and the resulting joseki. <S> The 3-3 is a corner-facing move, emphasizing reliable corner territory over influence. <S> Another option is the side-facing 3-4 move. <S> Opening Theory Made Easy by Otake Hideo provides reasonably good coverage of the logic behind these different opening options. <S> At a more fundamental level, the Janice Kim introductory series does a good job of introducing the motivations for different opening moves. <A> It can be done on a full 19x19 board, but that is a very sophisticated way of playing because the center stone can be more easily gotten around. <S> It's worth more on the smaller board because it almost links your two corner stones together and makes it almost impossible for your opponent to do the same.
|
On a 13 x13 board, I'd make your third move on the center point, and try to "control the center," as in chess.
|
Name and official (?) rules for this cards game I half remembered There is this card game I like to play whenever I have 5+ people around and the group includes some 'not so serious' gamers. The problem is I have sort of forgotten the real rules over the years and I feel like I forget a few every time I teach new people to play. Here is the basic idea: Deal our all the deck. Whoever goes first plays either a single card, a pair, triple, or 4 of a kind. The player to their left then must play the same thing but with a higher number (if a pair of 4s was played the next person has to play a pair of 5's or higher). 2s are considered the highest card, playing one two at any time will 'win' the trick and let you lead a new card. The first person out is the... president? Some title. At the start of the next round the last person out must give the president their 2 best cards, and the president then returns 2 cards of his choice. Soooo what game am I playing? Are there real rules for it I can brush up on? <Q> Rules vary, but here's a pretty standard set: http://www.webtender.com/handbook/games/asshole.game <A> Daifugō <S> Your playing with the "Deuce Means Clear" optional rule. <A> There's a few names for this game: <S> Asshole is the one I've heard most often. <S> President or Janitor are other names I've heard when Authority Figures are around. <S> Wizards of the Coast releases a version of this game under two names - the old one is The Great Dalmuti, and the new one is Dilbert-themed and called Corporate Shuffle. <S> (I've never played Great Dalmuti). <S> These ones vary in two respects - first, you play down rather than up (so you need to play 4s to beat 5s), and the number of copies in the deck is equal to the card value. <S> (Only one 1, two 2, down to 10 tens). <S> This adds a touch of balance, since you can overwhelm the better cards through sheer numbers. <A> Big Two <S> It sounds like Big Two, to me. <S> Then again, Daifugo and Big 2 are close relatives... <A> If you want to upgrade this card game to something slightly more "shiny"... I can recommend Frank's Zoo which uses these basic rules but has cute animals and some interesting (and varyingly optional) rules twists. <S> At heart it's still Asshole :)
|
You are playing asshole, a classic drinking game.
|
2 draw piles for convenience? Sometimes when the table is large enough, or people don't want to reach too far, a single draw pile is split into multiple draw piles. This has always bothered me. Does it bother anyone else? Are there any statistical reasons to not split the draw pile? <Q> Hypothetically, there's nothing wrong with splitting the draw pile. <S> However, you need to carefully consider how you interact with the draw pile during the course of the game. <S> Do cards ever get put back on top of,into, or under the draw pile? <S> If so,having multiple draw piles wouldaffect the game. <S> For example, ifplayers can put a card on top of thedraw pile, can I choose to draw fromeither pile? <S> What happens when thedraw pile runs out? <S> If the normalrule is to shuffle the discard pileto create a new draw pile, youprobably need to wait until all drawpiles run out before doing so. <S> If you have multiple draw piles,will you also have multiplediscard piles? <S> If so, you need toconsider how you interact with thediscard pile, also. <A> Cards are randomized through shuffling not through picking the draw pile. <S> Statistically you should have the exactly same chances of drawing any particular card from either pile. <A> We do that with some games (including tiles in Carcassonne), but you have to allow people to pull from either pile they want, and don't reshuffle until both piles have been depleted. <A> When the table is inconveniently large and we are playing a game with a thick pack of cards, we sometimes spread the draw pile out into a large fan. <S> That way, everyone can reach conveniently and anyone who suspects they may be disadvantaged can draw from any part of the pack. <S> Myself, I can't see it makes any difference, but those who have some doubts can pick from anywhere and therefore have no grounds for suspicion. <A> While splitting the deck is statistically irrelevant, as others have said, it does affect those games in which you might have such options as "check the first X cards in the deck and put them as they were" (say, to simulate precognitions), "check the first X cards and reorder them as you wish" etc.
|
Splitting a randomized deck into multiple decks, won't affect the randomization.
|
How many IPCs does the USA receive in Axis & Allies Global? In the combined global game for Axis & Allies: Europe 1940 and Axis & Allies: Pacific 1940, how much money does the USA receive before and after it is engaged in a war? Many references I've seen list the USA economy at 52 IPCs, but is this the starting economy? I've also read that the USA is supposed to receive a boost of 30 IPCs when they are at war. Are these 30 IPCs in addition to money potentially gained from fulfilling national objectives, or does it simply mean the player is now eligible to receive up to 30 from national objectives? <Q> I believe that in the 1940 version of this game the USA starts with around 27 IPC's on the Pacific map and 35 on the Europe side, so a total of roughly 62(?, perhaps my numbers are wrong) as a STARTING income. <S> Then they will have the 30 IPC's per turn added on once at war, which is their only national objective, so when they are at war, they will have an economy of exactly thirty IPC's more than what they gain from territories(convoy losses and extraneous circumstances aside), no more, no less from NO's. <S> I do not own this version, so this is only my take on it. <A> This is my understanding of the rules: at the start of the game, the players and countries IPC's are calculated by what territories they own. <S> So at the start of the Global A&A game, add up all of the U.S.'s territories and that is there starting income. <S> When they enter the war, they get an IPC boost of 30. <S> That is how I understand it <S> ... hope that helps. <A> The powers start with the following IPC income levels and treasuries: Power | Starting Income <S> (...) <S> United States 52 <S> (...) <A> In the global version, the U.S. pre-war points are as follows: Eastern U.S., 20 points. <S> Central U.S. 12 points. <S> Western U.S. 17 points. <S> Caribbean (Mexico, Central America, West Indies): 3 points. <S> Total, 52 points, which is the starting economy. <S> After the war begins, there are three bonuses:Western U.S. intact, 40 points. <S> Central and Eastern U.S. intact, 20 points. <S> All three Caribbean territories in U.S. hands, 5 points. <S> Total bonuses: 65 points. <S> Sub Grand total:117 points. <S> There are also another 15 bonus points in the Pacific that the U.S. may or may not be able to get. <S> Philippines: 5 points. <S> Holding both Alaska and Mexic: 5 points. <S> Holding four island chains: 5 points. <S> Grand total: 132 points. <S> Some versions of the rules confuse the issue by saying only 30 points bonus for the Western U.S. in Axis and Allies Pacific, but this map makes it clear that it's 40. <S> That is, it shows 10 IPCs for the U.S. prewar, and 50 IPCs (an addition of 40), after war begins.
|
According to the rules, page 34 , the US starts with 52 IPC both in treasury and income:
|
Can Monty Python Fluxx be used with the regular Fluxx deck, or is it a separate game? As far as I understand, Monty Python Fluxx is a separate game, not an expansion pack, that doesn't require the original Fluxx deck to play. But can it be used with the original deck - can it be used to supplement the original cards, or does it not work like that? (This related question What are the differences between the Fluxx games? didn't quite answer my question.) <Q> You certainly can just shuffle the decks together, try to play a game with them, and see what happens. <S> The core rules of Fluxx are always pretty much the same, after all. <S> However, everything I've heard from people who've tried something like this suggests that, for maximum enjoyment, you'll probably want to start removing cards that don't work well in the combined game; or adding your own homebrew cards that will work well in the new game. <S> I'm not very familiar with Monty Python Fluxx, but I've played a bit of Zombie Fluxx - <S> and it's pretty well optimised on its own. <S> I could add my basic Fluxx game into the mix, but then the zombie theme would be much diluted. <S> It would be much harder to assemble a critical mass of zombie cards to achieve one of the zombie Goals - or indeed the non-zombie cards required for a base set goal. <S> But in the end Fluxx is a game that it's best not too take too seriously. <S> If all you're after is a nice long, random game with the possibility of unexpected interactions between cards from different sets, then I don't see why you wouldn't want to at least give a mega-game using cards from multiple expansions a try! <A> Can? <S> Yes. <S> Should? <S> No. <S> The only Fluxx sets with significant goal & keeper overlap are Fluxx and Family Fluxx; certain keepers are duplicated. <S> Those two can be mixed, and mixing those two isn't a clear "Should not"... but the others, they definitely fall into "should not." <S> Such mixing definitely lengthens the game, as needed keepers are harder to acquire. <S> It also reduces the skill factor and increases the luck factor of victory. <S> If, however, you simply want to mix the new rule cards and action cards, playing with only one set's goals and keepers, that does work somewhat better. <S> It still potentially lengthens the game. <S> (See note.) <S> Note: <S> I say potentially, as the shortest game I've ever played was a combined Fluxx/Family Fluxx game. <S> First goal was runny chocolate, I had sun and several other keepers, and the 1st player played "Play all"... and played a chocolate. <S> I drew, got "Steal a keeper", stole his chocolate, and played my sun, thus filling the goal, and winning, 2 minutes into the game. <A> <A> Yes, with houserules The biggest problem with combining Fluxx sets is that it's more difficult to achieve goals. <S> Most versions of Fluxx have 100 cards, and a particular goal usually requires 2 Keepers (so there are 97 cards that are not relevant to the goal). <S> If you add another 100 cards, now 197 cards are not relevant to that goal. <S> To try to mitigate this, our group has implemented the following houserules, and been pretty happy with the results: <S> The number of starting cards is 3 + the number of additional sets. <S> The number of Goals allowed in play are 1 + the number of additional sets. <S> Players win if they match the criteria for any Goal. <S> "Double Agenda" cards that allow two Goals are now treated as "+1 Goal Limit" cards. <S> If this Goal Limit is reached, new Goals can replace any Goals currently in play. <S> We have found that this works reasonably well even with sets like Monty Python Fluxx and prevents a combined game from slogging.
|
You can definitely use multiple Fluxx decks together, but it will slow the game down - different games use different Keepers, so it will take longer for players to get the right combinations together to meet Goals.
|
In Catan, should you try to exclude others players from one resource? In Settlers of Catan (the board game), in a game with four players, is it considered a good strategy to try to lock one (or two) other player(s) from a given resource in order to have an upper hand for later trading? I mean, placing your cities so that you prevent someone from accessing any ore, for example. (Ore is the easiest, because people tend to neglect it in the very beginning of the game.) I never do it, but it happened on its own once or twice, and it is really great. You can get better bargains because people are desperate for it. So, is it a known strategy? Do you look for that kind of advantage when playing Catan? <Q> But it's not generally a "good strategy. <S> " <S> I've seen a situation where one person had a lock on all the wood (random setup). <S> The result? <S> everyone else went for ports, and no one traded with them. <S> You can't really compel competent players to pay more than 3:1 for any resource, since a port allows 3:1, and they who get too greedy tend to lose out on everything else as no one will trade with them. <S> If, however, you have it on good numbers (5,6,8,9), and trade it to others at 2:1 and/or can get the 2:1 port for that resource, build your cities on it, and use it for just about everything, it's workable. <S> A lot depends upon the group being played with. <A> In the many instances I have seen this strategy attempted, it has always involved a compromise on other resources, which hurts the greedy player in the end. <S> Furthermore, nobody trades with a player who is dominating them. <S> It's psychology and strategy both. <S> In the best case scenario, provided you can get good probabilities of all 4 of the other resources, and lock up the only high-probability ore, by all means go ahead. <S> This will involve a lucky setup and a lucky roll (to go first, and to still be able to get all 4 other resources.) <A> Ore (and to a less extent Corn) are both incredibly important resources. <S> Since there are only 3 Ore hexes, its definitely worth trying to corner the market in Ore if you can. <S> It is hard to build cities if you have to trade 3:1 for ore. <S> Since people often want Ore in bulk, you can often get very good mutually beneficial deals such as 3 ore for wood+bricks+2corn. <S> I wouldn't try to do the same for wood or bricks since you won't really be able to leverage it into much of an advantage. <S> And definitely not with sheep! <A> It's definitely one of the components you should look at when deciding on your strategy in the game at the start. <S> I evaluate the following components when placing (and deciding where to go later on): <S> Number Diversity Resource Diversity <S> Good Numbers <S> Getting close to a monopoly on a resource (this question) <S> Ports <S> Whether there's one resource that is going to be shortchanged Order of Placement
|
It's not a bad strategy, if (1) you still have access to all resources, and (2) you have a group willing to trade.
|
Why Do People "Pre-empt" With Seven Of A Suit In Bridge? One advantage of a "pre-empt" is quite clear: You take two levels of bidding away from your opponents with a "three" bid. But could that be cutting off your nose to spite your face? Recently, I had something like KQxxxxx, and a side queen (I forget how the other suits were distributed but was told it didn't matter). My partner was disappointed I didn't "preempt" (in "third" seat). My response was "with seven points?" My understanding is that people often bid three of a suit with seven cards and this little. Sometimes even less, particularly when non-vulnerable vs. vulnerable. In its extreme version, the mantra is "with any seven (suited) cards." Isn't this risky? What if we're doubled and only make three or four tricks? <Q> Generally speaking, if you have only seven points as in the example hand, your opponents will have the preponderance of strength. <S> Pre-empts are designed to eat up the bidding room that your opponents could otherwise use to zone in on the right contract. <S> If, as it sometimes happens, your partner has the strength instead, the pre-empt is still good, as it paints a very accurate picture of your hand that your partner will use to determine the right contract. <S> If you get doubled and go down three or four, think about what your opponents will have. <S> They will usually have missed a slam, and your result will compare favorably. <S> It will happen, but it is very rare that your pre-empt will be a total disaster. <A> Your response of "With 7 points?" makes me think you have some misconceptions about the hands the you ought to preempt on. <S> (As an aside, I am really curious: What do you preempt on?). <S> One normally preempts on highly offensive hands, which when played in any suit other than your long suit will offer very little defense. <S> The position also is relevant, as in third seat you can really be aggressive in your preempts, opposite a passed hand. <S> The vulnerability and scoring also matters: at IMPS going down 3 doubled, non-vul (-500) against a making vul game <S> is (-600) <S> is a great sacrifice. <S> Don't look at the total hcp, but look at your suit length and how offensive your hand is. <S> So a hand like Jxxxxxx, Kx , Qx, Kx (9 hcp) is not a hand to prempt (it offers nice defense and is less offensive oriented), but you should preempt on a hand like KQTxxxx, x, xxx, xx ( only 5 hcp). <S> With KQTxxxx as trumps, assuming partner holds 2 small trumps, you rate to take 5-6 tricks on average. <S> If partner also has an outside A, you will take 6-7 tricks, which is a great bargain (going down 2 or 3) against opponents making game/slam, especially when vul. <S> Ultimately, like with any other bidding situation, it is a risk vs reward + <S> partnership discipline scenario <S> and if you don't go for a number sometimes, you are not preempting enough. <A> The Wikipedia page is actually really good; I don't think I could put it any more economically. <S> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preempt <S> Especially, check out the graph on that page, which shows how many points you lose from undertricks at various vulnerabilities, compared with the points opponents will gain from making game. <S> You seem to have trouble with the idea of making a sacrifice bid, but quite often it is just accurately gauging the lesser of two evils for your side. <S> Obviously if you're going to go down 6 doubled vulnerable, you never make a sacrificial pre-empt! <S> But you'd be surprised how many tricks you can usually take with 7 or 8 of a single suit in your hand. <A> Originally (when Culbertson and others first studied Contract Bridge), the rule was "Seven cards and an outside Ace". <S> With that and even a semi-reasonable dummy, you can usually make your contract, if left in it. <S> But a little more study revealed that the hands you don't make are usually the ones where the opponents have an easy game/slam and, more importantly, starting at the three-level <S> often makes it impossible for them to find the right contract, even if they do bid. <S> Too valuable to restrict: cutting the outside Ace down to a King or Queen reduces the chance of making your contract, but offers much greater scope to interfere with the opponents, so reducing their score at the risk of a small penalty to you.
|
The usual point of preempting is that you rate to take away opponent's bidding space, as well as pointing the way to partner in making a sacrifice over opponents game/slam bid.
|
In Bridge, Which Forms of Deception Are Ethical? Does This Include "Moodying?" Playing in a casual game of bridge, holding JTx of trumps, I "falsecarded" on the second trump lead with the J. Believing that he had drawn them, declarer stopped leading trumps. Later, I trumped one of his tricks with the T. Declarer protested, saying that I should have followed "in sequence." My partner agreed with him, but dummy just said sagely "My partner forgot to count trumps." I wasn't "wrong" was I, even though I was "deceptive"? But I've been told that there are limits. For instance, is "moodying" allowed (act strong when weak, act weak when strong) even though this is a critical element of say, poker? <Q> "Deception" is a weird concept in bridge. <S> Just like in every game, there are forms that are ethical and forms that are not. <S> Falsecarding, as in your example, is perfectly fine. <S> Your opponent failed to count trumps correctly, and paid the price. <S> A similar, and perfectly valid strategy, is to play a high card instead of a low card when losing a trick as declarer to make the opponents think that you are now void in the suit, hoping that they will switch to a different suit. <S> "Moodying" is more of a gray area, and should probably be avoided. <S> Granted, <S> any information that your opponents take from your tells is at their own peril, but if your partner could use any information that your tell gives away to his and your benefit, then your opponents could rightfully claim to have been wronged. <S> Very broadly speaking, deception is OK as long as you are deceiving everyone at the table, partner included. <A> Any intentional (meaning "on purpose") deception by your tempo manner or countenance is not ethical. <S> Bridge is not poker. <S> It is best to be emotionally detached in your countenance and keep your tempo even. <S> Do not pause to think unless there is something to think about. <S> Do not show pleasure or displeasure at your partners or opponents plays or bids. <S> This is very difficult to do. <S> Try to control your tempo and emotions. <S> If you lose control, at the very least your pauses and emotions should be genuine not contrived. <S> All emotions, mannerisms, and variations in tempo and what they imply are unauthorized information to your partner. <S> An ethical partner will not only ignore these but should bend over backwards to make it clear to opponents that it did not influence his play. <S> He will generally choose an option not cued by such unauthorized information if he has reasonable choices between continuations. <S> A Bid that grossly misrepresents the strength or distribution of suits you hold is called a psych . <S> While use of these bids are technically legal and they do occasionally happen, psychs are strongly discouraged. <S> This is because the use of such bids usually create a pattern which is more familiar to your partner than your opponents creating a sort of secret agreement. <S> All agreements should be available to your opponents and it is not ethical to play systems your opponents do not understand without full disclosure. <A> I don't see anything deceitful or unethical in your play. <S> The important thing is that your play fooled your partner as much as your opponent(s) - obviously, in this case, as your partner was angry that you stepped outside of your system! <S> I believe that your opponent was perfectly entitled to ask your partner about your system <S> - does your partner's play here usually imply that he is now out of trumps? <S> And your partner should answer honestly. <S> The only "unethical" behaviour would be if you had some kind of prearranged system where, let's say just for the sake of bizarre argument, you always drop your highest trump under the opponents' first round of drawing trumps. <S> If you knew this to be the case but lied about it when questioned by your opponents, that simply wouldn't be on. <S> Bridge would be a much poorer game without deception! <S> But it can never be a carefully planned deception between a partnership <S> - it must always be purely improvised in the course of the game, without communication with one's partner.
|
Any deception by use of a bid or card played is legal.
|
Supporting Routed Units in A Game of Thrones In FFG's A Game of Thrones boardgame, can routed units be supported? In a recent game, one player (the aggressor) attacked another (the defender) but was defeated. His routed units had to retreat into the area they started from and were turned on their sides - exhausted. The defender had a March order on the newly-victorious units, and used it to attack the routed units in their original area. But the aggressor had an adjacent supporting unit, and a third party did as well. It seemed to me (I was neither the aggressor, the defender, nor the interested third party) that units have to be able to give battle in order to be supported. But we couldn't find a rule that said specifically either way. We found rules that said that battles ensued when one player moved units into an area with another player's units already in it. We found rules that said that routed units have no combat strength and must be lost if they would be forced to retreat again while exhausted. But nothing specifically relating to whether an exhausted force can be supported and therefore have a combat strength. <Q> One of the players in the game in question just sent me this link: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/98106/supporting-routed-units <S> Routed units have no combat strength. <S> They still count towards a player s Supply limit, but if a routed unit is forced to retreat again in the same game turn, it is automatically destroyed. <S> Routed units may never be taken as casualties in battle. <S> Routed units may not participate in a march, even if a March order token is resolved at their new location. <S> After all March orders have been resolved for the turn, return all routed units to their normal upright position. <S> It seems that the accepted interpretation is that routed units may give battle (with a strength of zero) and may be supported. <A> Yes, routed troops can be supported. <A> To quote the rulebook: <S> Yes, combat ensues normally: <S> "Whenever a player marches one or more of his units into an area containing units from another House, combat ensues." on p17 They are still units. <S> And there is no rule telling you otherwise. <S> But they provide 0 combat strength: <S> "Routed units provide no Combat Strength, but still count towards a player’s supply limit." on p21 <S> And they can't retreat: <S> "If a routed unit is forced to retreat, it is instead destroyed." on p21
|
A battle against routed troops (who have zero combat strength) still follows all the regular rules of combat (including Calling for Support).
|
When should I pay to invade a neutral country in Axis and Allies What factors should be considered when deciding whether to invade a minor country and pay the 3+ IPC's? <Q> At a basic level, I weigh the 3 IPC payment and the opportunity cost of the units I used to invade it against the benefit to be gained. <S> That's pretty generic so some examples might help: <S> As Japan, I often find myself invading Panama in the mid- to late-game because my navy has nothing else useful to do. <S> If America doesn't have any tanks in Western US, chooses not to use them, or if I have enough extra transports that I was able to land a blocking infantry in Mexico, then America will be unable to kill any units that landed in Panama. <S> In this case, I'll typically invade Venezuela on the next turn and then take Brazil. <S> The 3 IPCs from Brazil are an equal trade for the 3 I lose for invading a neutral, the value from really throwing a monkey wrench into America's plans is high, and the opportunity cost was low, since the navy wasn't busy anyway. <S> As the Allies I've landed in Spain before just to open up another front for Germany to defend. <S> It can be very difficult to stage a successful amphibious invasion because of the lame attacking power of infantry, the one tank per transport limit, and the ability to lose your entire air force because of the no retreat rule. <S> So to prevent having to attack, I've invaded Spain as the UK and dumped a full load of infantry followed by the US on their turn. <S> Now Germany either has to counter attack (with only the infantry in France and without any tanks in EEU or further East) or give me a foothold in Europe <S> I'll likely never give back. <S> I've also played with a house rule before where land units could cross the Bosporus if Turkey was occupied. <S> So I tried invading Turkey as Germany to help me ferry troops into Africa. <S> This didn't work that <S> well as it's still a long way from the Fatherland. <A> It's always too expensive. <S> Been playing a&a for 20 years and have never paid to invade a neutral. <A> Never. <S> It is strategically unsound and hideously expensive.
|
You must always factor in the cost of the units invading, and the resultant loss of combat power where it could do some good somewhere else.
|
Does anyone use the P-K4 type of chess notation anymore? I have several chess books, all of which use the P-K4 type of notation rather than the e4 type. I am still more used to the older form, since those books were my first introduction to chess literature. I'd like to find out if anyone still uses it or can read it (1 P-K4, P-KB4; 2 N-KB3, N-QB3; etc). As far as I've seen, it's only in books. <Q> Most people nowadays use algebraic notation, except old players who are very stuck in their ways. <S> However, there is still a purpose in learning descriptive notation: reading old books. <S> Some of my favorite old chess books are only available in descriptive notation, so you have to be able to keep track of long series of moves in descriptive notation. <A> It's much easier to work the game in your head with descriptive notation, so it's good if you're reading the game. <S> Descriptive notation lets you know overtly which piece took which, like PxQ. Having said that, it's not used much anymore, you'll only see it in old references. <S> Algebraic notation was adopted by FIDE because most of the world used it, so it was international, even if the letters used were different in different countries. <S> It was pushed in the US in the 70s with Fisher's success, since chess was booming then, and so were book sales. <S> The book publishers didn't want to have to print two different versions of the book for different notation markets. <S> It really caught on in the US once chess-playing computers and software came out, since most of those used it. <S> Algebraic notation's first recorded use was in The Noble Game of Chess by Philipp Stamma in 1745: <A> I prefer Descriptive Notation, mainly because it's what I grew up with, and I can visualize the moves without the board (though not good enough to play blindfolded). <S> I have to translate (at least in my head), when reading algebraic notation (and do that easier if I have a picture of a board in front of me). <A> I still use descriptive notation, and I can read it, and I also have some old chess books with it. <S> Algebraic seems to be used about everywhere now much more often; I play on the Internet Chess Club and that is all they use there. <S> I put in a suggestion for them to have descriptive as an option <S> but they haven't gone that way. <S> It is <S> like some of the other answerers said here, algebraic is International. <S> and I like it. <S> I am in the middle of 4 correspondence games with a friend of mine who lives about 200 miles away. <S> They are rated games, and we have to use algebraic, but when we talk by phone, I discuss the games in descriptive. <S> He understands both like I do. <S> I would say just go with what you feel comfortable with, but algebraic is just about forced on us now. <S> It is good to know both, in my humble opinion. <A> I could "almost" play "part of" a game, blindfolded, using Descriptive notation. <S> I'm lost in Algebraic, without a chessboard in front of me, with the letters on the sides, ESPECIALLY when playing black. <S> So, when I'm playing chess, I'm thinking the three or so moves forward, descriptively. <S> Thanks for asking. <S> I'm <S> happy Tournament Chess lets you use either. <S> By the way, I recently found two oldies, at "The Bookshop" [a Chapel Hill, NC Used Book Store]. <S> The first is "Chess Strategy", by Edward Lasker. <S> The other is 500 Master Games of Chess, by Tartakower and <S> Du Mont. <S> I purchased them immediately (even, when short, financially), because they both use Descriptive Notation. <A> Did well playing chess in early '70s H.S. tourneys. <S> Always used Descriptive Annotation. <S> IMHO Algebraic format removed a portion of humanity from the game and replaces with a metric type of system. <S> Its one of the main reasons why my romance with the game ended. <S> Why does everything always get squished down to its simplest form? <S> Don't answer that. <A> Yes - I grew up with English Descriptive Notation and still use it. <S> I don't like algebraic notation <S> so I've never used it or felt inclined to do so.
|
The new way of notating - algebraic notation - has pretty much completely replaced the old way - descriptive notation . But to answer your question: yes, I still use it
|
Are there any reputable chess openings which begin a4, b4, g4, or h4? I have heard of 1 b3 and 1 g3, but never any of those in the question title. Is this because they do not work in practical play? I've tried 1. g4 d5 2. h3 e5 3. d4 Nc6 etc. with a good chance of a strong Bishop-pair and Queen for White. White must castle Queenside, and will develop his Knight to f3 soon. I played a couple trial games with myself, and haven't yet tried it on anyone else. Perhaps some variation on this brash opening is more effective? I'd like to know if anyone's studied this type of opening. <Q> These would be classified as A00: Irregular Openings . <S> Starting with 1. <S> a4 is Ware's Opening ; 1. b4 is Sokolsky's Opening ; <S> 1. <S> g4 is Grob's Attack ; 1. <S> h4 is the Desprez Opening . <S> As you've noted, these are not played often. <S> The database at chessgames.com shows only 548 games starting with 1. <S> b4, 260 with 1. <S> g4, and just 10 each for 1. <S> a4 and 1. <S> h4. <S> White has only a small advantage within all A00 openings, 38.5% to 35.1%. <A> These openings are considered "irregular," and therefore not totally reputable. <S> There are two reasons. <S> The first reason is that unlike c4, d4, e4, and f4, they do not begin a fight for the key center squares. <S> You can make the case that b4 and g4 open the way for a bishop to be "fianchettoed," but they get the player "involved" in other ways. <S> B3 and g3 are "safer," but lackluster versions of these moves. <S> And the pawn on g4 blocks the bishop on h3 unless you move it further. <S> But in any event, white is likely to get behind in development with such an awkward, clumsy opening, even though s/ <S> he shouldn't by virtue of moving first. <S> The second reason is that kings generally prefer to castle into the corners on one side or another. <S> These moves of side pawns open up the corners prematurely, making it hard for your king to castle. <S> They may be good moves LATER in the game (depending on the situation with the OPPOSING king), but playing them on the first or second move gives the opponent too much time to take evasive action, thereby robbing you of the potential benefits. <A> I've actually had 1. <S> b4 played against me in tournaments; it's awkward, but not unsound like 1. <S> a4 or 1. <S> h4 - the idea is to fianchetto the bishop to b2 as fast as possible, even if it means sacrificing the pawn. <S> Personally, however, I don't believe the pawn-sacrifice is worth the extra space white gains vs. playing the alternative, 1. b3 . <S> 1. <S> g4 is also playable for the same reasons, but even more rare than 1.b4 , because it forces white to castle on the queen's side (which means waiting at least one-extra move). <A> b4 is the Polish opening and is sound. <S> g4 is the Grobs or sometimes called "The Spike" and is rarely played because it is risky. <S> Even when I was a beginner, I opened with those latter two, to try to get my rooks out quickly. <S> As I learned more about the game, I understood why those two opening moves are not good. <S> It is best when in your beginning stages to open with a center pawn, more likely e4 or d4, until you learn more.
|
I have never seen h4 or a4 as an opening move except by beginners.
|
Is there a variant of chess such that in the starting position Bishops and Knights are switched? White's back row would look like this: RBNQKNBR and Black's would undergo an equivalent change. Where can I learn more about this variant/play this variant with someone experienced? <Q> Swapping the knights and bishops is one version of displacement chess . <S> I'm not sure what you wish to learn though; the main aim of displacement chess systems, such as Fischer random chess , is to negate the benefit of rote learning. <S> Learning how to play this variant well by studying sounds like a strange goal! <A> <A> There is a call for this kind of switch when it is felt that chess is "too well understood." <S> The first call was about eighty years ago from former world champion Jose R. Capablanca. <S> He embraced a "scientific" form of chess, took it to a high level, and then he (and his admirers) felt that there was little left to learn about in chess. <S> As it turned out, the Russians came along with a new, fighting, kind of chess that enabled them to defeat the "scientific" players. <S> Only Bobby Fischer, among Americans, was able to play them on their own terms. <S> It's no accident nowadays that there are new calls for changing the game, because high speed computers like Big Blue have made a science of analyzing the old one. <S> Human masters like Kasparov (a "Russian") now feel inferior to computers at this game. <A> Here is a photo from a Chess Pioneer (Russia) camp in the 1960s--1970s...notice the pieces are switched, so that White's back rank is, in fact, RBNQKNBR
|
This is one form of Displacement chess , though I don't know that it has its own name, or any sites/books dedicated to studying it.
|
In Chess, Why Does Black Sometimes Play "Cramped" Openings? I'm referring to openings such as d6 (Pirc Defense) or e6 (French Defense) in answer to say, e4. These openings often make it more difficult to develop pieces than say, c5 or e5. In particular, the black squared bishop needs to be fianchettoed after d5, and the white squared bishop is locked behind a wall of pawns after e6 (and d5). For these reasons, White (almost) never begins a game with d3 or e3. A certain chess master had the opinion that "Cramped positions carry within them the germ of defeat," and would play c5 as black, whenever possible. Do such openings (French and Pirc defenses) represent a desire for a "closed" game style of play? Could black be trying to get white to overreach? Or is it that these are among the better choices available to black, given that s/he moves second, with the other openings offering problems of their own? <Q> "Cramped" openings are generally used by players who are good at piling up strong defenses for the opening and who hope to encourage overextension on White's part, in order to take advantage of it; or to fend it off till it has passed, and then muster an attack of their own. <S> After 1. <S> e4 e6 2. <S> d4 d5, which is the common continuation of the French Defense , Black main drawback is, as you mentioned, his Queen Bishop, which cannot usually enter the play until the endgame. <S> However, after ... c5, attacking the newborn White Pawn chain, Black's Pawn center may become threatening, and can grow into a major defensive asset, either forcing White to give up the center, or tying down White's pieces to defense of the center. <S> The point is that Black has many attacking chances as well, and while his first moves appear conservative, even "cramping", he is merely being more patient than in the alternative openings. <S> He uses more moves to get where he wants, but the extra moves can reap dividends when White comes to attack. <S> So a closed opening which is handled by a patient player holds much potential defensive advantage, and it is often played with a definite view toward strong reactions after White has burnt himself out trying to effect a successful attack. <S> Naturally, not all closed openings are effective. <S> More than one kind of cramped opening exists: the kind that looks cramped, but is in reality compact and smooth (closed) , and then there is also the kind that is really unworkable and impossible to manipulate (cramped) . <S> The latter turn into big mistakes, even worse than they look, especially when played by one who is more used to aggressive technique than the patient biding of time. <S> It wouldn't be recommended to play these unless you are the patient type, or unless you can force yourself to play quietly and defensibly until it's time to strike. <S> Edited later to say that there are closed openings for White, as well. <A> First, the French defense and the Pirc are not cramped! <S> They are very deep openings that will test your positional skills . <S> There's a lot more to the French defense than the Queen's Bishop "weakness". <S> The position is closed enough not to need this particular piece so early. <S> Every opening has a kind of weakness or imbalance, it doesn't make them cramped. <S> In high rated games, these openings (the french in particular) is not played because it leads most of the time to drawn games <S> but it can be a very dangerous weapon if you know it well. <S> e5 and c5 openings in answer to 1.e4 are more tactical and aggressive. <S> Some of them will lose patience and make a positional mistake. <S> So you're confusing a cramped position and a closed opening. <S> -Closed openings are slower and require very deep knowledge of the different variations and good positional skills. <S> -1.e4 e5/c5 are more 'aggressive' and requiring very good tactical skills. <A> Obviously the french defense is not a cramped defense (or else Mihail Botvinnik would not have been a world champion). <S> The french defense is one of the most solid defenses. <S> About the black squared bishop it is a great piece for black in many cases, <S> a great piece as black's pawns are in white squares with great movility from the start. <S> The white squared bishop can be very useful also if you know how to use it. <S> Anyways if you dont like it, it can almost allways be exchanged for white's bishop simply by doing b6 and Ba6 (very simple, isnt it?). <S> I also want to say these defenses are not always quiet. <S> You can take a look at the winawer system (as complex and aggresive or even more than the sicilian) that derivates from the french defense: <S> 1 <S> e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 <S> Bb4 4 e5 c5 5 a3 Bxc3+ <S> 6 bxc3. <S> Very dangerous for both sides. <A> Adopting a 'cramped' positions has some things in favor for it, usually, you will get positions you are more likely familiar with. <S> A quote from David Bronstein's Zurich 1953 book (P.19) "The text is thought to give Black a cramped game, but if a player likes precisely that sort of "cramped game", then he will get better results with it than with a "freer" game. <S> Generally speaking, such evaluations, even though they may sway the opinions of the theoreticians, have far less of an influence on practical tournament games than is commonly supposed."
|
Sometimes it's a psychological strategy to play a slow opening against a player very good at tactics and skirmishes.
|
What is a good way to store multiple expansions of Dominion? At the moment I just have the base set of Dominion and Dominion-Intrigue, each of which are a full set so currently I'm storing each per the in-the-box organizers in their original boxes. But when we buy another expansion (and more after that) I'm starting to wonder how we can best store all of these expansions. I've seen (but don't recall exactly where) various solutions for storing Dominion cards. For us I think the following features would be needed: easy and rapid setup (so no need to resort piles beyond counting out the numbers of some cards per the number of players - which in our case is usually two) easy to clean up when the game is over and/or set up another game with a different set of cards consistency in how the cards are organized - I've noticed that the default organization structure changed between the Base set's layout and Intrigue (the base set alpha sorted while Intrigue sorted the cards into more categories before alpha sorting) Ideally space efficient so we can more easily travel with our games <Q> I got a 3,000 card box from the local gaming store and then printed off a cardstock set of tab dividers from Board Game Geek (I use the Sumpfork tabs ). <S> All cards go alphabetically instead of by set, except for the cards common to all games. <S> Prizes are stored with Tournament, because that's the only scenario in which you would need them. <S> To simplify setup of Victory/Curse cards, I change the direction of the cards. <S> For Victory cards, the first 8 face forward and the second 4 face backwards <S> so I can easily separate out the cards not needed for a 2 player game. <S> I do the same with Curses: <S> 10 forward, next 10 backwards, final 10 forwards. <S> Estates get complicated; I do 8 forward, 4 back, then 4 sets of 3 alternating forward and back (for starting hands). <S> I could do alternating sets of 7 Coppers as well, but I haven't gotten around to it. <A> I've actually seem some rather nice setups for storing Dominion cards on BoardGameGeek. <S> Here are a few of the examples I've seen of what that looks like. <S> One Game box containing multiple sets: Example Picture 1 , 2 , 3 and 4 Alternative Example with One Game Box: <S> Example Picture Using two game boxes <S> : <S> Example Picture 1 and 2 Everything in one box, and a box for 5-6 player Example Picture Using just a <S> what appears to be a random box: <S> Picture 1 and 2 <S> Depending how many expansions you have, will depend on how big a box you end up needing. <S> If you're planning to get all of the current expansions, it looks like you'll run out of room if you're using just one game box. <A> Go here for the divider cards for all the sets: http://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/73412/double-sided-horizontal-dividers-for-dominion-hint and for the perfect carrying case that you see in the first links picture: go to <S> http://www.sciplus.com/p/STOREITALL-BOX_4254 <S> - the STORE IT ALL BOX with removable dividers. <S> We currently have the cards to: Dominion, Intruigue, Cornucopia, Seaside, Hinterlands, and Prosperity all in one case, but I think it's going to be too tight to get our Dark Ages set in there. <S> Will probably buy another case to space things out a bit. <S> The divider cards are great as they are double sides, so you can arrange your tabs anyway you like. <S> All the rules are printed on them too for easy reference. <A> I pulled the insert from one box, and put each set of 10 cards into a snack sized ziplock. <S> My dominion box holds Dominion and Intrigue this way; I could probably fit a third if I got more card-sized baggies. <S> Since this makes for easily grabbed sleeved cardsets, I can simply random grab-n-go for play. <A> I bought a 1000 card box and used index card halves for dividers (longer than the card length). <S> I have like 5-6 sets. <S> I combined all the sets together and then separated first by purchase cost (6+ as one grouping) then by alphabet groupings like A-M, N-Z, etc. <S> In this manner it cuts down on the time it takes to put cards away since you don't have to find things alphabetically, just by alphabet group. <S> Plus if you know you want a certain cost card, the groupings are already separated by cost. <S> Coins/VPs/Curses/Prizes/Alchemy cards have their own groupings. <A> I used a set of transparent wallet-size photo holders that I bought at the local pharmacy (which is an American notion of a store that sells everything from medications to cigarettes to food to school supplies). <S> Each sleeve has 7 sections, and 10 cards fit almost OK into one section, but it is too tight for the green 12 card decks. <S> The money and VP stacks are also in the rubber band format. <S> That takes about half of the volume of one box. <S> The photo holders are worn out after about 3-4 years of biweekly or so use, I have to say. <A> My friends use binders with card sleeves. <S> Each page holds 9 sets of kingdom cards, and the only slightly fussy thing is splitting the money/curses/victory into piles of 10-15 cards to fit the sleeves. <S> I guess resorting the selector cards may be a pain if you have many sets, but it has mostly been a non-issue for us. <S> Additionally, you can store separated starting decks with little worry that they will get unsorted.
|
The standard I've seen is using card dividers and storing the cards in one of the original boxes with the insert removed. I got 7 sleeves for my Basic + Intrigue sets, put the 49 stacks in, and the Gardens have to roam around with just the rubber band around it.
|
Public knowledge in Settlers of Catan? Settlers of Catan has a lot of public knowledge. For example, a player cannot hide how many resource cards or development cards they have. Are any of the following public knowledge? Size of the bank : are players allowed to pick up the stack of remaining wheat and count them? Trades : are two players allowed to trade in a way that no one else knows what was traded? Discarded cards : if a player rolls a 7 and has to discard resources, do they have to state what they're discarding, or are they allowed to sneakily put down cards in hopes that no one saw them? <Q> It is my experience that when players trade, the player who's turn <S> it is asks for resources or offers them. <S> The other players will then respond to the proposed trade however they see fit. <S> All this information is done publicly and other players may offer a better trade to undercut another player. <S> There isn't anything in the rules about trading having to be done publicly, but it's the only way I've seen the game played. <S> Also, if you play the game online on the games official website , all trades are offered publicly by a player requesting a resource, and the results of that trade is shown to all users. <S> The same goes for if the player chooses to trade with the bank. <S> You can watch them return the cards to the bank, and make a accurate educated guess of how many cards of each type are returned. <S> Thus, while it's not in the rules for them to declare how much of what they're discarding, it's easy to guess most times. <S> On the online version of the game, that information is offered to the player. <S> Finally, how many cards are left in the bank is something that is mentioned in the rules. <S> If there is not enough of a given resource in the supply to fulfill everyone’s production, then no one receives any of that resource during that turn. <S> Thus, during resource production, a count of how many resources are left in the bank of a particular type should be made if it looks like there will be a shortage. <S> I can't find reference in the rules if there are other times when the resource should be counted, but there is nothing in the rules saying you can't do it either. <S> However, in the official online implementation of the game, that information is NOT offered to the player. <A> Discarded cards: if a player rolls a 7 and has to discard resources, do they have to state what they're discarding, or are they allowed to sneakily put down cards in hopes that no one saw them? <S> - Players do not have to state what they are discarding, they must only show that they are discarding the right number of cards. <A> Note that trades are done face down, and so if you do something like "I'll trade you two resources for a brick <S> " only the traders know what the brick was traded for. <S> Also cards are traded face down, and if you want to rapidly stop people from trading with you a good tactic is to trade something other than what you said you were going to trade.
|
Since the size of a players hand is public knowledge, (that is declared explicitly in the rules) when they discard cards, how many cards they've discarded is also public knowledge.
|
Are enchantments and artifacts considered spells? In Magic: The Gathering, are enchantments and artifacts considered spells? More precisely, can I use Cancel (which says "Counter target spell.") on an enchantment or an artifact? <Q> Since you asked for some citations from the official rules: 111.1. <S> As the first step of being cast (see rule 601, “Casting Spells”), the card becomes a spell and is moved to the top of the stack from the zone <S> it was in, which is usually its owner’s hand. <S> (See rule 405, “Stack.”) <S> A spell remains on the stack as a spell until it resolves (see rule 608, “Resolving Spells and Abilities”), is countered (see rule 701.5), or otherwise leaves the stack. <S> For more information, see section 6, “Spells, Abilities, and Effects.” <S> So basically, pretty much every card in Magic is a "spell" - or rather, becomes one, during the transitional period from being a card in your hand to being a permanent on the battlefield. <S> But wait! <S> Why isn't a land a spell, in that case? <S> Well, because it has special rules making it an exceptional case: 305.1. <S> A player who has priority may play a land card from his or her hand during a main phase of his or her turn when the stack is empty. <S> Playing a land is a special action; it doesn’t use the stack (see rule 115). <S> Rather, the player simply puts the land onto the battlefield. <S> Since the land doesn’t go on the stack, it is never a spell, and players can’t respond to it with instants or activated abilities. <S> The Magic rules are pretty arcane at the best of times (appropriately enough), but I hope that clarifies things for you! <S> EDIT: <S> Actually, it occurs to me that even more clarification may be necessary. <S> Enchantments and artifacts aren't spells when they're in play: they're permanents. <S> They aren't spells when they're in their hand, they're enchantment cards and artifact cards. <S> But they are spells while on the stack (i.e. in the process of being cast). <S> I'm sure you already know that "counter target spell" means "stop something on the stack from resolving and becoming a permanent, and send the card to the graveyard instead", but it wasn't 100% explicit from your question! <S> So, just in case there's any doubt at all, Cancel <S> can stop an artifact or enchantment card from coming into play, but it can't send it to the graveyard from play, or anything wacky like that... <A> Yes. <S> Of all the card types, the only one that isn't a spell are lands. " <S> Counter target spell" can counter sorceries, instants, enchantments, artifacts, creatures, and planeswalkers. <S> Tribal is also a card type, but it always shows up in conjunction with one of the other types, so it doesn't matter in this case. <A> A "spell" refers to a card while it's on the stack. <S> In order: While it's in your hand, it's a card (enchantment card, creature card, land card)While <S> you're casting it <S> and it's on the stack, it's a spell. <S> (creature spell, enchantment spell, etc.)Once it's resolved, if it stays in play it's a permanent. <S> (Instants and sorceries just resolve and discard.) <S> Lands are the exception - they don't use the stack and go directly from card to permanent. <A> @TheSunNeverSets has given a great rules explanation. <S> For a bit more of an intuitive answer, take a look at the cards <S> Artifact Blast and Arenson's Aura . <S> These cards only work if artifacts and enchantments are spells while on the stack.
|
A spell is a card on the stack.
|
Can a king capture an opposing queen? A Beginner's Scenario: I castle kingside prior to ever being in check. Then, my son positions his queen and on a subsequent turn, takes out the middle pawn of three (see diagram below), thus exposing my king, and declares "checkmate". Is this a legal move on his part? Or, may I take out his queen with my king? <Q> See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_chess#Check <A> A player may LEGALLY move his queen anywhere on the board that the queen can reach on its move, unless that move exposes the player's own king to check (e.g. if the queen is "pinned" in front of the king by an opposing piece). <S> Legal moves ordinarily include moving the queen next to the opposing (your) king, which puts that king in check, given the possible movement of the queen on the FOLLOWING move. <S> It also puts the other player's queen into potential jeopardy. <S> If your king is in check, you must try to move out of check. <S> Often, that means moving the king, but in this case, it doesn't work, because the queen controls all the squares AROUND your king, meaning he'd still be in check if he moved. <S> Hence, your only possible recourse is to TRY to capture the opposing queen. <S> If it's unguarded, you may be home "free." <S> But if the queen is GUARDED, meaning your nephew can take your king after he takes the queen, your king is in "checkmate" and you have lost the game. <S> I infer from your nephew's declaration of "checkmate" that the queen is guarded. <S> (It's possible that he's wrong, so I'd need to see the chessboard or a written record of the game.) <A> It's definitely legal, and it's checkmate if the Queen is guarded, since the King won't be able to capture it then. <S> If there is nothing protecting the Queen, then the King can just capture it. <A> When someone has announced check/checkmate, it immediately brings to mind how to get out of check. <S> When in check, each of the following is a legal way to get out of check: Taking the piece that checks Moving the king to a position where it is not in check Moving a piece between the checking piece (rook, bishop, or queen) and the king <S> Of course, a condition is that your king is no longer in check after the move. <S> So, taking a checking piece is legal, and common. <S> Can you capture the piece that is checking you? <S> In this case yes you can K g1x Q q2 <S> there are no pieces protecting the Black Queen <S> make this move very legal <S> Can the White King move out of check? <S> In this case no. <S> There is no place he can move without being captured, Unless he captures the Queen. <S> See provision #1. <S> Can White interpose a piece? <S> No the piece checking him is directly in front of his King leaving no intervening squares. <S> A piece could be placed to block the action of the Black Queen. <S> In this case White's only legal move is to capture the Black Queen which is unguarded. <S> If you can't follow one of these provisions you are in checkmate. <S> http://www.chessvariants.org/d.chess/matefaq.html <S> Your son made a legal move, but it was not checkmate you can capture it with your king your only legal move.
|
Yes you can capture the Queen, unless capturing the Queen would put the King under check again.
|
Can I sell a third party expansion? I've got an expansion for a semi-popular board game that my friends and I have been having a lot of fun with. I was wondering if I could package and sell the expansion to the game without consent from the original publisher. I know I'd need to create all of my own materials (artwork, text, etc.) but I wasn't sure if I could market it as "Third party expansion to X". Are there any pitfalls I should be wary of? I don't want to rip off the company or cause problems with them, but ideally I wouldn't need to have a lot of contact with them either (since they may not like it, even if it is perfectly legal.) <Q> 0) I am not a lawyer. <S> I am definitely not YOUR lawyer. <S> I don't even play one on TV. <S> 1) go read the circular on Trademark at the USPTO.gov website. <S> 2) Realize that, if you aren't in the US, you need to find the equivalent for wherever you are. <S> Canadian IPO — UK <S> IPO — <S> French IP Agency Directory of Intellectual Property Offices 3) <S> 4) before doing anything commercially, hire a lawyer specializing in intellectual property law, and have him go over the risks and requirements with you. <S> Fundamentally, a 3rd party supplement can't use the distinguishing marks of the core game (TSR v. Mayfair), and can't use the unique phrases associated with the game, either. <S> The closest I've seen to doing <S> so that wasn't challenged nor licensed was "Not a complete game; requires the use of n , by n ." and "For use with n and other n games." <A> There will be very different answers to your questions depending on where you plan to sell your expansion. <S> I think Europe in general is much more restrictive about mentioning trademarks without explicit permission than for example North America. <S> You'll probably want to consult a lawyer before going ahead with this. <A> What you should do is call them up and see if they are willing to license their product. <S> Some will, some won't. <S> Here's one good link. <A> Back in the 90's, I remember seeing (and purchasing) <S> several "unauthorized" expansions for Axis & Allies at GenCon. <S> Some even had brand new plastic molded units. <S> I can't imagine that anyone would go through that level of effort (both in quality and in renting a booth at GenCon) on an unauthorized expansion if they had any thought that MB/Hasbro would sue them. <S> So as long as you give credit to the company that makes the game you are expanding and (as others have said) don't use any of their artwork, you should be fine.
|
The artwork and language may be copyrighted so at a minimum you'd have to create your own. Realize that anywhere you intentionally sell it, you have to obey their trademark laws, too.
|
Basic strategies for each country in Diplomacy I found out one of my friends has Diplomacy and wants to play. He's never played before, and neither have I, nor anyone else in the group. I'm confident I can explain the rules, but I don't really know a lot about the strategy as I've never actually played. I'll be able to convey the general strategies, like backstabbing at key times and making sure to make their key borders as well protected as possible. However, I don't really know what to do about the strategies for specific country, and I think we'd all enjoy it more if I didn't end up advising them what to do due to time constraints and its opposition to the spirit of the game. Ideally, I want everyone to be as independent as possible, meaning not relying on other players for their strategies and moves because I think that's more how it was meant to be played. Does anyone know of some brief , meaning a few paragraphs long, descriptions of strategy for playing each country? Something like this: Germany : Since you are in the center of the board, you will be in the middle of many other countries' way. Try to make alliances with 1 or 2 of them so you won't be fighting on all sides. [country] is most likely to attack you in [place] because it's critical to their expansion and future development, so watch for this early in the game. If you make friends with Italy, the two of you can proceed to conquer this area of the board and quickly grow in strength... Your ideal alliances would be with A and B, but if A refuses then you can do this to minimize your vulnerability... As I said, I know nothing about diplomacy yet, so I don't know exactly how the game develops. But if I could give each player a piece of paper with some advice on it for certain situations, I think it could help a lot, especially in the beginning with answering the question 'what they heck do I do?!?!'. Does anyone know of some good brief summaries that I can give each player to help them get off to as good a start as possible? Naturally these would be kept secret from other players and I wouldn't read any before-hand except for the one for the country I'm playing. <Q> The Gamers' Guide to Diplomacy has exactly the brief summaries you're looking for as well as much more. <S> It's hard to get hold of <S> so I put it online here . <S> p7 of the 2nd pdf has the brief country by country summaries. <A> If you want even shorter summaries of each country's strategy, this site has them. <S> I have never played Diplomacy before, so I'm not sure how accurate the strategies are, but they are a quick read. <S> Also, warning, Comic Sans. <A> I can't speak with regard to some of the other countries, but can answer specifically your questions about Germany, which I have some experience in playing. <S> Germany is tough to play, at least at the start, because it is surrounded by four countries on two sides. <S> So it has to make an alliance with one party (E.g. with England vs. France, or vice-versa) and with Austria vs. Russia, or vice-versa, ON EACH SIDE. <S> Then it has to ensure that the remaining countries, Italy and Turkey, either fight each other, or its enemies and not its allies. <S> For this reason, the German player sometimes begins discussions with these two, and then works backward with its neighbors. <S> IF IT SURVIVES, Germany's central position works to its advantage later in the game. <S> There is a saying that whoever owns Munich wins the game (because it's hard to get to 18 without it.) <S> Germany STARTS with Munich. <S> It will either lose it early (to France, Russia, or possibly Austria) or else it will become strong enough to defend Munich and central Europe generally. <S> Once the enemies have been reduced to one eastern and one western power, plus one or two in the Mediterranean, Germany can become the "go to" country for others, because it can do the most harm to anyone. <A> With some experience as England and Russia, I can say this: England:England is a safe country. <S> Negotiate with France or Russia (one of the two) and then attack the other and raid the neutral territories they might want (Spain/Belgium or Sweden/Norway). <S> Make lots of fleets and dominate the coastlines before using the convoy order to move further inland. <S> Russia: <S> Russia, unlike all the other countries, has 4 starting supply centers. <S> This can work to their advantage as they can multitask and build more than any other country. <S> You want to take Scandinavia early on- <S> Norway is much more vulnerable but much more vital than Sweden is. <S> Meanwhile, ally Turkey and kill Austria Hungary (Italy and Germany may help). <S> Once you have done this, use your navy to defend against England (if they attack you) or use your army to squash Germany (whoever has Munich wins the game, it has been said). <S> Russia is a strong faction, but in case of a backstabbing, it is hard to defend yourself and if you let your allies get too strong, you won't last long. <A> I have some Expierence with Italy and Austria. <S> Italy: don't focus yourself to one area. <S> Take bits here and there, and make sure to talk to everyone. <S> If you talk to everyone, you can directly influence how the game goes. <S> For example, turn Austria against Turkey with yourself. <S> Turn England and Germany against France before sneaking in and taking Marseilles. <S> Always put yourself into a position where it is hard for the enemy to mount a counter-offensive because they have 2 or more enemies against them. <S> Always make sure your "allies" have a new target ( or are the target themselves) before you become the target. <S> Austria: Always watch out for that Italian backstab into Trieste. <S> Never attack Germany or Italy early in the game. <S> You really only have two options, Crush Turkey with Russia, or Crush Russia with Turkey. <S> If you want to solo, typically allying with Russia is the better idea. <S> Make sure you start building fleets as soon as you can without leaving your land-locked supply centers vulnerable. <S> If Austria does not build enough fleets, they will easily be crushed later on in the game. <S> Again, talking to everyone and manipulating the game to how you like is essential. <A> France is fairly easy to play at first, but winning can be very difficult. <S> Feel out both Germany and England to see which one you click with best. <S> If you click with England, ask Germany for a bounce in Burgundy and play Marseilles - Burgundy, Paris - Picardy and Brest to Mid-Atlantic Ocean. <S> This will effectively eliminate Germany's power over Belgium. <S> Then have England try to take Holland while you try to take Belgium. <S> Germany will get only one build and will quickly crash unless Russia intervenes mightily on his behalf. <S> Take Belgium and Munich and then surge south after Italy. <S> Then, try to power your way through to St. Petersburg for the solo win. <S> If, on the other hand, you favor Germany then tell both England and Germany that you will not contest Belgium. <S> Play Brest - Mid-Atlantic, Marseilles HOLD and Paris - Gascony. <S> Then convoy Gascony to Portugal while Marseilles takes Spain. <S> You'll be left with a fleet in Mid-Atlantic and after a fleet build in Brest, you will be strongly positioned to take out England. <S> Tell Germany that his part is Belgium/Edinburgh while you take Liverpool/London. <S> But once you get your part, don't bother helping Germany to get his half. <S> Let him struggle on his own and convince him to go against Russia. <S> Then, surge south towards Italy and try to take Tunis and an Italian home center (like Rome). <S> Once you have that, stab Germany and try to power your way up through St. Petersburg for a solo victory.
|
England will not lose very often due to their position in the ocean and they can survive until the later game with their ally. Try to take Tunis and an Italian home center (like Rome) before stabbing England.
|
In Diplomacy, Is the "Three Emperor's Alliance" a Good Strategy For Russia? Russia, which gets an extra piece, is in some ways the most powerful country in Diplomacy. It is also one of the most vulnerable, insofar as it is surrounded by four potentially hostile countries. (Only Germany and Austria-Hungary is in such bad shape in this regard, an important fact for this question.) The Three Emperors' Alliance between Russia, Germany and Austria was originally started by GERMANY's Bismarck (in real life). But as the strongest of the three, perhaps Russia could be the greatest beneficiary? The idea is to use the weaker Teutonic powers to knock out the stronger enemies, England and Turkey. Russia gets Norway and Edinburgh in the north, Rumania and two, maybe three Turkish supply centers in the south. And in any event, secures both flanks. Then Russia might ally with one Teutonic power against the other, or possibly with France and Italy against the two Teutonics. If they were playing a "short" game, where any three countries with a total of 18+ supply centers can declare themselves co-winners, they'd have the game won right there. How would this compare with more "traditional" strategies, like the "juggernaut" of allying with Turkey? I've never played Russia "on my own" but once "inherited" a Russian game from someone who had to leave early and had an alliance with Turkey. <Q> This alliance can work long-term if Russia is comfortable with a northern expansion vector. <S> Short-term, Austria and Russia can conquer Turkey, divide the spoils and fortify. <S> Park fleets in the Aegean and Eastern Mediterranean seas <S> and you're done. <S> Russia keeps only enough hardware in the south to prevent a stab, in parity with Austria. <S> If Austria gets in trouble he will ask you to build Fleet Sevastopol to reinforce. <S> In the north, conquer England and go from there. <S> Make sure Germany is OK with a Fleet St. Petersburg South Coast, or Army Warsaw, build on an as-needed basis. <S> Russia must own Sweden. <S> I usually try to get Denmark, Sweden, Skagerrak and Baltic Sea to be an agreed DMZ (except with cause). <S> Without some arrangement like this, the deal can't work long-term because Russia has no viable expansion vector except through his allies. <S> And as usual, never leave your homeland empty unless you also have armies parked near your neighbors' centers. <S> No matter how loyal your ally seems, don't give him that temptation. <A> The main reason is that such an alliance requires both Germany and Austria to turn their backs on Russia and move their forces away from him. <S> On the other hand, Russia's forces and builds remain in positions that could quite easily be turned against his allies when the time is right. <S> There are also limited opportunities for the three to apply joint pressure. <S> Italy is unlikely to work with Austria and Russia knowing that he is probably next, and Turkey can be a tough nut to crack without Italy's help. <S> Similarly, Germany can't provide much help to Russia in breaking into England. <S> The best way to pull it off is probably to try to keep the alliance hidden. <S> Have Germany focus on working with France against England, and portray a neutral stance against Russia. <S> Similarly, have Austria focus on the good old Juggernaut threat and get Italy to commit against Turkey while making a show of aggression against Russia. <S> Don't let the alliance become obvious until you've been able to weaken the corners. <S> Even then, it would seem much harder for Germany to now turn on France rather than just continuing with his "false" ally and moving against Russia instead. <A> The main issue with this alliance is its impracticality at the start of the game. <S> The board can be divided into two spheres: the West, and the East. <S> The West sphere encompasses England, Germany, and France. <S> And the East sphere encompasses Russia, Turkey, and Austria-Hungary. <S> (Italy is not part of either sphere by default.) <S> At the beginning of the game, each Great Power must control its sphere. <S> That in mind, this is where the problem of this alliance arises . . . <S> It involves Powers in different spheres! <S> That might not seem like an issue, but it is. <S> To illustrate, imagine England and Turkey trying to coordinate their units in 1901. <S> Nothing would ever be jointly accomplished by them because they are too far apart to interact. <S> The same is true of this alliance. <S> The Powers involved are so far part, that they can never jointly cooperate. <S> Even if this alliance was formed at the start of the game, its consequences would far outweigh its rewards. <S> Think about it like this: the more Powers there are in an alliance, the fewer resources each obtains. <S> (More allies means that each Power must settle for a smaller share of the earnings.) <S> All in all, three-way alliances do not work.
|
Powers in different spheres cannot effectively cooperate, making alliances unworkable at the start. An ARG alliance would seem to heavily favor Russia, so you might offend Austria and Germany even asking for it.
|
What is a good board game to use for a programming competition We recently had a programming competition where each team had to write an A.I. for the board game Broadside . It was perfect because the rules were simple enough that the teams had to concentrate on the basic idea of when and how to attack, and not on handling a number of esoteric rules. At the same time, it had really good gameplay rules so that the smarter A.I. had a strong advantage. So, any suggestions for games that would be a good one for a programming competition? A perfect game would have: Lack of existing readily available AI's Handles 6+ players Simple easily understood rules (no or few edge cases) Enough depth so that the better AI has a strong advantage <Q> Robo Rally ( rules ) could be interesting. <S> Amusingly, the game itself is programming a robot, one of several (up to 8) on a game board. <S> Each player gets 9 random instruction cards per round and chooses 5 to play. <S> Then all the robots' moves are evaluated simultaneously (more or less). <S> Your robot can get pushed around or damaged by other robots as well as by conveyor belts and other board elements. <S> First robot to hit all the checkpoints in order wins. <S> You should have a few knobs to tweak here to make the challenge easier or harder: <S> Do the players know the board in advance, or does their AI have to deal with it dynamically? <S> The damage rules could be left out for simplicity, or left in for more complexity <S> It's possible this is too complex, but it's pretty well suited for this kind of contest, I think. <S> It's also an excellent board game to play in person, especially with other programmers. <A> Arimaa Since it's been designed to be hard to implement an AI for, Arima is the ideal choice for a serious (non-recreational) competition. <S> And, if it can beat the best human, it's a ten-thousand dollar prize. <S> Further, the designer WANTS people to try. <S> It also uses chess pieces and a chess board, so graphics are a non-issue, as stock graphics or even standard symbol font characters can be used. <S> For free rules, and information on the Arimaa Challenge, go to http://arimaa.com/arimaa/ <A> What about Saboteur ? <S> It is for 2-10 players, very simple rules, the randomness is limited by the "tiles", but allows for quite some AI options. <A> World Cup Tournament Football <S> The rules are straightforward and very simple, and success in this game is dependent upon figuring out how your opponents are playing without being able to see which teams your opponents "have". <S> An unskilled AI can tip its hand early in the game in much the same way an unskilled rummy player will reveal their goals to a skilled opponent: they can deduce which teams you've got if you are not careful about how you play your cards. <S> An additional advantage is that teams can be evenly divided among 6, 8, or 12 AI, depending on how you want to distribute the teams ... <S> you could modify the bonuses given to each team to make teams more or less even <S> so that random draw of teams has less or more impact, or even group teams into specific packs and have each AI play from different positions, similar to a duplicate bridge tournament (maybe even down to distributing cards identically for each run). <S> Formula Dé <S> The rules are relatively straightforward, and while the distance you move is largely controlled by dice, there's a good bit of strategy involved with respect to the best path to take, how to approach turns and such. <S> An AI that does not judge turns and relative positions of cars will be significantly handicapped. <S> With the advanced rules, if you allow "players" to determine the number of Wear Points assigned to each component, there should be additional variance between AIs. <A> How about Blockus? <S> It's simple, expandable to any number of players, even to 3d, and has interesting choices on representations of the pieces. <S> It also allows for varying board shapes and sizes in the AI world. <S> And it's pretty to watch running. <A> Based on the comments perhaps this should just stand as "reasons why Diplomacy is not a good suggestion", summarized as: the AI would be too hard to code AI for diplomacy <S> already exists Original answer: <S> How about Diplomacy? <S> 6+ players, I've never heard of any AI, rules are deterministic, and room for AI to really achieve and show difference between programmers seems ample. <A> Wizard <S> It's a card game for 3-6 people. <S> The rules are relatively simple. <S> First you try and predict how many tricks you'll take in a round. <S> And then you play to make it so. <S> If you hit the mark you get points proportional to the number of tricks you made. <S> If you're off in either direction you loose points proportional to the number you're off by. <S> From what I could gather there is only an IPhone version out there that has AI play. <S> Cluedo/Clue <S> Also very simple rules and <S> you could even have two leagues: <S> One with movement and one without movement. <S> There are definitely algorithms out there <S> but I don't know how accessible they are... <A>
|
RA Ra has simple mechanics, but interesting AI since it's a competitive auction.
|
How much would the cards from Dominion: Alchemy cost if you wanted to use them while not playing with potions? I've been looking at the cards from Dominion: Alchemy and want to use some of them in my own games through proxying of the blank cards. However, I don't feel like delving into the whole potion thing, especially since it would be annoying to have to proxy at least 4 different cards (the potion and 3 kingdom cards to get the recommended amount of 3-5). So I figured I'd just give them costs in $ only and not potions. Another application of this might be playing with the alchemy cards if for some reason you didn't want to use potion as well. However, I'm not exactly sure what costs to use. A potion is roughly equivalent to a silver, but that seems like an oversimplification. One of the interesting things about alchemy is that you have to buy the potions in order to access these cards and balance them with your other currency. This scarcity makes me lean more toward counting a potion to add +3$ to the cost. Does this seem about right? If not, could someone perhaps provide a case by case basis for the 9 cards this would pertain to (since Alchemist in a potion-less game would be rather odd I'm not planning on including it)? <Q> One of the defining characteristics of Potions in Alchemy is that they force a reshuffle-delay. <S> That is, you have to first invest in the potion, then reshuffle and draw it before you're able to spend it on a card. <S> This is never going to be true of a cost that is just boosted to cost more coins, unfortunately. <S> I don't have any particular evidence to back this up <S> but + <S> $3 seems high, at least for some cards. <S> Possession might warrant a $9 cost, I'm not sure, but some of the other weaker cards really don't feel like they'd work at +$3 to me. <S> I'll try to come up with my per-card opinions at some point. <S> Bummer about Alchemist, too - it's one of my favorite cards from Alchemy. <S> Then again, I'm a fan of big honkin' action chains. <A> I agree with the other two answers, but I have a little more to add, so since you haven't accepted an answer I'll throw in my two cents. <S> The point of potions in the cost isn't to make things cost more , it's to make things cost different . <S> (The re-shuffle delay is also a good point.) <S> By just increasing the cost, you lose this. <S> In games with a few Alchemy cards available, the decision to buy potions or not usually depends on the variety of potion-costing cards available. <S> While Alchemist can be a strategy in itself and a Familiar might be necessary early on, I probably won't buy a potion to get Vineyards unless there are other potion cards I want as well. <S> Because of this I agree strongly with @philosophyguy that, if you're proxying, just proxy the potions as well. <S> However, if you really want another mechanic, I think adding 3 to the cost would not work well. <S> For Familiar, 2 is more appropriate (equating it with Witch). <S> However a University or Scrying Pool for 4 would be ridiculous in many card sets, they would need to be 5. <S> But I think there needs to be some sort of other cost mechanic. <S> Perhaps require trashing a (non-copper) treasure card at the end of your buy phase. <S> It could work reasonably well to make trashing a Silver part of the cost of the 2P and 3P cards, trashing a Gold required for Possession (and maybe Golem?) <S> , though I don't know how to extend this well to the 0P cards. <S> This solves the reshuffle problem adequately; you'll need to buy a Silver in your first 2 turns to get a potion card in the next two. <S> Not being able to re-use the "potion" (can't trash a Silver more than once) is somewhat balanced by being able to use the Silver for other things first. <S> I think it would be playable. <S> It will still change the strategy however. <S> With potions, you have to make a conscious choice in advance (buying a potion) to make the potion-cost cards accessible. <S> With any other mechanic I can think of this is lost, and it is possible to buy a single potion-cost card on a whim. <A> Honestly, I would just proxy a pair of potions. <S> Potions are different from normal treasures in that each player often will only buy 1, whereas a typical game will have multiple purchases of Gold and Silver by each person. <S> So, making the Potion proxies does not require as many cards as Kingdom card proxies. <S> If your goal is to just play through the cards to see what it's like, why not take a stack of Kingdom cards that aren't being used in a particular game and pretend those are Potions for the game? <S> I would recommend having a reminder in large letters for everyone to see so they don't accidentally play their "Bureaucrat" as a Action rather than as the Potion it's representing, but that would be a simple way to try out some Alchemy cards. <A> So many of the Alchemy cards don't make sense unless you have potions that giving them potionless costs seems like it completely misses the point. <S> That said, I disagree that a pair of potions is enough -- when I go potion I almost always buy two.
|
If you want a potion card, you need to invest in a potion that won't be useful for other things.
|
Are there any specific strategies in Jenga? Does Jenga have any specific strategies for block placement and removal that can be employed? Are there certain moves or ideas I could employ to (for example) increase the likelihood that the stack will fall on my opponent's next turn? <Q> The most unstable situation is adjacent middle blocks, and in general, instabilities near the bottom of the stack are more likely to cause the tower to fall than those at the top because of the greater weight of blocks being held up by the rickety base and because of the longer moment arm. <S> However, it's not quite as simple as setting up a precarious-middle-blocks-at-the-bottom-of-the-tower scenario just to make your opponent move after you've set it up, as the picture makes clear that several middle blocks in a row can often be stable enough for at least a couple more turns--in which case your ploy could come back to bite you. <S> One trick I've used is to judge which way the tower was tilting after I'd removed my block and then place it on the opposite side on the top. <S> The goal here is to make your opponent place their block on the weak side and hopefully bring everything down. <S> It has the added benefit of being the safest place to put your block. <S> That said, there's not much strategy to Jenga; it's really more about steady hands, dexterity, and being able to tell which blocks are loose. <S> (Unless of course you engage in psychological warfare .) <A> If you are very dexterous, and are playing with players that are also very dexterous, realize that the math of your choices can determine who wins. <S> Each level can have either 1 or 2 removed from it. <S> Try to leave your opponent(s) in a situation where they have no possible moves. <S> For example, if there is 1 full level, and 1 level with the middle and 1 side, and you are playing with only 1 other player, remove one of the outer pieces from the full level. <S> This will leave 2 pieces, one for your opponent and one for you. <S> But if you are playing with more than 1 opponent, remove the middle piece from the full level, so that the pieces will run out before it gets back to you. <A> Your aim should be to prevent the tower from collapsing, and not building the highest Jenga tower. <S> Maintaining stability of the tower by ensuring proper removal and placement of singular blocks would automatically lead to the creation of a taller and more stable tower. <S> At every turn, before you decide which block you want to eliminate, test the tower first. <S> Do this by gently tapping blocks with your fingers and look for blocks which are not perfectly stuck and can be easily removed. <S> As the game progresses, the blocks which were earlier perfect-fits in the tower would become loose blocks and vice versa.
|
The trick is to continuously keep checking for loose blocks that can be easily moved, and get rid of them first before your opponent does.
|
In contract bridge, what are bonus points for? I am a beginner and could not find out the application or the use of those bonus points above the line in contract(rubber) bridge. If the winner in a contract bridge is the pair that first achieves 2 sets of 100 or more points below the line (thus winning a rubber), what is the use of those bonus points? In what situations are these bonus points being made use of? Could someone please enlighten me. Thanks a lot in advance. <Q> When one side has won two games, all points (both above and below the line) are totaled, and the side with more points wins, even if they didn't win the rubber. <S> This is where the bonus points come into play: the points for undertricks, overtricks, slams, rubber, etc. <S> all count toward the final score. <S> The American Contract Bridge League explains it the same way , which I think can be kind of confusing: they talk about "winning the rubber" and "winning" without making a clear distinction. <S> It may help to think about it simply as playing for points. <S> Getting the rubber bonus is very helpful, but total score is what you want. <A> You get points "below the line" that count toward winning games. <S> You get points "above the line" for HOW you win those games. <S> You also get bonus points "above the line" for other things, that count toward your total score (as described below). <S> The total of ALL the points (game and bonuses) determine the result. <S> First, victory margin of 2-0 in games is most impressive, and scores a bonus of 700 points. <S> A victory margin of 2-1 is less impressive, and scores only 500. <S> You also get bonuses for slams (bidding and making a contract for every trick or all but one) <S> If you are "not vulnerable," (no games to your credit), the bonus for a grand slam (every trick) is 1000 points, and 500 for a small slam (all but one). <S> "Vulnerable," (one game to your credit), these bonuses, are 1500 and 750. <S> You also get points for "setting" an opposing contract (your opponents make a bid that they can't fulfill). <S> These penalties are increased if you announce "double" after the last bid. <S> Of course, your opponents get points for setting YOUR contracts, and more if "doubled." <S> The purpose of bonuses is to try to capture the TOTALITY of what happened. <S> Here's an example: Your opponents make two games, 3NT and 4 spades, for 100 and 120 "game" points respectively. <S> They also win the rubber, two games to one, for 500 bonus points. <S> That's a total of 720. <S> Your side made only one game. <S> But it was a "grand slam" with a 1000 point bonus. <S> Add this to your 210 "game" points, and your total score of 1210 beats their 720. <S> Another example: They score two games to none, for 920 (120+100+700). <S> So far you're losing. <S> But you also scored 1000 points in penalties. <S> That'because <S> you doubled their contracts twice after they had "game on" and put them down two tricks (for 500 points) each time. <S> Multiply by two to get the 1000 points, which beats their 920. <S> Usually, a team that wins a rubber two games to one or two games to none scores the most points. <S> But I have given you two instances where this is not the case. <S> And the difference was "bonus" points. <A> If only the points below the line counted, you could pre-emptively bid 7NT on any hand in which your opponents had the balance of the points. <S> This would be tactically sound, but make for very boring games. <S> With points above the line though, such behaviour (after doubling) earns your opponents a massive bonus, probably enough to win the rubber on its own. <S> And that's how it should be. <S> Secondarily, I do think bonus points for making slam are really important. <S> To a beginner, a slam is a formidable proposition - usually you're happy bidding and making your 3NT, with a few overtricks, because visualising the slam is hard . <S> By making it supremely worthwhile in terms of point bonuses to find a slam if you have one, a real separation between the merely okay players and the great players is created...
|
I agree with the other answers, of course: but the most important part of "points above the line" is enabling a penalty points system for bidding games you can't hope to make.
|
How can I identify games that would work better on the computer? What are the things that the electronic version can do to enhance gameplay? Conversely, what could the board game version do to overcome this view? Feel free to use examples if it would help clarify your answer. <Q> Shuffling cards in Dominion is a good example; eliminating shuffling applies to lots of classic card games that have wide on-line audiences like hearts, spades, etc. <S> Computer versions also work well if they can abstract away math that is part of the game, but not really a part of the strategy. <S> Think about a game where anyone at the table would be comfortable helping someone get the calculation right; a benign example would be calculating the 10% income tax in monopoly or figuring out the price to unmortgage a property. <S> Some players don't like the uncertainty involved in games with lots of dice rolling or probability calculations because they're not comfortable enough doing them in their heads to enjoy playing in person. <S> Obvious examples include gambling games like poker or war simulations like Axis and Allies, both of which have active and thriving on-line communities. <S> Attributes that make a game ill-suited to being played on a computer: <S> A high degree of player interaction, especially if characterized by collaboration. <S> Examples would be Arkham Horror (highly collaborative) or Pictionary (lots of in person interaction) Games where access to the internet completely ruins them: <S> Trivial Pursuit and Scattegories come to mind, as does Balderdash. <S> Games where a significant fraction of the enjoyment comes from the atmosphere created by playing, like Arkham Horror or Betrayal at the House on the Hill. <S> Games where players need to take in a lot of information at once. <S> As Edward Tufte likes to point out, the resolution of the physical world is still much greater than the resolution of a screen and most board games take up much more real estate when played than a typical monitor size. <S> I've never played, but looking at all the pieces in the box, Twilight Imperium seems like a potential example, and even playing Axis and Allies on the computer can suffer from a hindered ability to "see the whole board". <A> I tend to like Dominion more online than face to face. <S> The game has a ton of shuffling, and hence you can play much faster online. <S> Also, I am a bit biased, but online implementations often give access to game logs, which you can then crunch and compute interesting statistics from. <S> For example, my Dominion stats site and my Race for the Galaxy stats site <S> both produce interesting stats from game logs. <S> I tend to think strategic games that don't have a political element to them work better online than off. <S> But I can't imagine playing something like BSG without being face to face. <A> Well, many a game's playing experience could benefit from a port to a PC. <S> Usually those would be eurogames with little discussion at the table but quite a lot of math. <S> The computer can do a lot of heavy lifting and tedious tasks , making the game more dynamic, with less turn downtime and setup time . <S> The shuffling in card games was already mentioned. <S> But this could get even better. <S> Let's use an example <S> : Imagine a digitalised version of Power Grid . <S> Wouldn't it be easier if the game offered you direct info on how much it costs to buy a "house" in a city? <S> It's simple addition, but the number of operations you have to make in memory makes it a chore. <S> Everyone can do it , and they will do it, but it takes time and makes your turn longer. <S> The game could tell you how much of a certain resource could be bought by your enemies before it's your time to buy, letting you plan spending money. <S> It could show you how much cash the other players have. <S> It could show you how many cities you can sustain using some or all of your power plants. <S> All this information is open, and quite easy to acquire; it's right there on the board. <S> But processing it in our heads takes time, making turns longer. <S> Wouldn't it be great if you could play two games of Power Grid in the time you used to play only one? <S> On the other hand, there are types of games that won't get better when digitalized , and those mostly include thematic and interaction based games . <S> All the evil laughter when backstabbing your friends in Munchkin or Discworld is priceless and can't be done in a PC version. <S> If you talk and laugh a lot at the table, its a good indicator that the game won't be very good when digitalized.
|
Computerized board and card games can have an advantage when it enables automation of what would otherwise be mundane or tedious tasks:
|
Can poison counters be removed? Is there some way to remove or counteract poison counters? Specifically, once you've already accumulated them, not when you are dealt them. For example, say I already have 9 poison counters. Is there some way to reduce this number? <Q> Counters can be removed. <S> Target player loses all poison counters. <S> Leeches deals 1 damage to that player for each poison counter removed in this way. <S> Leeches was in the Homelands set. <A> Another way to reduce the number of poison counters that you have is through an effect that restarts the game, like Karn Liberated 's third ability. <S> Doing so resets your number of poison counters to zero, as per the New Phyrexia FAQ. <A> Check out this column, by Magic head honcho Mark Rosewater: <S> Something Wicked <S> This Way Comes . <S> It explains some of the thinking behind "modern" poison, most relevantly why you'll have trouble finding any other card that can reduce your poison total apart from Leeches. <S> Here's a taste: <S> My hatred of Leeches did one important thing. <S> It cemented in me the importance of poison not just being another life total. <S> (This theme will become very important in Scars of Mirrodin's design.) <S> As such, you will not see any card in the entire Scars of Mirrodin block that removes poison. <S> It cannot be done. <S> There are answers. <S> There are ways to deal with poison but healing yourself of it is not one of them. <S> If you want to remove poison counters you will only have one way—Leeches. <A> This answer is an attempt to create a canonical list: <S> Leeches <S> (Mark Rosewater intended this to be the only way to get rid of poison counters, but it no longer is) Karn <S> Liberated <S> (his -14 ability removes all poison counters, among other things) <S> Suncleanser + a way to control their turn (such as Mindslaver ) + a way for you to have your opponent control <S> Suncleanser's ability (such as Bazaar Trader + Coffin Queen + Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth ). <S> An example of this combo is: put Suncleaner in your graveyard, take over their turn with Mindslaver, use Bazaar Trader to give them control of Coffin Queen, and then have them use Coffin Queen and mana from Urborg, Tomb of Yawgmoth to reanimate Suncleanser, chosing you to lose all your counters (which you can do because you control their turn). <S> Price of Betrayal + a way to control their turn (such as Mindslaver ) <S> + a way to get them to cast it (such as Hive Mind ) <S> Honorable mention: any of the cards that say <S> "You can't lose" can allow to be alive (at least temporarily) with 10 or more poison counters. <A> And now, enter Suncleanser . <S> This will be released in M19. <S> It is a Cleric for 1W that will remove all counters from target opponent. <S> It can be found here, in the M19 gallery . <S> Now you can just get rid of all the poison counters. <S> Just like that. <S> For 1W. On an opponent. <A> A wild Price of Betrayal appears! <S> for B you can remove 5 counters from target artifact, creature, planeswalker or opponent so <S> maybe another one to add to the mindslave setup.
|
However, I believe there is only one card that currently removes poison counters, and that is Leeches
|
In Scrabble, What is the big deal with playing with etched in tiles? Some people raise the issue of "brailling" tiles and refuse to play with etched in tiles, such as those that which commonly come with a store bought version of Scrabble. Is this a big deal? Have there been issues in the past with "brailling" in top-rated tournament play? Unless if someone is super good at it, I would imagine it would be easy to see if someone is taking too long to draw their tiles. It seems like too big a fuss for me. <Q> Apparently there is enough of a concern, because according to the latest tournament rules : Tiles that can be distinguished by feel are not permitted, except as deemed appropriate by the Director for players who are blind. <S> In addition, to keep players from swapping tiles with adjacent games: <S> Adjacent games should not use identical tiles. <S> My finger sensitivity isn't good enough to tell tiles apart, but I'm more than certain that people with better-than-normal finger sensitivity could easilty tell tiles apart. <A> Picking the right ones is harder than rejecting the Q or Z <S> you're not going to use with your other tiles, but is still a huge advantage. <S> I can, with inset tiles, often tell when I've got a Q or a Z. <S> Or, I used to be able to; it's been YEARS since I've played. <S> But against friends who couldn't or didn't, I was able to get more tiles I could readily play. <S> Moreover, it's not a hard skill to practice and to learn, and may not even be consciously done by some players. <S> Even some painted-on-letter tiles have sufficient texture differences to be felt. <S> So, yes, there is a good basis for the rules against etched titles. <S> It's to keep the game about winning with random draws, rather than feeling for the tile you want. <A> "Brailling" tiles would probably take some practice, but anybody can feel when they've touched a blank tile, which can be quite valuable.
|
Etched in tiles can be readily rejected by feel by many players.
|
Can I create my own version of Monopoly and distribute it ? Can I create my own version of Monopoly and distribute it online or physically ? I see that there were patents filed in 1923 . Can I create an improvement on the existing game and sell it online ? If there is any law/copyright protecting this, is it per country/continent ? <Q> You would likely be more concerned with copyright law rather than patent law in this case, especially given that as you have noticed, the patents have expired . <S> There is something of a precedent for what you want to do. <S> In 1975, Ralph Anspach made a game called Anti-Monopoly (which, by the way, is a pretty interesting game - we owned it, and at the time, as a kid, I had no idea how significant this was). <S> After a little less than ten years of litigation, Anspach won the right to continue publishing his game. <S> However, Parker Brothers ended up with the trademark, licensing it to Anspach, whose game is still in print. <S> You will probably need to be aware of how copyright law works where you live and where you plan to distribute the game. <S> (If you're thinking about online distribution, then that may mean laws where your customers live, not just where you live or where the servers are.) <S> If you are planning on making money from this, you should consult with a lawyer to ensure that what you're doing is consistent with applicable laws; advice you get on this site is no substitute for professional advice. <A> There are several elements to a game... and most but not all are protectable. <S> Exactly which varies widely from country to country. <S> Some games that are explicitly legal reworks in the US are proven infringements in France, for example. <S> You need to look at where you're writing at, and intending to sell to. <S> Even where it's legal, plagiarism is still generally considered unethical; make it different enough to be worthwhile. <S> In the US, the literal text is protected by copyright, as is the board art (and by derivation, the layout of spaces). <S> The Title is a trademark, as are certain artistic elements. <S> The Chance and Community Chest cards are trademark and copyright. <S> The process of play was Patent, but the patent is long expired. <S> And, given later reforms, the flow of play is no longer protectable. <S> However, remember: I'm not a lawyer, and I'm surely not YOUR lawyer - engage a good Intellectual Properties lawyer before publishing a derivative. <S> Find out what your local rights are, and how far your can go. <A> There are a number of Monopoly "knock-offs. <S> " I believe, for example, that Playboy created one called "Speculation" set in Chicago. <S> Game CONCEPTS are not copyrightable. <S> What IS copyrightable is "text" regarding rules, properties, etc. <S> Basically, if you apply the grade school test, "write it in your own words," you're probably ok. <S> Most gamers have played the game, so you won't get any mileage out of the game itself. <S> What MIGHT appeal is a local version aimed at specific audiences. <S> Perhaps one set in Bombay (Mumbai) for Indians or Hong Kong (for Chinese), using local street names, currencies, etc. <S> Or one in cyberspace for "techies. <S> " <S> The currency amounts are the things that are most "out of date" in the original Monopoly game.
|
The specific property names and the rent and prices are pretty much copyright.
|
How do we speed things up in Bohnanza? Whenever I have a one hour window to play, I try this game, and it tends to take more like 2 hours. So far, I find the negotiating really entertaining - so I'm not sure if I want to go crazy trying to enforce time constraints on play. The box says a game takes 45 minutes. Does that hold true for anyone? Are there things you do that speed up the game that don't feel heavy handed? <Q> I've never had it take more than an hour, even with 6 people. <S> Odds are you guys are analyzing the trades too much. <S> There's a variant I always play with <S> that I think improves the game immensely, and that's play with everyone's hand face-up in front of them . <S> This makes it easy to see who has what, so you won't have to ask 'does anyone have a blue bean?' <S> because you can just look around the table and see for yourself. <S> If anything, this actually adds more strategy to the game as you can use what other players have more to your advantage: "Normally this wouldn't be a good trade, but since you're going to have to plant that next turn and prematurely harvest one of your valuable fields why don't you do it anyway?" <S> If you still find this doesn't speed things up, you can try one of these variants to adjust when the end of the game arrives: <S> This is probably the least intrusive as just gives you more trading options. <S> Only go through the deck 2 times instead of 3. <S> This will make for a shorter game, but IMHO <S> it's a little less interesting. <S> Put a timer on 45 minutes and stop at the end of the players turn when it goes off. <S> This should only be an absolute last resort, but it will make people play a bit faster since they know that they only have a limited amount of time. <S> Of course, you'll have to be careful people don't purposely waste time to deny their left-hand opponent that last turn he needs to plant his cocoa been before time runs out... <A> So: Player A plants 1, turns up 2 trades Player B plants 2, turns up 2 trades Player C plants 1, turns up 2 trades <S> Everyone trades at once until all beans have been traded or planted. <S> Everyone draws three cards Resume with the next 1st player (1st player rotates) <S> However, in general, I agree with the other advice that simply more experience should hasten the game. <A> (tldnr: use a timer when trading) <S> I will assume 6 players, so all cards are used. <S> There are 151 cards in the deck. <S> 30 are dealt out at the start leaving us with 121.Each turn 5 cards are draw, meaning before the first reshuffle there will be 24 turns. <S> You can't use simple math to show how long the other 2 reshuffles will take, but in my experience the last 2 put together are about as long as the first. <S> So now all that we need to do is use a timer and give players 1 min to trade. <S> 48 turns at most a min but often less+ some book keeping and shuffling, comes out to about a 45 min game. <A> One obvious route would be to run through the deck only twice instead of three times. <S> It's probably not ideal, but it would keep your games down to a manageable length of time while people get to grips with the trading aspect. <S> I do think, as I said in my comment, that 2 hours is an excessive amount of time for a game of Bohnanza to take, and I suspect that as you get a bit more comfortable with how it works, trading options/decisions will become more obvious, and you'll definitely get it down to below an hour. <S> (If you can't, then identify the biggest slowcoaches and just refuse to trade with them unless they speed up their play!) <A> People often forget the rule that non-active players may not trade amongst themselves which could slow down the game.
|
Have everyone draw one more card per turn, 4 instead of 3 in a 3-5 player game and 5 instead of 4 in a 6-7 player game. A drastic variant would be to make the last two phases of a turn simultaneous after a whole round of everyone doing the first couple.
|
What is the best way to print cards for my game? I want to print cards for my game, without using a commercially-available site. Basically, I'm looking for materials I could find in a store. How do I make these cards in a work- and price-efficient way, making sure that they look nice afterward? The cards should be able to be shuffled, much like poker cards. I am building a Print and Play game, but so far I am not satisfied with the cards I was able to make. I tried printing them on thin paper and mounting on poker cards, and printing them on thicker paper. However both of these methods make the cards pretty much unfit for shuffling, since the paper goes off while shuffling. I saw that the game "Twilight Imperium" printed their cards on thin plastic. Is it possible to buy something like that and print directly onto the material? tl;dr:Mounting paper-printed cards on playing cards does not work.Are there any good material out there that you can print on directly? <Q> What your stuff in there (printed cardboard, paper-glued-on-other-cards,...) then becomes pretty much irrelevant. <S> If not, what about photo printing services? <S> Look for ones making postcards, you can probably easily fit 4 cards on a potcards and they ought to be rigid enough. <A> While one can't riffle-shuffle well, laminating 110# (110 pound) cardstock with Con-Tac brand vinyl does allow for hanafuda style shuffling, and works quite well. <S> The resultant cards are tough, easily handled in play, and durable. <S> (I did this for playtesting the Freemarket RPG.) <S> I've made decks of cards using 110# card stock, and it's HEAVIER than most cheap poker cards; it lacks the plastic coating, tho, making it less smooth to riffle shuffle. <S> Same issues as unlaminated cardstock. <A> In rereading this... The materials to print cards are simple: Cardstock. <S> 3 forms of cardstock are available readily: letter sized or A4 sized (depending on location in the world) cardstock, usually in 50, 250, or 500 sheet packages. <S> Index cards Business Card stock - usually in 10 sheet packs or 100 sheet packs. <S> All the above run through most laser printers just fine. <S> Most go through most ink jets well, too. <S> When printing on a laser printer, the issue is that the toner will usually only bond well with one side. <S> On an ink jet, the issue varies by type of ink. <S> Inks intended to be absorbed (often alcohol based) take some time to dry, and often, won't absorb into one side of a sheet of cardstock. <S> Print a sheet, and set it aside, then print next. <S> Wax-based inks usually leave a texture; they break off in shuffling, and are unsuitable for anything other than laminated or sleeved use. <S> One can "plastic coat" one's cards with a thin layer of hairspray or matte sealer. <S> It lengthens the lifespan of cards, but is a messy process, and adds considerable drying time. <A> I've done the following: Print the cards on thick (but not really thick) paper and cut them out. <S> Cover the cards with clear packing tape. <A> I would suggest that you take a look at this article: <S> Making Cards: You’ll never use your old method again , it's basically a tutorial about making cards with linen cover stock. <S> Things you will need: Linen cover stock (67lb) <S> Spray adhesive Rolling pin Craft knife (or rotary cutter) <S> Metal ruler Cutting mat <S> Corner punch Light table (or reasonable substitute) <A> I used this to create a prototype of my card game, Print out cards on 6x4 photo paper (2 to a sheet) <S> Cut the cards out Sleeve with playing card sleeves <S> (penny sleeves if you're saving money; HMC or Dragon Shield for easy shuffling) <A> Check out Artscow . <S> I have a friend who has used them before for a custom deck and he was very happy with their work. <S> Also, the price is very reasonable for custom print work. <S> ETA <S> :I mis-read the question and thought that the OP was looking for commercial sites, when they actually were specifically not doing so. <S> With that in mind, please look at my response to this question . <S> Blank playing cards are not a perfect solution to the question (Difficult to print on directly. <S> You would need to print on paper and paste it to the cards.) <S> but the results would have the right weight/feel/ease of shuffling and would look nicer than doing the same with a standard deck of cards. <S> Also, such products are commonly available at craft stores. <S> Hope this helps. <A> Are you looking for this ? <S> PlainCards® Offers 5 Choices of Printable Blank Playing Cards <S> You could also just buy some cheap decks from the dollar store and rubber cement standard-paper (cut down to size) or stick Avery labels onto them. <S> They might not shuffle too well, but get some "shufflable" card protectors and that solves that problem. <A> I am having the same trouble. <S> I have purchase 20 packs of plane backed playing cards with the idea of running them through my Canon printer. <S> Alas <S> the ink from the printer does not adhere to the plastic coating on the card. <S> The only ink that I can recommend to stick to the plastic coating is a Nikko Oil Marker 1700 texter pen that you can buy on ebay about $7.00. <S> The only problem then is that you have to carefully write on each individual card by hand. <S> The only other alternative I fear is to get the cards professionally printed at great expense. <S> Goodluck.
|
You could use common card protectors like people use to protect cards from trading cards games (Magic, etc). 90# high-linen high-clay bond makes great cards; it's hard to find.
|
Card Games for Three Players? We have a great time playing Hearts, Spades, and Euchre with 4 players. Oftentimes though we have three people available to play but not a fourth. How can I find card games that are interesting for 3 players? <Q> I think one of the best card games for three players is Skat (not to be confused with the Scat mentioned in another answer). <S> This is a pretty heavy game on the level of Bridge, so you can decide whether it's a good fit for your group. <S> I personally prefer <S> Ninety-Nine <S> which is like Oh Hell! <S> with a really funky bidding technique. <S> You might also find this list on pagat.com helpful. <S> It seems like the numbers outside square brackets are the recommended numbers of players. <A> When I was at university we often had exactly this problem. <S> The way I solved <S> it was by extensive googling for a card game that was designed for three players. <S> The game I ended up finding was 3-5-8 . <S> * <S> It has an interesting imbalance that means you spend a lot of time deciding which of your opponents is actually in the lead, and you often get the choice to give a trick to one or the other. <S> *I think I actually came across 8-5-3 , where the order of the hands is reversed. <S> Very similar games are 9-5-2 and Sergeant Major . <A> 500 <S> Rummy is the best game of the rummy family IMHO, and it works well with any number from 2-5. <S> klabberjass is a trick taking game that works only with 3. <S> I'll admit upfront that I've never played, but I assume its a good 3 player game as no other amount can play. <S> psychological jujitsu is great with 3. <S> It's a game of skillful bluffing and psychological matching of wits. <S> Egyptian Ratscrew is really fun with anywhere from 2-6. <S> It's a game of speed, so if you're group doesn't like moments where you're all racing to slap a pile of cards, then I wouldn't try it. <S> But try it at least once, it's a lot more fun than it sounds. :D <A> Since you mentioned the games you enjoyed playing, I'll point out they all can be played three-handed, with minor rules modification. <S> I've enjoyed playing Hearts three-handed. <A> Cassino A brilliant card game that just magically deals out evenly to both 2, 3 and 4 players. <A> The easiest way to get a three person game is to take a two person game with an extra person. <S> Poker is the one that immediately comes to mind. . <S> It's also possible to have "three handed" gin rummy, with one dealer and two players in every game. <S> The loser of one game becomes the dealer of the next. <S> It's possible, but harder, to downgrade a four person game into three. <S> In a pinch, I've played "three handed bridge." <S> Deal out all four hands, highest bidder gets dummy, score each person separately. <S> On the other hand, "go fish," often a four player game, can be downgraded to three relatively easily. <A> Durak (Fool) is a Russian game that plays very well with 3 people. <S> The mechanics are also quite distinctive; it's rare to find a good card game that isn't built on trick taking in my experience. <A> I'd recommend: 31 (or Scat... <S> but I've never heard it called it that) <S> http://www.pagat.com/draw/scat.html 3 handed Pinochle http://www.pagat.com/marriage/pin3.html or Oh Hell! <S> http://www.pagat.com/exact/ohhell.html 3 is pretty fun with the right group, and all of these work great. <A> Briscola is a very Euchre-like trick-taking game that can scale to many different player numbers. <S> I prefer it with 3 <S> so it sounds like the right fit for you folks. <S> If your group knows Euchre, they'll be able to learn Briscola quite easily. <S> Traditionally, it's played with Italian playing card deck (cups, swords, clubs, coins), but can easily be played with a modified International deck (hearts, spades, diamonds, clubs) by removing the 8, 9, and 10 of each suit. <A> Canasta has a three-player variant, where the players all compete against each other instead of playing in teams of two.
|
Hearts with three or five players Spades for Three Players Three Player Buck Euchre Where I live, the canonical three-player card game is Cribbage .
|
Can I use a card with "Add one mana of any color to your mana pool" in any Elder Dragon Highlander (EDH) deck? I recently tried Elder Dragon Highlander / Commander , and found it to be a ton of fun. I've started customizing one of the pre-cons I got, but I'm a little confused by some of the deck-building requirements. According to the deck-building rules: A card's color identity is its color plus the color of any mana symbols in the card's rules text. A card's color identity is established before the game begins, and cannot be changed by game effects. Cards in a deck may not have any colors in their identity which are not shared with the commander of the deck. (The identity of each card in the deck must be a subset of the General's) If I'm using Animar, Soul of the Elements as my general, my deck's identity is Red, Blue and Green. I couldn't use Crumbling Necropolis in my deck, because it has a black mana symbol in the rules text. My question is: can I add a card to my deck that has the phrase "Add one mana of any color to your mana pool" (such as Mox Opal or Ancient Ziggurat )? Even though those cards could conceivably add black mana to my mana pool, they don't have a black or white (or any for that matter) mana symbol in their rules text, so they would be valid for inclusion in any deck? <Q> The text file found on the page you linked to with Commander info has a better description of the rules that clears this up. <S> The important parts: <S> A card can't be included in your deck if any mana symbol in its mana cost or rules text is a color not in your commander's color identity. <S> A card also can't be included in your deck if it has a characteristic-defining ability defining it to be a color not in your commander's color identity. <S> The cards don't have mana symbols, so you are good on that front. <S> Yes, you could include those cards. <S> As of a January 18, 2016 change to rule 4 , you can now use those cards to add any colour of mana to your mana pool, including Black & White mana if you're using Animar, Soul of Elements who has neither in its identity. <S> Historically , if you tried to add a colour of mana to your pool that wasn't in your commander's identity, it would just add colourless mana instead. <A> Second, you can only produce mana in said color identity. <S> No longer true as of January 18 <S> , 2016 rules update. <S> All players can have any color of mana in their pool, regardless of their commander's identity. <S> Mox Opal would be legal in any Commander deck, because it is colorless and "any color" is not a color identity. <S> However, a mana rock like Obelisk of Esper, while colorless, specifically produces W, U, or B, so it would only be legal in decks whose commander has all three of those colors in it's casting cost. <S> It's noteworthy that the new Extort cards don't need commanders with both Orzhov colors; most you can consider only white, or only black. <S> This is because the W/B mana symbol for the Extort cost is in the reminder text, not the rules text. <A> Since your question asks about "any" EDH deck, it's worth adding an answer about the case of a colourless identity general <S> (since other questions have expressed uncertainty about the applicability of Charles' answer). <S> Clearly a Mox Opal would be a legitimate card for all the reasons already stated. <S> Other cards with similar wording/attributes follow logically. <S> When it generates a coloured mana then, as in the coloured general case, the only relevant rule is 903.9. <S> If mana would be added to a player’s mana pool of a color that isn’t in the color identity of that player’s commander, that amount of colorless mana is added to that player’s mana pool instead. <S> By 903.9 the coloured mana becomes colourless (the only available option with your general). <S> No longer true as of January 18, 2016 rules update. <S> All players can have any color of mana in their pool, regardless of their commander's identity.
|
First, you can only play cards within your commander's color identity.
|
Where can I find the story of Magic the Gathering? I have been playing MTG for a few months now and was told that there is a story behind each set of cards. I have several small bits of the story that came with the decks, but I would like to read the full story and see if I can construct my themed decks to match how they would be in the story. Where can I learn more about the back-story to these cards? <Q> I don't read them myself, but every year Wizards of the Coast releases novels which are a companion to the latest Magic sets/block. <S> If you want the complete "story behind the game", this is probably the best path to go down. <S> Here's a useful link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Magic:_The_Gathering_novels <S> The Magic Daily site also has quite a fun column called "Savor the Flavor" which contains essays on the latest sets from a storytelling and flavour perspective - you can't get a full picture of what's going on from reading it, I don't think, but it may appeal to someone who is interested in the ongoing story aspect of Magic, not just the mechanics of the game: http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/Archive.aspx?tag=SavortheFlavor&description=Taste%20the%20Magic <A> Wizards has short storyline summaries shown here: <S> http://www.wizards.com/Magic/TCG/Article.aspx?x=magic/products/storylinesummaries <S> Unfortunately, this is an old page and hasn't been updated since Mirrodin. <S> Wikipedia has a fairly comprehensive outline of Magic: <S> The Gathering storylines <S> that are helpful in getting a handle on the general theme of each set. <S> However, if you want to get a handle on affiliations of specific characters and creatures within their settings, I highly recommend starting at the MTG Salvation <S> wiki <S> Category:Storylines . <A> Heres the link .
|
The Wizards of the Coast website has a page within it that contains the full story, minus the novels.
|
What are the standard time settings in chess What are some of the most popular time limits for chess games? I'm looking for those used today as well as historically. <Q> Blitz games will have 1-5 minutes per side. <S> Most tournaments will have 1-3 hours per side. <S> A popular setup is 1-2 hours per side for the first 40 moves, plus an additional ½-1 hours each after the 40th move. <S> They may also allow Bronstein/Fischer time , if the clock supports it. <S> The official FIDE time settings are 90 minutes for the first 40 moves + 30 minutes after move 40 + 30 seconds for every move. <S> The 2010 world championship was "120 minutes, with 60 minutes added after move 40, 15 minutes added after move 60, and 30 additional seconds per move starting from move 61. <S> " I've heard of World Championships going up to 8-hours per side, though. <A> Fast time controls are more current these days. <S> You can find a lot of 30/30 (each player has 30 moves to make in 30 minutes) and G/30 (each player has 30 minutes to make all of his moves) in over the board tournaments. <S> Slow time controls are still out there, but with the rise of Internet chess, even over the board tournaments are going with quicker time controls. <S> On the Internet clubs you can find blitz chess (usually something between 3 and 15 minutes for each player to make all of his moves) and bullet chess (under 3 minutes for each player to make all of his moves); although the Internet allows for slow chess too, it may take a while of waiting, and good deal of patience, to get a game. <A> Bullet: one minute per player for all moves <S> Quickplay: 20, 30 or 40 minutes per player for all moves <S> FIDE tournament: 1 hour 30 minutes to reach move 40, then 30 mins to finish, plus 30 seconds per move (per player) Slow tournament: 2 hours to reach move 40, then one extra hour to reach move 60, then 40 mins to finish (per player) <S> Lightning: 10 seconds per move <S> Hourglass: 1 to 2 mins each to start with. <S> the time you lose is added to the opponent's clock, and vice versa Fischer delay: 5 seconds (usually, can be less) are added to your clock after every move <A> Actually, in FIDE rules, you have different kinds of time settings : <S> Up to and including 10 minutes per player, it's Blitz ; Between 10 and 60 minutes, it's Quickplay Over 61 minutes per player, it's <S> Slow Fisher increments are counted 60 times and added to the base time in order to find the equivalent in K.O. time (no increment). <S> These are the time settings according to the FIDE Handbooks. <S> I can't find where exactly, sorry about that.
|
Quick tournament: 1 hour 30 mins to reach move 35, then 30 mins to finish (per player) Blitz: 5 minutes per player for all moves
|
Can the Big Blind Player Post More than the Current Big Blind? In a Texas Hold-Em No-Limit Tournament, where the blinds are 200-400, can the big blind initially post more than 400 or does the Big Blind need to wait until it's his turn to raise? For example we had a player who was the big blind and wanted to know if he could post his 550 chips (all-in) as the big blind instead of waiting for his turn to come around to raise 150 chips. <Q> In a tournament, "blinds" are set by formula, based on the number of rounds that have elapsed. <S> So the big blind amount in this instance is 400. <S> It's a LIVE blind, which means that the big blind can raise, but only after others have had a chance to do so. <S> That's the disadvantage of being a big blind. <S> Essentially, he raises the little blind from 200 to 400, and then again at the end of the round (if no one else has raised 150 or more). <S> But he can't "protect" his blind by raising the whole 550 the first time. <A> In most tournaments, the big blind can go all-in blind as well. <S> However, the actual raise does not happen until it is that player's turn. <S> It does commit those chips to the pot, but other players can raise in front of him and do not have to consider his bet when making their raises. <S> So any raise before the big blind would not have that all-in included in their minimum raise. <S> It is considered bad form to announce your intentions out of turn. <S> Some players take more offense to it than others. <S> And while this move may be understandable, and even expected, you are inviting players to play against only you, reducing your odds of winning as more hands in means more hands that can beat you. <S> You could win your all-in if a bluff pushes someone out ahead of you that was better for a side pot if they have a worse hand. <A> It depends on the rules of the poker club. <S> But most clubs I've played in, have the same rule; if a player makes an aggressive move (raise, all-in) before his turn, he cannot change this move on his turn, unless an aggressive move happened before his turn. <S> I guess this can be applied also to this situation, making the "unless.." part unimportant, as the big blind wants to go all-in. <S> This doesn't affect other players' turns, as the big blind made the move before his turn, and it "doesn't happen" until his turn. <S> Big blind should be still allowed to fold and take back the 150 chips, if anyone before him raised. <S> This rule is of course set to treat player mistakes <S> (moves before their turn), so <S> this cannot be done in online poker rooms, as the computer does not allow you to do anything before your turn. <A> The "standard" rule is that action out of turn is only binding if the action remains unchanged (no betting or raising, only folding or calling) until that player's turn. <S> The current bet is still 400 until it gets to him. <S> If there is no change in action before the action gets to the big blind (everyone folds or calls), his action becomes binding, and the raise of 150 stands. <S> If an action occurs before play reaches the big blind (a player raises), the big blind may fold, keeping his last 150, or call. <S> If he had enough chips that he could re-raise, he would have that option as well <S> (although then the raise of 150 would have been illegal).
|
The big blind's early raise of 150 is an out-of-turn action.
|
Go, MahJong, and Chess. Together? Do you think these games have enough in common to start a serious, competitive club focusing around them? There's definitely enough between Go and Chess, but what about MahJong? I know there is plenty of strategy behind MahJong, having played it, but is it too far removed from the other two? <Q> I feel there are two major differences: <S> Go and chess are strictly strategic, whereas mahjong involves chance, In go and chess, everyone has complete knowledge of the game at all times; in mahjong you don't know what your opponents have. <S> Mahjong is kinda of like poker or gin rummy in these ways; they more strongly depend on reading your opponent. <S> So, in terms of core properties, I think mahjong is a different category of game to go and chess. <S> Additionally, mahjong is more rules-heavy compared to the rules-light, strategy-rich go and chess. <S> That said, there's no reason not to play it in a club, as long as there are people who want to play it. <S> Probably the best way to find out if it's suitable for your club is to try making the club, and offering mahjong as an option. <S> If people don't want to play it or don't take it as seriously, then you can move your focus to the other games. <A> Shogi is an excellent suggestion, being similar to Chess yet having the Asian origins that Go has. <S> If you want to go for the more western games, Draughts or Checkers are closer to Chess than Mah Jong. <S> The 5 in a row <S> "Go moku" is also a fun, if simple game. <S> It can be played with a standard Go set. <A> I don't see these as a natural blend with one another, but whether they fit may not really matter. <S> If you're considering starting a club, as with any other group or ahem forum, you need a critical mass of interested participants. <S> If you're thinking of a club for serious play then your club's focus can be about tournament level play first and the specific game second, in which case you can fit in any game you feel will help you attract participants. <A> Go and Mahjong can "go" together insofar as they might both attract Asian players. <S> The best place to start such a club is in a physical "Asiatown" in a place like New York City, or perhaps one on line. <S> If you wanted to add "chess" to the mix, I would suggest Chinese chess and/or Japanese shogi in this context. <S> Otherwise, go and chess are strategic games that both attract "geeks," who probably aren't turned on by the "chanciness" of Mah Jong. <S> In either case, starting a club is about knowing your audience. <A> Go and Chess is more of objective count in brain as broad and deep as possible. <S> When playing Go and Chess, players brain works like a search engine. <S> Mahjong is more of subjective judgment about your components mind. <S> Hard to deploy a search strategy because opponents hands are concealed. <S> But I wonder they all can be played with a probability strategy, though the computing of probability may be quite different. <A> MahJong is played with different rule sets. <S> I have heard (from a Go club member who played MahJong regularly) that there is are Japanese rules for MahJong making that game very strategic. <S> I also know some Go and Chess players that are very good at Poker–another strategic game with an element of chance in it.
|
As noted earlier, Mahjong (or dominoes for that matter) is much more luck oriented as opposed to the strategy involved in Chess or Go.
|
Is it better to learn to play bridge by reading about it, or just playing? I'm an avid card player, and I have a particular love for trick-taking games (above all, Hearts and Spades). I've wanted to learn to play bridge for a long time, and I've bought two different books on the subject, but neither really launched me into playing. For experienced players, what is the best way to learn to play bridge, for someone who is already experienced and comfortable in four-person trick-taking games? Should I just master the most basic rules and then try playing? I find this works well for Hearts and Spades, but I'm not sure that the complexity of Bridge will be as easily acquired. <Q> I think you'd be hard-pushed to learn Bridge just by reading about it. <S> There are many, many excellent books out there, but until you're sitting down at an actual table it will be hard to visualise what it actually feels like, having only partial information, trying urgently to communicate your hand to your partner despite your opponent continually getting in your way. <S> Equally, I think it'd be a slow process learning Bridge just by playing it. <S> Sure, you'll get better and better as the fundamental concepts begin to dawn on you; but Bridge is an immensely subtle and sophisticated game and some of the finest game-playing minds of this and last century have thought about it for millions of hours. <S> Reading some of the greatest writers on the subject will be a short-cut to ideas and epiphanies that would take you years or decades to stumble across in the course of playing with just the basics under your belt. <S> So to answer your question, yes I would "just master the most basic rules and then try playing"; but I'd make sure to keep reading more, then playing more, then reading more again! <S> It's well worth it though - I envy you your journey! <A> Assuming your goal is to play good bridge, you need to do both: reading and playing. <S> Reading will make you familiar with the distilled thoughts of experts, card play techniques, bidding issues etc, which they arrived at, after having had years of experience. <S> It is unlikely that one single individual will ever gain that through his/her own playing experience. <S> While in theory this is all fine, to play good, winning bridge, you need to be focused at the table, and be able to do: <S> Counting. <S> Being able to count the hand (high cards, distribution) is the single most important ability which separates the good players from the average player, and for most this only comes from playing. <S> Not counting vs counting is compared to driving blind vs looking where you are going. <S> If you want to learn things quickly: do some reading, play some hands and do a post-mortem of the hands you played with a better player who knows the stuff. <S> Rinse, Repeat. <S> The best way to learn and improve is to actively look for your mistakes (which can only happen if you actually play), ideally by doing a post-mortem along with a player who is good enough to figure them out. <S> I would highly recommend you read this blog post from Justin Lall (who won the silver medal in the recent world championship: Bermuda Bowl): http://justinlall.wordpress.com/2006/04/26/how-to-improve-your-game/ Good luck! <A> There are two aspects of bridge: bidding, and playing. <S> For bidding, you HAVE to read. <S> Basically, you have to learn about point count, distribution, and at least the "standard" bidding conventions. <S> There's no way around it, but it's not a heavy burden. <S> Fortunately for you, the time spent in bridge is about one-third (or less) bidding, and the rest playing. <S> In the latter part, you have a natural advantage over other beginners, with your other playing experience. <S> There are a few standard playing techniques, and quite a few "tricks," most of which you can pick up as you go along. <S> Back to bidding: In some beginners' classes, the teacher will examine each hand in turn and tell people how to bid. <S> But "reading" is still the best way to learn bidding, certainly without a teacher.
|
Bridge is an incredibly deep game, perhaps unequalled in depth by any other game - you could easily spend your life playing it, mastering it, assimilating the ideas of others who have tried to master it.
|
In Puerto Rico, When should I NOT take a Quarry when I have the opportunity to? It's fairly easy to choose between the different plantations when the settler phase comes around as you just have to evaluate which you have the production capacity for or which you would be able to buy the production capacity for, and take into account what other goods you can produce and what other players can. However, Quarries are a little different, and sometimes I find it difficult to choose if I should take one or not. Here's some rules I use: If I don't have 2 quarries yet and there's at least 4 builder phases left. If there's no plantations I want. If there aren't many left and I want to deny another player the privilege of having one. Only take a 3rd or 4th Quarry if it will make a big difference in being able to get a very valuable building, usually from the third or fourth tier. What rules do you use when determining if you should take a Quarry? What are the most notable situations when you should NOT take a Quarry when you are able to? <Q> This comes down to the stage of the game, the competing products of your competitors and the value the goods that are on offer as alternatives. <S> A quarry saves you money when building, but only a maximum of 1 coin per build. <S> You may already have all the buildings you want/need, without triggering an end of game scenario <S> You may have plenty of money <S> so an extra coin is of little value to you <S> You may not be using a building strategy to win the game, but be cautious with this one, as balance is key <S> You may get an extra worker for building, if you have that specific tile with that function. <S> A good offers you the opportunity to sell / ship <S> There may already be too many plantations and not enough goods to go around, so this may not be a good option <S> You may need a factory to produce your good (with the exception of corn) and not have time to build this, so plantation has no value <S> You may already have a factory with a spare space, <S> so another good of a particular type may allow maximum efficiency from your factory <S> A good may be of high value (like coffee/tobacco) that gives you far more money than you would hope to gain from a quarry, by someone visiting the Trader. <S> And needless to say, all of this depends on your opponents positions, and your future potential actions. <A> Some strategies revolve around the tier 4 buildings, and for a strategy like that, quarries are invaluable. <S> However, if you're going after a more "captain" based strategy, then the tier 4 buildings don't work to your advantage as much as some others might, so more production (from a plantation) would behoove you more. <S> Usually, my decision to quarry or not to quarry is based on the current strategy i'm going after, and less about a set of rules i'm following. <S> That being said though, taking up to 2 is almost always beneficial, so you should probably keep that rule no matter what =) <A> In most cases, the decision to take a third quarry or not depends mainly on what ELSE you can do with your turn. <S> Usually, you're playing against a "field," which is to say that you want to take the action that benefits you most compared to the field. <S> That may or may not be taking the quarry, depending on what the rest of your strategy is. <S> Basically, you should refuse to take quarry if you has something BETTER to do. <S> Taking one "if there aren't many left <S> and I want to deny another player the privilege of having one," is an interesting strategy called "playing not to lose. <S> " I'm assuming that this "other player" is your main rival in the game, with the rest far behind. <S> Then, it might be to your advantage to make a move that hurts you relative "to the field" if it hurts your main rival MORE. <S> Even so, you might use some other strategy if you are also worried about a THIRD party.
|
The simple answer to this question, is how much value is the quarry going to gain you over and above the other options your have to choose from.
|
Small World: Strategies for using dwarves in a 2-player game We started playing Small World in a 2-player setup and the race which we found very difficult to play was Dwarves. The con of dwarves is their low number of troops (3), which means that it is hard to exploit their special ability (doubled income from mines, even in decline) as they quickly become short in numbers. One of interesting setups we tried was flying dwarves which made it easy to catch a few of mines, although on the small map it was also easy for the opponent to conquer the mines rendering the dwarf special power not so useful. After a few tries we ended up avoiding dwarves in 2-player games. Are there any potentially successful dwarf strategies on the small map, or are dwarves a kind of niche play that is only reasonable in bigger games? <Q> However, once there is a little stack of Victory coins on top of them, who knows? <S> If you reckon you are in a position to conquer a couple of Mine regions (perhaps, as you say, by Flying) and then hold them over a fair number of turns, defended by your Active race, then they may be cost effective. <S> In general though, it's not advisable to look at Small World and say "all races and powers must be balanced - if this one seems excessively weak, I must be missing something". <S> The races and powers are not created equal: players must use their skill and judgment to decide how much they're willing to pay to grab a good combo, or willing to be paid to take a less-than-attractive one. <S> That's one of the major factors in being a great Small World player! <A> i only experienced one game scenario that worked for dwarves. <S> I was first player and stout dwarves was the first option. <S> I picked the dwarves and immedietly went for the closest mines to the edge of the board. <S> I only conquered three territories with 2 mines. <S> I threw them into decline right away. <S> It allowed me to watch what the other players did <S> and I switched my strategy according to them next turn. <S> It gave me an in decline race and a another power race (commando orcs) right off. <S> Still lost to a newbie with late game merchant ogres. <S> We dismissed her too readily, three way fight on one side of the board, and she ran rampant for three turns (18-20-20) until we could to respond to her growth. <S> She had already launched so far ahead in gold we lost. <S> I ended up not far behind in gold though. <S> To make a long ramble short, dwarves are of very limited value. <S> This was the only instance where they helped a little. <A>
|
Dwarves just aren't a great race, you're never going to want to pick them highly. If you can capture the mountain mines, then it might be worth it to keep dwarves (along with victory points stacked on the race) - remember that the mines will give you bonus even in decline !
|
When will playing Rubber Bridge vs. Duplicate Bridge affect your decisions? In Rubber Bridge, you are trying to get more points than your opponents. In Duplicate Bridge, you are trying to get more points than the other people playing the same hand later on do . For a while I thought this wouldn't make a difference, but then I've noticed bridge columns occasionally offering different suggestions depending on which is being played, and couldn't make sense of it, because in either situation you're goal is to get as many points as possible. When would you make a different decision based on if you were playing Rubber vs. Duplicate Bridge? How are the strategies different for them? After looking at a complete record of the decisions players made in a bridge hand, how can I tell if it was played at Duplicate or Rubber? What does it take to be good at Duplicate after you've become pretty good at Rubber? <Q> I wholly agree with thesun's answer, particularly "you must squeeze every ounce of potential out of your cards". <S> But since you've posed particular queries at the end of your question: Part-scores are the most obvious difference. <S> If you have strong Hearts, but not strong enough for slam, a Rubber player looks at the scoresheet; with 60 points below the line, there is no point going above 2H unless forced (overtricks score the same as bid tricks, and there is no risk of failure). <S> A Duplicate player knows there is no line: <S> bid to 4H if you can make it. <S> Similarly with honours: a marginal hand with KQJT, worth bidding at Rubber because of the cushion 100 honours will give, is not worth bidding at Duplicate. <S> Strategy: again, Rubber bridge is about making the best of your situation, while Duplicate is about making the best of your cards, Take sacrifices: a Duplicate player knows that if he goes one down doubled but stops opponents making a game, he has done well out of that hand. <S> At Rubber bridge, you have saved the rubber for now, but if the opponents win a few hands later, all your sacrifice achieved was to cost you a few hundred points. <S> More generally, if by strategy you mean scoring as many points as possible (as I think you should), any change in the scoring method will affect your strategy. <S> Usually, you can't tell under which system a particular hand was played; obviously, if one side started with 30 below the line it was at Rubber, and if two declarers took different routes it was Duplicate. <S> And if you are really a good Rubber bridge player, you will be (or are) a good Duplicate player. <S> 'Good', of course, is compared to 20 or 30 others, rather than 3, and you may find that your system is too ill-defined to be acceptable without work: but it's the same game, and just as enjoyable if not more so. <A> This is a pretty large topic and you could easily write an essay, or indeed a book, on the subject! <S> As a starting point I would recommend the Duplicate Bridge wikipedia page , with particular reference to the "Scoring and tactics" session. <S> Take especial note of the differences that arise if you're playing Matchpoint or IMP scoring. <S> Really, Duplicate and Rubber bridge are the same game <S> - it's just that different results are weighted differently for scoring purposes. <S> In rubber bridge, you can get away with bidding quite conservatively - slow and steady can usually win the race. <S> In duplicate, you must squeeze every last ounce of potential out of your cards, making it a more rigorous, competitive, high-stakes form of the game. <S> And some would say more fun, if your heart can take the strain! <A> In the bidding: in rubber bridge you should be more aggressive bidding games, as the 300 or 500 bonus makes a good bet bidding games making 30-40% of the time. <S> Playing MPs you shouldn't settle for games making less that 50% (frequency is the name of the game). <S> In the card play: playing duplicate, overtricks are specially relevant when you are playing a normal contract (3NT+2 vs 3NT+1 may be the difference between an 80% and a 20% in a given board), <S> in rubber bridge the converse is true: making the contract is the main goal. <S> So its not rare to see a good player making a safety play in rubber bridge, but ignoring it (for the chance of an overtric(s)) in MPs. <A> For the most part rubber bridge plays the same as IMPS, so let us instead distinguish between matchpoints on one side, and IMPS/Rubber on the other. <S> The most important distinction is the basis for measuring risk and reward. <S> As a general rule (see below for when this does not apply): <S> In IMPS/rubber, one must weight the risk and reward according to the stakes of each, and decide on the expected value of the point gain/loss. <S> As an example, it is foolishness of the highest order in IMPS/rubber to risk a contract for a 60% chance of an overtrick; in matchpoints NOT doing so is foolishness of the highest order. <S> Likewise, safety plays are made use of much more often in IMPS/rubber than in matchpoints. <S> The exceptions to this rule are when: <S> In matchpoints if from other information obtained, the contract is already believed to be a good one. <S> For example: if an advanced play is required to make the contract; or an unusually favourable lead was obtained; or the contract is fortuitously played reversed due to one's bidding system; when in a hard-to-bid slam; etc. <A> In rubber bridge, you should try to get a partscore on. <S> After getting the partscore on, slam bidding is much easier. <S> The only time you want to sacrafise is if you have am extremely good fit against a slam, or if the opponents are taking a vulnerable rubber. <S> Your goal is to make your contract. <S> In IMPS, it is very similiar, trying to make your contract, but you have the game bonus and try to bid a game more often. <S> Slam bidding isn't as easy. <S> Sacrifices can be made if both are nonvulnerable. <S> Your goal is to bid the safest contract and try to make it. <S> In matchpoints, your goal is to try to take as many tricks as you can. <S> You should avoid five of a minor games,and try for 3NT instead. <S> 4 of a major should be bid if either of you are not 4-3-3-3. <S> Bid level bonuses if there is <S> at least 50 percent chance of making-be conservative at level bonuses. <S> Stretch to compete, sacrifice often, and don't always try to make your contract. <S> If making the contract is less than 50 percent, and if it fails means going down am extra trick, then settle for the lowest number of undertricks.
|
In matchpoints, any play that stands to gain more often than not is advantageous.
|
If I have 8+ coins and no Gold, should I buy a Gold or a Province? When playing Dominion, I have developed the habit of buying a Gold the first time I can afford one, even if I could afford a Province instead. Is this a good rule of thumb? My reasoning is that if I manage to hit 8+ coins without a Gold in my deck, I have probably managed to hit a lucky hand. Having at least one Gold makes it much easier to hit 6+ or 8+ coins in the future, whereas having a Province sitting around just makes it harder to buy that first Gold. If buying the Gold is indeed better most of the time, under what circumstances would it be worse? <Q> Exceptions include: Situations in which you are using action chains for money (e.g., Minion, possibly Conspirator) because the Gold does not contribute to your chain in a significant manner. <S> When your Treasure Maps hit. <S> If you have 4 Golds from TM, you should have the coin density you need for the game. <S> If there is a trash-for-benefit card on the board that you can exploit (e.g., Salvager, Expand especially if there are Colonies in play, possibly Apprentice). <S> This will be situational; you need to make sure that you're going to be able to stay ahead of your opponent if you trash the Province. <S> If the game is ending quickly (e.g., your opponent is rushing Gardens or Duke/Duchy and the game is going to end on piles before you work all the way through your next shuffle). <S> If you have cards that let you discard for substantial benefit (e.g., Horse Traders is probably enough; Cellar is definitely not), you might be able to avoid some of the penalty for greening your deck early. <S> But, this is a higher variance strategy—sometimes shuffle luck will make you successful, and sometimes the shuffle gods will not be amused. <A> This graph of winningness by turn for Province and Gold buys is interesting and relevant. <S> On average, before turn 6, buying Golds is better than buying Provinces. <S> Note that the graph is going to overstate the case for buying Provinces <S> (conditioned buying a Province, we know your deck can generate $8, which is not true for all players buying Golds, so on a whole, just because you can buy a province, you are in better shape). <S> And it's direct evidence that you should take Gold before Provinces before your second shuffle, which tends to happen on turn 5. <A> I've never seen a reason to buy gold when I can buy a province instead. <S> I can think of two reasons: <S> 1. too much copper in deck to do it again. <S> 2. have multiple buys and sufficient to buy 2 gold. <S> So, really I don't think your "Buy gold the first time I hit 8+" is of much value. <S> Me, I buy gold when I hit 6 or 7, and province at 8+. <A> I think it will depend how late in the game you are and how soon the game will end. <S> If it's early in the game, buy the gold. <S> You'll be able to use it throughout the game for acquiring more gold and provinces later on. <A> If you are using the most basic strategy (just treasure and no actions) than your deck wants $19 worth of treasure before buying the first Province. <S> This number isn't random, it's been found by WanderingWinder (a top 10 player on isotropic) by optimizing a simulation bot: <S> Simulate it yourself (choose the Big Money Ultimate (Opt) strategy) <S> So the answer to your question is: if you have less than $19 total treasure in your deck, buy a Gold over your first Province. <S> (If you include action cards (like Smithy), the answer will of course be different)
|
Generally you want to get a Gold before you buy a Province in order to sustain your Province buying. If your playing a game where the end of the game looks like it's coming soon, buying the province is the best option.
|
How can I play Arkham Horror remotely? Having recently moved quite a long distance away from a friend who owns Arkham Horror, we have decided to continue playing games via telepresence (supplied by google+ hangouts). My first go at playing remotely had me opening pages in tabs on the Arkham Horror wiki and tracking everything manually in a text editor. Do there exist any software or web tools to reduce lookup times and unify all character bookkeeping into a single interface? <Q> Short Answer: <S> No? <S> Longer Answer: <S> Not that I've used at least. <S> The only Arkham-management-eqsue software I've used is the Arkham toolkit for iOS, but that only helps manage the location/OW decks and isn't really for distance play. <S> That said, there is a program/system called VASSAL that people can make modules for that allow network play of various games. <S> I've never used VASSAL myself, but I know that it can be used to play rather complicated competitive games online, and a quick search reveals that there is a VASSAL module for Arkham plus every expansion here that got updated a few weeks ago. <S> I see a note on the page that all of the common item cards are blank to make sure people own a copy, so I don't know what other modifications if any the modules would need after downloading to get it into a completely easily playable state. <S> That may be your best chance at a good online method of playing Arkham. <S> If you give it a shot, reply with your experiences in some fashion; it would be useful info to have here. <A> VASSAL is an excellent tool for remote play <S> I can state that the tracking mechanics of VASSAL (with all expansions installed) offers just the right amount of support to provide for remote play over webcam. <S> The webcam, positioned a laptop's height above the board facing so that the text is readable on the webcam, provides an excellent view of the board and associated tokens. <S> Monster tokens should be inserted into plastic holders and be upright instead of flat, for more effective visibility. <S> A character should be maintained within VASSAL, with item cards being taken from decks in the real board with a quick "choose from deck" within vassal. <S> It is fast and can be done while other players are taking their turns. <S> While it is necessary for monster details to be read out, playing via webcam and vassal is far better than not playing at all and something that I will do again. <S> In fact, it is better than actual play within VASSAL, due to the feeling of actually sitting at the board and the ease at which players at the tables handle cards and deal with the physical interactions required of the board. <A> Ultimately Vassal mods are very easy to modify :)just unrar that sucker and change all the pictures with photoshop that don't have text on them. <S> Started working on that myself last night. <S> Then I quit after my... tenth? <S> card... or 8th. <S> I might finish that sometime <S> but it would only be for personal use as I just don't want to drag out the box when I try to play on the computer. <S> In theory I suppose one could use the vassal mod for playing without having the boardgame. <S> but it IS a ton of work.
|
This evening I played remotely using vassal, the arkahm horror wiki, and google video.
|
How do Dominion tournaments compensate for the luck that's always present in the game? Dominion is definitely NOT a game of luck. I'd wager it's at least 90% strategy. But at the higher levels I'm sure the luck comes out as players get better at finding the best strategies available to them. In Bridge tournaments, pairs have to play the same hand and see who does better at it. Obviously in Dominion tournaments you'd have everyone play the same kingdom sets, but how do you compensate for bad shuffles? If there's a Mountebank/Witch/Treasury or any other awesome opening cost-5 card and no good opening cost-4 cards, any player who starts 5-2 is going to have a substantially better odds of winning already. Likewise if you have a lot of villages and terminal actions, but virtually never get them together, you're also at a substantial disadvantage. How do Dominion tournaments compensate for this? Is it possible to play Dominion in a form where it's 98+% strategy and <2% luck, or is luck of the draw just an essential part of the game? How often does luck determine the winner of a game of Dominion? <Q> I don't think Dominion is alone in being a game with a significant amount of luck. <S> Magic the Gathering has a massive amount of variance, but the pros rise to the top time and again, because they are experts at keeping the role that luck plays in their game down to the very minimum. <S> Even with that being the case, I'd say that if you win 75% of your Magic matches at a pro level, your skill level is pretty godlike. <S> If you can consistently win even 60% of the time, you're doing more than fine. <S> As such, I don't think that it's a sensible question " <S> how can we keep luck in Dominion to being a <2% factor". <S> There's always going to be games of Dominion where you repeatedly draw exactly what you don't need and your opponent draws exactly what he does. <S> But if you don't let those games faze you, and just concentrate on outplaying your opponents, your win percentage should creep up comfortably above 50% as you become an expert at the finer point of the game. <S> And that's all it takes to be a great Dominion player. <S> Not 100% win rates against "lesser opponents" and the total elimination of luck, just the ability to maximise your game, whatever the game throws at you, and even though sometimes it won't be enough. <A> The standard tournament rule for Dominion is allowing players to pick their initial hand (so they can choose whether they want a 5/2 or a 4/3 split). <S> That reduces a lot of the luck if there's a particularly good 5/2 combo out there. <A> The WBC compensates for first player advantage by playing 2 game rounds, and reversing turn order by round. <S> It doesn't really do anything about luck though.
|
I think the only reasonable way to mitigate luck is to play a lot of games.
|
Does Wrath of God really destroy creatures with shroud? I heard - (from an official MtG judge) - that Wrath of God ( "Destroy all creatures" ) destroys creatures with the Shroud ability, because it doesn't target a single creature, it targets all creatures. Is this really true? In my opinion it is very illogical. <Q> Yes, Wrath of God will kill all creatures with shroud. <S> It will also kill all creatures that have protection from white. <S> It won't kill creatures that are indestructible. <S> To understand why this is, you have to look at the definitions of the terms. <S> Shroud means: "this creature can't be the target of spells or abilities". <S> Protection means (among other things): "this creature can't be the target of spells or abilities of the colour in question". <S> Wrath of God just says "Destroy all creatures". <S> No mention of targets at all. <S> And I think this is where your confusion is arising. <S> Wrath of God doesn't "target all creatures and destroy them". <S> It doesn't target anything. <S> It just destroys them, whether they're slippery customers or not. <S> Boom! <S> Creatures with Shroud only interact with, and care about, the word "target" on a card. <S> If you can't find "target" written anywhere on the card, then Shroud won't have any effect on what that card can do. <S> As an interesting side point, take a look at a card like Copy Enchantment . <S> This puts into play a copy of an enchantment already on the battlefield. <S> But note that nowhere on the card does it say "target" . <S> This means that if you copy an Aura on the battlefield, you can put that copy onto a creature with Shroud... even if the original Aura would have been unable to enchant that creature when it was cast! <S> Sometimes Magic does some pretty counter-intuitive things, but it's very internally consistent. <S> Hope that's clarified things more than it's confused them, for you! <A> Not only Wrath of God is possible of doing this: Damnation, Hallowed Burial, Infest and Pyroclasm for instance can do it as well. <S> Because they don't target. <A> Another thing to note is that all the cards mentioned except for Pyroclasm also kills creatures with protection from < color >. <S> Pyroclasm doesn't kill them because protection, besides from making it untargetable, also prevents damage. <S> I've seen a lot of people missunderstanding this.
|
Indestructible creatures survive a Wrath because their ability ("cannot be destroyed") specifically interacts with the word "destroy" on the card Wrath of God.
|
How long does it take to play Elder Sign? This dice game version of Arkham Horror is about to be published by Fantasy Flight but a lot of gamers have already picked it up or at least demoed it at GenCon and PAX Prime. I've read a few comments that stated Elder Sign did not play in one hour as advertised, but these comments were rather vague. Is there a group consensus on how long this game takes to play? <Q> Boardgamesgeek suggests it takes 120 minutes . <S> I don't know where your "one hour figure" comes from, whether it's written on the box or not, but I'd definitely tend to take the word of the diehard gamers at BGG over the word of the manufacturers, every time! <A> I suspect that the fastest possible play would be two to three players with good cooperative housekeeping, which might be under an hour. <S> I've played once with five players (three new), and it took about two hours from box open to completion (Hastur, by elder signs). <S> There was definitely a "too many cooks" effect, especially with new players - we were hardly playing the game ourselves on many turns. <S> Two hours does seem excessive, but that can be how it shakes out. <S> I have also played twice solo. <S> The first took 90 minutes (Yig) and the second under 60 minutes, including setup from closed box. <S> (I lose about 30 seconds trying to open the box. <S> I might have to start greasing the stupid thing.) <S> Completion time is affected by other things too: <S> Universal things - Players wandering off, explaining rules to newbies, over-strategizing <S> Protectiveness - Trying hard not to get doom tokens or lose characters may cost you more real-world time than it is worth <S> Big bad drawn <S> - Ask an experienced player for details. <S> This largely depends on elder signs. <A> Two hours seems excessive.
|
I've played three games now (two games with two players, one solo), they seem to average around 30-45 minutes (the first game took longer, unsurprisingly). 120 minutes sounds about right for 4+ players.
|
What are useful guidelines for deciding when to power down in RoboRally? I'm having trouble putting my finger on clear guidelines for choosing when to announce a power down, and would love to hear some analyses. <Q> There are several things to take into account: <S> Your position in the race . <S> If I 'm comfortably ahead, I will be somewhat more inclined to power down (willing to accept a known handicap rather than possibly risk an unknown turn of events if I take much damage quickly). <S> Terrain . <S> Contrary to other answers, I will be more inclined to power down on conveyor belts that take me closer to where I want to be. <S> I might even power down when I normally would not consider doing so, because it's unlikely that I would be able to effectively utilize all 5 registers while at the same time staying on the belt . <S> From that perspective, it costs less to power down in this situation. <S> Of course all of this assumes that I will stay on the belt, which brings us to... Proximity to other robots . <S> In this situation I would consider powering down only if in imminent danger of being destroyed, and even then I might risk it if my last archive was close by. <A> A key question is whether you'll do as much missing the first of the next, say, three turns after powering down as you would have done with all three turns. <S> I don't have any probability analysis to back this up, though. <S> If I'm landing on a conveyor belt that will take me closer to where I'm going, I am only slightly more likely to power down. <S> I recommend against overemphasizing this (conveyor belts concentrate robots, and people might push me off or shoot me while on the same conveyor belt). <S> If I'm expecting to be in the "thick of things" at the end of my turn, I may end up with nearly as much damage as I started with, so I would almost not power down at all unless I am expecting locked registers. <S> The loss of control for a whole turn can be very damaging. <S> If I'm going to be in an area difficult to leave (such as being in between conveyor belts that point at me, and needing move 2 or move 3 to make progress) <S> I am more likely to choose a power down. <A> I don't think about powering down until the first register is locked. <S> If the number of robots in the field is low, I might continue one or two turns, but if the number of robots is more than four, I will power down. <S> When I announce my power down, I will try to move away from the clutter of robots to avoid a possible death. <S> And I will definitely not power down on a conveyor belt, but that's just due previous experiences.
|
If I 'm trying to catch up, I will only power down if it seems my progress is getting way too slow due to locked registers. Obviously powering down when near other robots is risky, even more so if there is deadly terrain nearby. I have found that it's clearly wrong to announce when I am expecting to have only 2 damage, and probably wrong when I'm expecting to have 3 damage.
|
How do I manage double-faced cards in Innistrad (MTG) tournament play? I read about the new mechanic in Innistrad, the upcoming MTG edition, called double-faced cards . These cards have two faces, and no standard Magic back. They have actual creatures on both sides. In the linked article they describe two options for handling those cards: To put a double-faced card into your deck, you have two options: You can put your entire deck in opaque card sleeves, as many players already do, or you can use the checklist card provided in many Innistrad packs. If you're using checklist cards to represent any of the double-faced cards in your deck, you must use checklist cards to represent all of them. I am not happy with either of these options. As a card collector I want my cards nice and clean and I will definitely not remove them from their sleeve during actual play, which is required for the first option. Those cards would take damage really fast. So this option does not work for me. The alternative is using those checklist cards, but as far as I understand it, this requires me to keep the real cards on a separate pile. Every time I play a checklist card, I will search this pile and put the right card into play. Shouldn't be a problem if you are playing for fun at home or with people who know your deck well. But in a tournament situation, this will leak important information to my opponent. How many double-faced cards am I playing? How many of those are left? It is also very likely that my oppponent my get a glimpse at some of them while I search for a card in the pile, because double-faced cards are hard to hide. I am considering additional cards to act as decoys. Lets say I only have 4 checklist cards in my deck but I bring 20 different double-faced cards for the exchange-pile. Would this be allowed in a tournament? Or are there better ways to handle that? <Q> Yes, there's been a lot of anger about double-faced cards online. <S> Obviously they're going to "kind of, sort of" work, but only in a really clunky and annoying way. <S> No one want to have to be constantly subjecting their cards to wear and tear by sleeving and resleeving them - and players with bad memories are going to keep forgetting what's written on the second face too! <S> To answer your question, I cannot imagine there could be any possible objection to you keeping the number and nature of your DFCs secret. <S> I personally would probably want to invest in a deck box and keep the double-faced cards in there with your trades or casual decks. <S> Having any sort of visible "exchange-pile" (beyond your 15-card sideboard) when you sit down gives your opponent too much information: really, you don't want him knowing if you're playing double-faced cards at all, until you play one. <S> And if you think playing in Constructed tournaments is going to be annoying, just wait until you consider the implications for Draft. <S> Curse you, Wizards! <S> You've gone too far this time! :D <A> I am considering additional cards to act as decoys. <S> Lets say I only have 4 checklist cards in my deck <S> but I bring 20 different double-faced cards for the exchange-pile. <S> Would this be allowed in a tournament? <S> Or are there better ways to handle that? <S> I'm pretty sure you can bring as many token cards or those other promotional generic ad cards as you like. <S> Rather than bring extra double-faced cards, I would just put a bunch of token cards on top of your pile of double-faced cards. <S> Perhaps you'll have to show the cards to a judge before play, but I can't see how there would be a problem with that. <A> I saw a good approach for this that I adopted early on. <S> Sure I'm late to the party, but we have to deal with these cards for another year anyway, and if the Golgari have anything to say about it, we'll be using a lot of stuff from the Innistrad block. <S> The biggest issue with double faced cards is clearly protecting your investment by limiting resleeving. <S> To get around this, I put mine in the 100-for-a-dollar clear plastic sleeves with no backing on them. <S> My checklist card goes in my deck like a normal card (with a typical color-backed sleeve) while my clear plastic sleeve comes with my with my tokens. <S> The tokens are also sleeved with the cheap sleeves, because they are just as useful upside down (for random things that you simply need) as they are token side up. <S> This gives them a clever disguise, and hey if something catastrophic happened (some idiot spills a pop on the table) my both my tokens and cards I actually care about (looking at you, Bloodline Keeper) are protected. <S> Is it perfect? <S> No, but it satisifies my worries: opponent can't see inside my deck until it hits him, protect my cards, make it easy to work with. <A> The approach that I'm going to use initially is to protect the cards in sleeves, to set them in a side pile and to use the checklists in the deck. <S> Rather than mark my checklists, I'm going to put small stickers on the plastic slip (yes 2 covers for the cards). <S> For disguising my quantity of double faced cards, I am going to pad my pile with unmarked checklists. <S> It's probably not a perfect solution, but should avoid any issues of being accused of improperly substituting cards into the game. <A> but ummm.... <S> that could get expensive... <S> seems best bet though..probably what i will do.
|
lol.well..what you could do is buy double cards for cards in deck and sheath the cards one on each side...keep the flip side in a different sheathed pile..it would work well..
|
How Can I Identify How To Beat My Computer At Chess? This is an embarrassing question to have to ask, but here goes. Recently I've gotten a new Mac laptop which has a chess program on it. I'm not a chess expert by any means: I can beat casual players most of the time, but I suspect I wouldn't stand a chance against anyone who was actually good at the game. But it's becoming humiliating being utterly crushed by my computer every time! I'm meant to be the boss of this relationship, but in our battle of wits I am utterly outclassed. Obviously powerful modern computers have certain advantages over human beings when it comes to a game of pure analysis like chess; but I feel as though there must be some way I can up my game. Are there any strategies I could adopt that would give me a chance of escaping defeat, or at least securing a draw? Even if I can't win against my computer, I suspect that even attempting to get better at doing so will make me better aware of the weaknesses of my approach and thus a much less awful chess player. Any ideas? Different computers play chess at different levels. How can I find out how well my computer plays, and then beat that level? <Q> Basically, you have to find out what level your computer plays at. <S> And then train to beat that level. <S> That's where they have an advantage over humans, and that's why the best ones can beat Gary Kasparov. <S> Computers aren't quite as good at certain "judgmental" aspects of chess, like when to sacrifice a pawn for a positional advantage. <S> They tend not to do as well in a middle game as in either the opening (when there are few pieces out) or the endgame (when there are few pieces left). <S> Basically, you need to get to the point where your "branching" reading is almost (but not quite) as good as your computers. <S> Then you have to steer for a complicated middle game, where the computer's branching algorithm may break down, while your better judgment prevails. <S> (That's what Kasparov tried to do.) <S> As good as they are, it's fun to see a computer get confused when you throw a "curve ball" at them, in any application. <S> That should happen to your computer at "some" level of play. <S> Hopefully it won't be too much higher than yours. <A> There is no other option except to get better at chess, I believe. <S> I have seen interviews with the grandmasters who have had experience playing against computers, and they have noticed certain patterns that differentiate a human from a computer player. <S> One example I remember is that computers try to target uncovered valuable pieces, even if they are safely behind a line of pawns. <S> However, like in any activity, only the absolute top players can possibly benefit and exploit these differences, if at all. <S> So until you are approaching grandmaster level, there is not much you can do except training, learn openings and their counters, training, and some more training. <A> Computers are really good at spotting getting material in a few moves. <S> Your best bet is to look into strategy and plan longer than the computer can see. <A> There are a few answers I can think of The easiest would be to run 2 simulators and plug the moves of one into the moves of the other. <S> The other is to get good at chess. <S> I mean get sit in the park and beat the old russians playing for money good. <S> Most of the game is about determining which strategy is being used and employing the proper counter.
|
Computers are very good at looking deep into "branches" of moves. Get a few books on chess and read them to get a good base of knowledge to start from. Most good players will tell you that they recognize strategies and implement predetermined counters.
|
Why does Mana-Burn exist in Magic: The Gathering? My understanding of Mana-Burn is that if you have any left over mana in your mana-pool at the end of your turn, you loose that many life. But why is this rule necessary? The only time I see it come into play is when you have cards that give you multiple mana like Dark Ritual and Black Lotus , and isn't wasted mana penalty enough? I can't think of many times when I would purposely want to have extra mana left over in the first place. When and how does mana burn usually happen? Why was the rule added? How would Magic be different without it? <Q> Mana burn has been removed from the game in the magic 2010 rules update . <S> From the comprehensive rules glossary: Mana Burn (Obsolete) Older versions of the rules stated that unspent mana caused a player to lose life; this was called "mana burn." <S> That rule no longer exists. <S> When the rule was still in effect, you lost all unspent mana in your mana pool at the end of each step and phase (not turn), and you lost life equal to the amount of mana lost. <S> As for the reason why it was there: As you said, it was meant to punish anyone who didn't manage his or her mana well. <S> Also, there were a few cards that had the mana Burn rule in mind. <S> They would add Mana to a player's pool during on of his/her game phases. <S> Some would reward you for being tapped out or punish the opponent for not being tapped out, mostly in the Prophecy edition. <S> Why was it removed? <S> As you noted as well, it was practically irrelevant a rule as it only very rarely happened, and when it happened, it confused most players about the details of how it worked exactly. <A> Mana burn is no longer a part of the game as the other answers point out so well. <S> However, I feel like I have a definitive answer to " Why was the rule added? " <S> In episode <S> #4 of his game design podcast - Games With Garfield - Richard himself and Skaff Elias comment on the creation of mana burn. <S> transcript from 05:27 to 06:25 <S> SKAFF: <S> Mana burn really wasn't even in there in the beginning, for the first couple of years we played the game and it kind of crept in because we didn't want people to just go... <S> We needed a mana pool to make sense out of casting... <S> exactly how a card was cast, to try and formalize that, and then some people who were just trying to be jerks (maybe I was one of them) would just dump all their mana into their mana pool so that, you know, it couldn't be disrupted, cause certain things disrupted it back at the time. <S> And, anyway, to sort of prevent that and to prevent people to ever wanting to do that, mana burn was introduced into the game. <S> The clearing of mana out of the pools, and maybe that wasn't good enough <S> so maybe actually take some damage from it. <S> And then from there it took on a life of its own and actually became part of the play of the game. <S> And Richard Garfield adds: transcript from 6:26 to 6:47 <S> RICHARD: <S> Certainly, back in the old days there was a point where you could technically, at the start of you turn, just tap all your land and then you'd have all your mana for the whole turn. <S> And the only difference would be that your opponent couldn't tell how much it was, was a pain to keep track of and so forth <S> and so... <S> Mana burn eventually was an answer to that (...) <A> The short answer, is "it doesn't happen", as Hackworth has already correctly noted. <S> MaRo wrote a good article about why it was removed, which you can read here . <S> Why was it in the game in the first place? <S> Well, it does make a difference. <S> Check out cards like Mana Drain and Eladamri's Vineyard . <S> Mana Drain is less powerful (though only marginally - it's still a beating) with mana burn; without mana burn, it now has no downside over Counterspell whatsoever. <S> Eladamri's Vineyard is considerably less good than it was - <S> the fun in the old days was giving a non-green deck mana it would have trouble using, hopefully causing burn. <S> Now the card is much more symmetrical, with very little downside even for a nongreen opponent. <S> Also look at spells like Branded Brawlers , which "can't block if you control an untapped land". <S> At the time Prophecy was an interesting set which rewarded you for mana management and tapping out every turn. <S> Now it's a lot easier to tap out <S> - it doesn't cost you life if you don't have something to do with your mana! <S> Prophecy as a set is full of cards which look pretty pointless these days. <S> But really, it was a pretty fiddly rule, which almost never had a significant impact on gameplay, and wasn't really worth the extra bookkeeping it involved. <S> Most Magic players <S> I think don't really miss it.
|
So, to sum up, it seems that mana burn was created as a game design mechanical fix to avoid memory issues and to avoid some weird situations in the original spell timing rules .
|
Good first leads in sheepshead In most trick-taking card games when you have a strong hand (as the bidder should in sheepshead) it's good to lead with high cards to retain control. However, in sheepshead players tend to hold on to the point-cards until they know who the partner is -- and they definitely won't drop points on tricks the bidder is clearly taking -- so I usually try to deliberately lose control, without making it too easy. I don't want to play below the 10 of diamonds, because then the Ace or 10 of diamonds will often be played and I won't get them. Similarly, I don't like leading low non-trump. I suppose if I had an Ace as my only card in a suit I might lead it, or if I've put an Ace or 10 down in a suit I might lead a lower card in it, but generally I lean toward jacks -- as low of jacks as possible. I hope this will flush out some trump yet discourage anyone else from taking points. What do you think is a good first lead? <Q> I play a lot of dopplekopf (aka double sheepshead although there are more differences than just the deck size). <S> A bare fail-suit (non-trump) <S> Ace has a reasonable chance of taking a trick and certainly helps your team. <S> The odds that your partner(s) had a better legal play <S> had they known you were on their team <S> are small, so this seems like a good lead. <S> If you're the picker's partner, leading a jack (or sub-10 diamond, though jacks are better) to your partner's presumed high trump is a very good play. <S> If you're the picker, consider leading a red queen early to attempt to force opponents into difficult decisions (especially before partners are known). <S> If you have a more middling / balanced hand, letting things go unknown for longer may result in teammates overtrumping each other. <A> Assumptions: You're playing 5 player sheepshead. <S> You are leading and the picker. <S> (Seemed implied) <S> Your hand isn't super-strong. <S> Let's start with the "Lead a singleton fail Ace" ploy. <S> As we know, there are 6 cards of fail. <S> In order to have a singleton fail Ace, either the player was singleton before burying, or the player buried other fail in the suit. <S> In the latter case, I'd avoid leading the singleton Ace (it's expected to be trumped). <S> In the former case: why wasn't the singleton Ace buried? <S> Could be a weak pickup. <S> Regardless, the expectation for leading a singleton Ace is that three players have exactly one of the fail and one player has exactly two of the fail. <S> It demonstrates a weak position to the other players (perhaps you can see the perspiration appearing on one of the players and deduce that to be your partner). <S> I tend to like the basic strategy of draining trump. <S> Lead JD or higher. <S> Expect to pull three of "their" trump for two of "your" trump. <S> Expect to lose AD or TD on this trick (unless you buried them). <S> Depending on where the holes are in your trump, you might want to play high or low. <S> Say, you have QC, QH, QD, and are missing QS. <S> You can gamble with QC (know your counts!), or you can drop QD on the table. <S> In a situation where my pickup wasn't terribly strong, I'm definitely seeking to drain my opponents of their chance to trump fail. <S> It may risk AD or TD, but I'd rather lose an early trump trick than have the table pile points. <S> (On the opponent side, if the strategy is to throw points on tricks even when the partner is unknown (odds in the opponents' favor, and might be the only chance), it's likely the lone Ace will be trumped and shmeered). <S> HTH, Tyler <A> As to why a fail ace might not be buried:It happens, but rarely, all three turn up in your hand (assuming picker).A lone fail ace doesn't seem too much of a handicap, in my experience. <S> However, should you have the choice between a protected ace or a lone ace to keep, then.. <S> It depends... as always, on how you judge the strength of your hand - specifically, how well you can maintain lead. <S> I wouldn't lead fail ace, as a rule, until after milking as much trump as possible from opponents first. <S> As partner without trump <S> http://www.sheepshead.org/advanced.cfm#tips <S> suggests leading fail ace instead. <S> It does say 'if picker is on the end' too. <S> And, I would add, preferably a lone ace. <S> One story melds to another. <S> Meh, it happens.
|
Leads that might fish out partners are generally more valuable if you have a strong hand (trump) or a lot of points (especially in fail suits), because in both those situations, your hand will be vastly improved by good teamwork.
|
What happens to loyalty counters on a double faced Planeswalker? When a double faced planeswalker, like Garruk Relentless transforms into Garruk, the Veil Cursed there is no new loyalty symbol at the bottom of the card. Does his current loyalty carry over or is there some new mechanic to deal with DFC Planeswalkers? <Q> From the official Wizards site's article about Double-Faced Card Rules : <S> After a double-faced card transforms, it's still the same card, so any Auras, counters, or other effects stay right where they are (unless the double-faced card's characteristics have changed such that an Aura can no longer legally enchant it). <S> This obviously includes a planeswalker's loyalty counters. <S> I think it's helpful to imagine the "transform" action as being a literal transform - the face of the card almost magically instantaneously changes from one aspect to another. <S> If you think of it over-literally as "flipping the card over" then it's logical to imagine everything falling off! <S> But this isn't what happens. <A> This is covered by the Magic Comprehensive Rules : 121.1. <S> A counter is a marker placed on an object or player that modifies its characteristics and/or interacts with a rule, ability, or effect. <S> 711.7. <S> When a double-faced permanent transforms, it doesn‘t become a new object. <S> Any effects that applied to that permanent will continue to apply to it after it transforms. <S> Example: <S> An effect gives Village Ironsmith (the front face of a double-faced card) +2/+2 until end of turn and then Village Ironsmith transforms into Ironfang. <S> Ironfang will continue to get +2/+2 until end of turn. <S> The official Innistrad FAQ mentions this as well: <S> Transforming a permanent doesn't affect any Auras or Equipment attached to that permanent. <S> Similarly, any counters on the permanent will remain on that permanent after it transforms. <A> According to DCI Level 2 Judge "Natedogg" the loyalty counters from the front face transfer to the back face. <S> Specifically You don't add or remove loyalty counters from Garruk Relentless when he transforms into Garruk, the Veil-Cursed. <S> In most cases, he'll have one or two loyalty counters on him. <S> Since it's a natural follow up question about the one ability per turn use of a planeswalker <S> You can't activate a loyalty ability of Garruk Relentless and later that turn after he transforms activate a loyalty ability of Garruk, the Veil-Cursed.
|
When Garruk Relentless transforms into Garruk, the Veil-Cursed, he remains the same object, so there's no reason to believe anything happens to his loyalty counters.
|
What the key minis for a new Ultramarine player to get? I am starting to play Warhammer 40,000 as an Ultramarine Space Marine player. I got the starter kit: Assault on Black Reach and have been enjoying painting stuff since. Where should I look next to start building up my army? My goal is to have an army of around 2000 points eventually, while I build up my understanding of the tactics of the game. <Q> Your obvious next steps are a copy of the Codex: Space Marines book and another squad of Tactical Marines. <S> You're going to need to book to effectively plan your army, and you will find it impossible to win games under the 5th edition rules without enough regular tactical marines around to hold objectives! <S> From there you'll need to make some key decisions in what type of army you want to have. <S> Drop Pod Army?Mechanized <S> (everyone in Rhinos and maybe a land raider for your terminators) Army?Fast <S> Assault Army with lots of jump pack marines and bike marines, land speeders? <S> An army that has a focus is usually much more effective in 40K than having one of each different unit type in the book. <S> The nature of space marines and the need to have tactical squads around means you can devote yourself to a focus that you find appealing without worrying too much about your army becoming entirely one-dimensional. <S> An upside for marines! <S> Of course your budget can also help guide early decisions. <S> An entire army of dudes riding in $40 drop pods adds up fast! <S> Having the codex will make it easier for you to see what different paths you can follow when making a plan to buy your army. <A> Rhinos Rhinos are mandatory because of their extremely high effectiveness-to-cost ratio. <S> They allow you to take your tactical squad, and for the low price of about 35 points, render it immune to anti infantry fire until such time as your opponent brings antitank weaponry to bear. <S> Dreadnoughts <S> Further, Dreadnoughts, being "Walkers", have a great deal of flexibility in terms of move-and-fire, and even tying up any enemy infantry squads that lack grenade-based antitank weapons in eternal combat. <S> Unless you're building out a specialized Drop Pod/Biker army, you're going to have Rhinos. <S> Also Dreadnoughts. <A> You will need for sure some heavy firepower, so at least 1 devastator squad is almost mandatory, or a squad of predator tanks (single unit but has faster mobility). <S> Terminator squads + drop pods are great, or if you prefer by terrain go for terminator squad + land raider combos. <S> For close combat you can either have assault terminators (slow but deadly) + land raider/drop pod, or assault marines. <S> I prefer the terminators, but personal taste. <S> PS: I am not an expert (more painter than player), so take my advice with reserve. <S> I only play with my friends and not very often
|
Dreadnoughts are frequently seen because they provide Space Marine armies with a good source of long-range anti-vehicle fire, without costing as much or being as vulnerable as an equivalent squad of Devestators.
|
I have an idea for a card game. How can I best start testing it? I've been playing around with an idea for a card game for some time, and I think I've finally got the idea fairly well in place. How can I best start testing it out to refine it? <Q> There are different stages to testing. <S> You need to make sure the core idea and gameplay is workable. <S> You can do some of this by playing through a few games with just you playing for each other player. <S> Then you need to start creating the game. <S> This will be an iterative process. <S> You get the game together, and draft some instructions, and get some friends round to play it. <S> Take many notes! <S> See how they understand the instructions <S> ; make notes of any oddities during play; see if they understand the game in the way you intend. <S> Make changes, and do this again. <S> Do this a few times. <S> Eventually you'll get a game that's ready for beta testing with people who don't know you; maybe as a print and play download. <S> Make sure people know it's a beta test, and make sure they have some good method for reporting problems they have and getting help. <S> You'll also want to think about asking people to try to break the game; trying to use weird strategies to win or "king making" or rushing or such. <A> If you think you'll have to frequently change cards you could use card sleeves instead of glue/tape. <S> Simply print out a new version and swap. <S> You'll probably have to add some kind of real card to the sleeve to give it stability. <S> As for the actual testing, just ask people to try it out with you and tell you what they think. <S> You'll probably want to have a core group of testers that play more frequently so they can examine advanced strategies. <S> Once you're confident in your game you should have some blind playtesting <S> : See how people handle the game with nothing more than the cards and the rulebook. <A> Buy normal playing cards (maybe more than one deck if you have a lot of cards in your game), print your special cards on normal paper (or write something on pieces of paper) and simply tape/glue them on the cards you bought. <S> They will all look the same from the back and won't require you to make them on expensive paper. <S> Note: when you finally make the game, thing about cuttong the corners of the cards in rounded shape to avoid them to be destroyed too easely. <A> One Solution would be to start with index cards. <S> No need to look fancy until you are sure you are happy with what you have got. <S> (this could depend on the kind of card game. <S> Like if you are using a game that can use standard playing cards then go with the obvious, however if you are making a trading card game or something then this solution could work for you.) <S> Once you have your cards and whatever extra stuff such as dice and what not that you need then gather up a few people and give them a rough overview of your game. <S> Once you pique their interests bring them to a place where they can play, give them a set of rules. <S> It's important that you don't play with them while they test it. <S> Instead of playing, keep a notebook with you and note down different details about how the players interact with your game. <S> What makes them frustrated? <S> , do they understand the rules? <S> , are they enjoying themselves? <S> , do they quit? <S> , if so why?, and <S> what not. <S> Also make the players feel that they can stop playing at any time so that they don't continue to play just out of respect for you, or out of the feeling of being trapped. <S> As you take notes also keep in mind the personalty of those you have playing. <S> Are they your intended audience for your game? <S> If so are you appealing to your audience? <S> Also if they are not your intended audience do they find interest in your game? <S> If so how can you maybe expand play to include their style and maybe broaden your market? <S> After you get these notes down be sure to look over your game and make revisions where necessary. <S> Once revisions are made try to have a play test with the same players and see if you have improved the experience at all. <A> Just write whatever text you need on the face of the card and start playing. <S> It's a good idea to keep extras on hand for use as you need to add/remove/change the cards in your deck. <S> I could list a few sources, but your best bet is to check out Google Products to see what fits your needs the best.
|
Try the game with different people, and see what comes out of it. You can purchase blank faced playing cards that are perfect for prototyping.
|
What are good resources or techniques to improve one's offence or finishing game? I'm a moderately skilled chess player; I can beat most casual players and survive quite a while against class A, expert, or master players. Unfortunately, virtually all of my skill is in control of the center and defense. I have almost no ability to then pin someone down and actually win the game; if a person is close to my skill level or above, they will likely ultimately win. Are there any resources for learning more offensive strategies? Even if the techniques are a little heavy handed, I could learn from seeing them. Most guides I've seen focus on a balanced style, but I feel with such an unbalanced one already, those wouldn't help as much. <Q> Get a book of checkmate problems, and go through the whole thing. <S> Then find another, and do the same thing. <S> When you are done, you will have no problem attacking. <S> Once your feel comfortable with simpler checkmate problems, get a book of general problems. <S> After all, in a real game, not every move is forced checkmate :) <S> One of my favorites (which is extremely challenging) is Winning Chess Tactics Illustrated by I.A. Horowitz. <S> Another very good site for these is chesstempo.com , which will adjust the difficulty of the problems it shows you based on how well you do. <S> After you get a bit better (after, say, 5000 problems), if you are still interested in improving your attacking skills, I highly recommend Vladimir Vukovic's book Art of Attack in Chess . <S> Also, study the games of World Champions <S> Tal and especially Alekhine , widely considered to be the greatest attackers of all time. <A> You're in an interesting position -- most players, especially below master level, are much better at attack than at defense. <S> In fact, adopting an "attacking" style that is not necessarily perfectly sound (i.e., gambits that trade material for initiative) will very often result in the opponent "folding" under the pressure of a steady onslaught. <S> +1 to Shannon for recommending endgame study. <S> It's my favorite part of the game, personally. <S> When you know endgames well, you will see in your games the opportunity to steer the game (by making certain trades of material and creating certain pawn structures, for example) toward favorable endgames and away from unfavorable ones. <S> Of course, study of tactics is really important, especially in developing attacks. <S> You say you love to control the center -- well there's a reason for doing this in chess <S> , it's to give your pieces a launching point to attack! <S> If you can amass your army in the center against a point around the opponent's king, beyond your opponent's ability to defend, you can win by throwing material at the opponent's king to open lines to the king, then mount a checkmating attack (as Fischer said, "sac, sac, mate!"). <S> One thing famous chess instructor National Master Dan Heisman (http://danheisman.com) recommends is to study annotated collections of master games, relatively quickly. <S> After going through a sufficient number of games (around a thousand or so? <S> That's why you should go through them quickly!), you'll really start to get a feel for moves that masters make, and how they take advantage of positional advantages like center control. <S> Also +1 to BlueRaja for Art of Attack in Chess. <S> A great book about attacking themes and patterns, so you can recognize the possibilities for attacking the king in your own games as well. <A> This is a deep and nearly endless area of study but likely even some study of how to win in a variety of endgame situations will help your game considerably. <S> It will, for example, help you identify when you can win with a King & Pawn vs. a King and when it is a likely draw (or more likely when it is a King & Pawn vs. King and Pawn whether either player can win). <S> It is a bit out of date but a very solid starting point would be my favorite chess book, Emanuel Lasker's Manual of Chess. <S> The whole book likely would help your game, but his opening chapters cover the endgame in some detail. <S> In essence the art of finishing chess games is the art of getting to (and then accurately achieving) a winning position. <S> The simplest winning positions are endgame positions with few pieces left on the board. <S> In fact many puzzles are endgame positions disguised with the addition of additional (but unnecessary) pieces on the board. <S> Once you are confident that you can win with just a few pieces (and in particular that you know when you can win with an extra pawn or a given pawn position vs when you can draw vs when you will lose) your middlegame likely will gain in confidence. <S> This is a bit of a generalization <S> but I've found that beginners at times end up in the "endgame" through back and forth trades of pieces/loss of pieces and then may spend a lot of time trying to find how/if one side can win. <S> More advanced players will often strive to win in the middlegame (and may at times) but then flounder a bit when their attacks are met and the game moves to an endgame situation (which becomes a bit rarer for players of some skill) <S> Experts (and masters) will less often see "real" endgame situations (as they will more often recognize that they have lost and resign) but their skill and confidence with their endgame is what allows them to avoid it (for the most part). <S> In timed, tournament chess this confidence and skill will often be decisive as the clock becomes a very real factor especially in complex endgame situations. <A> Your issue is that you tend to play "balanced" games. <S> That seems to serve you well on defense. <S> To address your particular issue, you might want to seek out "unbalanced" games. <S> Examples would include situations where you sacrifice a piece for two or three pawns plus a positional advantage, or the "exchange" for one or two pawns. <S> Or play more gambits, where you sacrifice a pawn for positional advantage. <S> Even positions where one player had an extra pawn on one side of the board, and the other player an extra pawn on the other side might help.
|
Checkmate and other chess puzzles can be a good way to practice but what you probably need to do is study the Endgame.
|
Maxing out your buys in early Dominion How important is it to always buy the most expensive thing that you can with your first buys in Dominion? I appreciate that in the later stages of the game you often have more money than you can profitably spend, especially since the more expensive cards are often very situational. However, in the first three turns or so, how important is it to always buy the most expensive cards that I can afford with my copper? <Q> As a rule, not important. <S> Far better to have a strategy that you follow than to buy the most expensive card you can afford. <S> The value of a card will vary depending on your deck, and knowing when to buy a less expensive card that your deck needs (or nothing at all) is, I think, part of the transition from a beginner to intermediate player. <S> If there's a Chapel, it's almost always worth spending $3 on it in your first turns, as getting it early is more important than waiting for an unlucky draw with only $2. <S> For certain kingdom sets you might not want any $5's at all , so buying one just because you have $5 would be deplorable. <S> Similarly, as @thesunneversets points out, Silver is often what your deck needs instead of a $3, $4 or even $5 action if you're not hitting $6 enough for gold. <S> Buy the card your deck most needs that you can afford! <A> As a very vague rule of thumb, I like buying a Silver on one of my first two turns, to keep my purchasing power from fizzling as my deck gets clogged up with "cool" action cards. <S> What this means in practice is that, if my Coppers divide 5 and 2 over my first two draws, I'll seriously consider buying a Silver with the 5; unless there's a 5-cost action card that really suits my style and strategy. <S> Not doing enough "boring" plays like buying more money is one of the main reasons for people losing Dominion way more often than they should, as far as I can see. <A> The strength difference between $3s and $4s isn't that big. <S> Underbuying at $5 and $6 should require a lot more thought. <A> You need to weigh the cards in play, both on their own value plus the value of any combinations you can use them in. <S> If other players are buying a lot of attack cards, you may want to pick up a defense card on one of the first two turns (Moat, Lighthouse, or Watchtower). <S> Also, watch what other players are buying. <S> For example, in my games at work (we play every day at lunch), Fishing Village gets sold out very quickly. <S> If you don't buy at least one during the first two turns, there may not be any left to buy. <S> The value of some cards may depend on what other cards are in play. <S> The value of Smugglers, for example, goes down if Colony and Platinum are in play. <S> The value of Village goes down if any of the other +2 action cards are in play. <S> The value of Horse Traders, Cellar, Witch, Torturer, Sea Hag, Familiar, Montebank, and Young Witch go down if Chapel is in play. <A> It depends entirely on the strategy you're going for. <S> In the general case, buying the most expensive cards you can afford earlier will allow you to use on average more powerful abilities sooner. <S> Although in the grand scheme of things, these slightly more powerful cards you purchased early on may not play along with your strategy, and may actually slow you down. <A> Sometimes, this is a point below the coin I have in hand; my strategies generally don't result in lower than that unless I've got multiple buy as well. <S> If no cards of the available coin total are going to help, it's worth looking one point cheaper. <S> Silver and Gold, when available, are usually good choices, but targeted action cards should trump them if you already have plenty. <A> (Disclaimer: <S> the sets I play are the base Dominion + Intrigue, so things may be different with newer cards.) <S> I usually try to buy two action cards with my first two hands if they combine into a good strategy. <S> If there are no good fours, I would get a silver instead of trying to choose between Thief, Gardens and Feast. <S> If the only five on the table is a Festival, it only works as +2 money in the first five hands or so, and you would still want to intentionally overstock action cards for Festival to make better sense than Silver, which rarely is a good idea (it is kinda embarrassing to play six actions, with everybody looking at you playing the whole deck, gain two more action cards, and only end up with 5 money to buy yourself a Dutchy). <S> If I get two action cards in the first shuffle, and they indeed make up a reasonable strategy, then I make sure to get two or more silvers in the next two hands. <S> With more than two actions in your early deck, chances are you won't be able to use these actions effectively; if you have +actions in them, chances are that the matching action won't come up, and if you have four actions in 14 cards after the second shuffle, chances are you will have too many terminal actions in any given hand. <S> I think my wife always buys a silver with 3 money in the first two hands, even if there's Chapel on the table, and we probably win equally often in our games of three or four with the friends (and more often than the friends do, because the friends rotate, and we stay :) ). <S> Here's a related, more specific question: with a Coppersmith and four Coppers <S> , should you go for Province in your third hand, or for gold? <S> There was a Coppersmith discussion on SE, although this particular question was only briefly touched upon. <S> (I agree with that discussion that it only makes sense to buy Coppersmith if you can trash it two or three shuffles later, so it must be a pretty peculiar lineup of cards for me to be interested in it as a first buy.)
|
In general, it's important to buy the most expensive card you can afford that works with your strategy for this set of available cards.
|
What are the rules for the card game "High Nines"? A long time ago, my cousin taught me a card game he called "High Nines": It was a trick-taking game, similar to Euchre, though it used the full card deck. Trump cards were worth one point, except for the 9s, which were worth nine. The 2s would stay in the score pile of the person who played them, even if they didn't take the trick. There was a rule that let you double your score for the round, but it could be turned against you, somehow. Does this game seem familiar to anyone, and can they point me to a full set of rules for it? <Q> Not official, but at least a start: <S> High 9 Deck of 52 plus 2 Jokers (mark them <S> "Big" and "Little") 4 players - draw for partners (2 high cards and 2 low cards) <S> High card deals Deal 9 cards to each player & keep the rest to pass out to the player who gets the highest bid. <S> The player to the dealer's left starts the bid anywhere from 9 to 25. <S> Must at least start at 9. <S> Any player can "Shoot the Moon" at the first bid when it comes to their turn. <S> Only the dealer can shoot over. <S> No one else can. <S> The bidder must get all 25 points & you will win the game. <S> If you are in the whole or a negative when you "Shoot the Moon", then you will only come to a zero. <S> When the bidding starts, each player can bid or pass. <S> When you pass, you are out of the bidding. <S> Highest bidder gets to name trumps. <S> Each player throws away all their cards that are not the trump except for the Off-Jack, Big & Little Joker, and off-nine. <S> The dealer deals the remaining cards up to 6 per player, then gives the rest to the highest bidder. <S> The highest bidder keeps all trumps, including the Off-Jack, Big & Little Joker, and Off-Nine and throws the rest away. <S> If the bidder has more than 6 trumps, he/she can pass all over 6 to his partner. <S> Game starts with the bidder. <S> Bidder may start with a trump card or any off card. <S> You must follow suit. <S> If you do not have suit, you can play any card. <S> Total of 25 points per hand. <S> Total per game is 52. <S> Point cards are: Ace=1, Jack=1, off-Jack=1, Big Joker=1, Little Joker=1, Ten=1, Nine=9, off-Nine=9, Two=1 Cards catch in this order: Ace, King, Queen, Jack, Off-Jack, Big Joker, Little Joker, Ten, Nine, Off-Nine, Eight, Seven, Six, Five, Four, Three, Two <S> From a printed rules with slight modification for formatting & grammar correction <A> It could also be a variation of Pedro . <S> The first variation on that rules page is called High Five , which sounds similar to your game name "High Nines". <S> Similarities to your description: uses full deck trump values: <S> trump ace ("high") ... <S> 1 pointtrump jack ... <S> 1 pointtrump ten (sometimes called "game") ... 1 pointtrump five ("pedro") ... 5 pointsother five of same colour ("low pedro") ... 5 pointstrump two ("low") ... 1 point <S> If you fail to make your bid, you subtract that amount from your score. <S> Otherwise you score what you take and your opponents do the same. <S> Nine Card Don has a more pyramidal scoring structure, so I think this is a better fit. <A> Sounds like you might mean Nine Card Don .
|
If you lose 1 point, then you will lost the game.
|
How do you tell the difference between Alpha and Beta Star Trek CCG? The 1994 Decipher Star Trek CCG Premier/1st Edition cards were released in black border limited and in white border which I've only recently found described as both alpha and beta releases. I'm processing a huge lot of these cards, is there any way to distinguish between the alpha edition and the beta edition? I know it's a trivial value issue, but I strongly prefer to put the right collections together. <Q> The white bordered beta edition was produced in 1995 and bears 1995 on the copyright line. <S> The sets are otherwise indistinguishable. <S> Additionally there is a silver bordered collector's edition that was distributed in a metal container. <S> The cards with changes between Alpha and Beta are: ARMUS - SKIN OF EVIL — changed lore from "Malevolent being formed when the inhabitants of Vagra II rid themselves of all the evil they have inside." <S> to "A malevolent being was formed when the inhabitants of Vagra II rid themselves of all the evil they had inside." <S> DISTORTION FIELD — changed "prevents any beam down here" to "... <S> prevents beam down/up here... <S> " <S> EMERGENCY <S> TRANSPORTER ARMBANDS — changed "Beam Personnel up or down at any time, even during a battle before the winner is determined." <S> to "Beam your Personnel up or down at any time, except during a dilemma (unless specifically permitted). <S> May be used during battle before the winner is determined." <S> EVACUATION — changed "Strength" to "STRENGTH" FIRESTORM — changed "... unless thermal deflectors present. <S> Discard dilemma. <S> " to "...unless thermal deflectors present OR Away Team escapes using emergency transporter armbands. <S> Discard dilemma." <S> GIUSTI — <S> corrected misspelling of "consol" to "console" <S> **INVESTIGATE TIME CONTINUUM — corrected misspelling of "Dividia" to "Devidia" KHITOMER RESEARCH — changed from Romulan to Romulan and Klingon mission <S> LWAXANNA TROI — corrected misspelling of "Lwaxanna" to "Lwaxana" <S> MENDON — corrected misspelling of "specialist" to "specialists" 'T'PAN — <S> added MINDMELD skill <S> THE JUGGLER — corrected misspelling of "Lwaxanna" to "Lwaxana" TORAL — changed "... <S> bidding of half sisters, Lursa and B'Etor. <S> " to "...bidding of Duras's sisters, Lursa and B'Etor. <S> " <S> TSIOLKOVSKY INFECTION <S> — added "(Not cumulative.) <S> " <S> U.S.S. OBERTH <S> — moved staff icon to center of art block. <S> WESLEY CRUSHER — removed apostrophe from "Protege' of the Traveler. <S> " to read "Protege of the Traveler." <S> WIND DANCER — corrected misspelling of "Lwaxanna" to "Lwaxana" <A> I thought white was <S> alpha and black was beta... <S> When they first came out in Lexington Kentucky they were white bordered. <S> a year or so later they came out with black border, same cards as the white border but calling them beta. <A> I have 3 T'Pan . <S> 1 of them only has Science for skills while 2 of them have Science and Mindmeld. <S> I guess the just Science one is a miss print!
|
The white bordered alpha edition was produced in 1994 and bears 1994 on the copyright line.
|
How can we use multiple Carcassonne expansions without the game taking forever? My wife and I were playing Carcassonne last night with several of the expansions and we found that the game was taking a ridiculously long time. We had the base game, the River, Inns & Cathedrals, and Traders & Builders all in play at once. I am hoping to find a way to minimize the tiles in play without sacrificing the variations created by the expansions. Any suggestions? <Q> The simplest way is to simply shuffle up the tiles, then pull about 60-150 of them for use. <S> This will typically mean a 1-3 hour game, depending upon player speed and exact number of tiles. <S> It also limits the needed table space. <S> It does, however, also mean it is possible to not have any tiles turn up from a given expansion. <S> Also, don't use the River nor River II, nor the Count. <S> The River I & 2 simply lengthen setup and increase think-time needed at start.... <S> in addition to taking time to start, and adding 10+ tiles each. <S> The count, by allowing reinforcement as it does, really adds to tactical think-times. <S> If using princess and dragon, you may want to hold out one volcano, and shuffle it into the play stack after generating the ones you're going to play with. <S> This way, you know the dragon WILL show up, but might not be showing up twice. <S> Same for Tower tiles from The Tower. <A> I probably wouldn't use the River in a 2-player game: it acts to rapidly expand the available playing area and gives the players more "elbow room". <S> This may not be really what you want with just players, as it just means you may end up doing your separate things at opposite ends of the table. <S> I'm a big advocate of Traders & Builders and Inns & Cathedrals as adding a lot of strategic depth of the game, and I definitely wouldn't recommend removing them from the mix. <S> of course you'll be looking at a 2-hour game. <S> Or else you could agree to stop after half an hour or an hour or whatever <S> : as long as all players got an equal number of turns then there's no real harm in calling time, right? <A> If it is just two of you use a chess clock to force yourselves to play faster. <S> Play with the rule that if anyone runs out of time then they cannot play any more tiles. <S> We play with a multiplayer game timer that I wrote for my mobile phone, and we (3/4/5 of us) can get through 3 games with the basic set in an hour. <S> Before we had the game timer, we could drag out a game to well over an hour, and to be honest <S> it was pretty tedious. <A> You could just not use all of the expansions at once. <S> Instead, pick one or two expansions, maybe at random, every game. <S> Now there is variability, and each game will be different, but you don't have a ton of extra tiles and rules in play in any given game. <S> This is how collectible card games like Magic the Gathering, or deck building games like Dominion, manage to stay enjoyable, despite having tons of expansion and variability. <S> You don't increase the size of the game, or use all expansions at once, but rather each game you play can be played with a different set of elements but still within approximately the same level of time and complexity. <A> The best way to increase variability without impacting game length is to focus on the aspects of the expansions that do not involve tile drawing. <S> For example, you could use the base set (with or without the River), the large followers from I&C, and the builder and pig pieces from T&B, which would add most of the options without changing the length of the game. <A> An excellent 2-player method for lots of expansions: <S> Use a 30-minute timer that is out of view of both players. <S> Use all expansions you own mixed together in a big bag (The Traders and Builders bag will work). <S> When the timer goes off, no more tiles or meeples can be placed. <S> My wife and I are no strangers to Carcassonne expansions. <S> We regularly play with: The Phantom, Inns and Cathedrals, Traders and Builders, The Princess and the Dragon (without the fairy), The Flying Machine, The Messages (without the second scoring meeple), The Ferries, The Witch and the Mage, The Gold Mines, and the Cult. <S> We use colored dice on the scoreboard instead of a meeple, because we usually “pass go” 4-5 times each in a 30-minute game. <S> We roll a die to see who goes first, then the first player chooses how to start - selecting one of the following: the original starting tile, the River, the River II, or the City of Carcassonne. <S> We start the timer when the setup is ready and then play our hearts out until the timer goes off. <S> Cleanup is easy. <S> Just take out the starting tile(s) then shuffle the rest back into the bag. <S> We've tried lots of different methods over the years for balancing expansions and play-time, and this is definitely the best we’ve found. <S> Because it’s only 30 minutes, it stays fun, and we often have time to squeeze in a second board game.
|
You could try trying to add a time limit to your play - obviously you're now playing with over 100 tiles total, so if you're regularly taking over a minute to choose your move then
|
What is the optimal method to shuffle an organised deck of cards In a number of games I play there are a play deck and a discard deck (for example Ticket to Ride and Pandemic). The discard deck, by the way the games are constructed, becomes organised as cards are discarded in groups. However, the play deck needs to be as close to random as possible for the games to work well. I would like to know if there is an optimal way to shuffle a deck to overcome the self organisation of the discard decks in these circumstances. I can riffle shuffle well but have read some research that it would take 7 full riffle shuffles to effectivley remove the affects of an organised deck. Are there any other methods of cuttings of the deck or shuffle types that create a random deck in a more efficient manner? <Q> That's very, very simple in fact: shuffle the discard pile constantly. <S> Take a player that, while not playing his turn, shuffles the discard pile of cards. <S> When discarding, simply give the cards to this player (who can change when he's tired), he will put them in the deck and go on shuffling. <A> The article on Shuffling at the Wikipedia discusses the famous paper by Persi Diaconis and Dave Bayer which shows that a 52 card deck of cards doesn't become random until the fifth shuffle, and requires seven shuffles to become "truly" random. <S> Your question "Are there any other methods of cuttings of the deck or shuffle types that create a more random deck? <S> " isn't really asking the right question. <S> Even just cutting the deck will randomize the deck just as well as any other method, given enough cuts. <S> No other method will make it any "more random". <S> The real question is "how many cuts are required to fully randomize a deck of X cards?" <S> or "How many riffle shuffles are required?". <S> Pokerology.com has videos and tutorials for six different methods of shuffling cards. <A> With Ticket to ride, 3-5 riffle shuffles should be sufficient to randomize the deck sufficiently for play. <S> As long as the runs of matched cards aren't 5-6 cards long, it's not a big issue. <S> I'll note that japanese style block shuffling is inadequate for TTR until about the 9th or time through the deck, which I discovered due to using sleeved cards in Nordic. <S> However, for sleeved cards, riffling is a nearly surefire way to strip the sleeves, so sliding a block sideways into the deck works well. <S> Holding the deck loosely, pull a block, the place it looselysideways against the side of the deck, and gently push - it should interpenetrate. <S> This is actually about as efective as riffling if done with half the deck at a time, but it's easier to stack a deck this way, so have someone else cut the deck. <A> With every card game I play I do a mix of Riffle , Stripping , and Mongean-Stripping Combo . <S> I generally intermix these in a random order with a random number of times, usually at least 3. <S> I've found that mixing shuffling techniques, especially in a random order, will result in a fairly nice card distribution and randomization. <A> Generally speaking, I shuffle using a combination of overhand and Hindu shuffle . <S> I start with the pack in my left hand, pluck out the middle half with my right, and then proceed to drop blocks of cards alternatively onto the top and then bottom of the pack, using a quick flick of fingers or thumb to swap between cards dropping onto the top or bottom of the pack. <S> Two or three rounds of this do a pretty good job of randomising for most games. <S> For highly ordered discard piles however, this can leave small clusters of related cards, even after quite a few rounds. <S> If I really want to ensure that I break up sequences though, I use a Pile shuffle with the slight variation that I deal each card onto a random pile rather than visiting each pile in turn. <S> One round of this is usually enough to break up the sequences, then I usually finish off with a quick round or two of hand shuffling, as I describe above. <S> If I have the time, I'll do a pair of pile shuffles, picking two different prime numbers for the number of piles in each round. <S> This can can substantially amplify the randomisation, even if you use a sequential pile shuffle, since correlations between number of piles and sequence length will be broken by lack of correlation between the number of piles in each round. <S> I'll let people I trust riffle shuffle game cards, but it is far to easy to damage cards with this technique if you aren't good at it. <S> I certainly don't trust myself not to damage my cards. <S> Finally, when playing at a table, with plenty of space, it's very tempting to just do a big wash , but I've never been happy with the results of a this technique. <S> It is far too easy for related cards and even quite large blocks to end up staying together. <A> For Ticket to Ride, as cards are turned in <S> I distribute them across up to six stacks, trying to not place cards on top of like cards <S> (orange does not go on top of orange). <S> Sometimes a card gets tucked to the bottom of a stack. <S> When it comes time to shuffle, the stacks get shuffled together pair by pair (stack 1 with 2, then 3 with 4, etc.), ultimately combining things. <S> It seems to make things more random than otherwise. <S> (For Pandemic, there's often very few cards, so things can go bad very fast and it may just seem like it's not random.) <S> I guess my point (and others') is, doing some kinf of pre-shuffling the cards during play as cards are discarded can help with randomization. <A> ghoppe already posted the link to wikipedia and aramis told you about shuffling sleeved cards. <S> I personally employ a strategy of about 2 riffle and 1 strip shuffle repeated 2-3 times depending on how heavily the deck is ordered. <S> Riffle is good to mix cards, and strip to reorder the top and bottom part of the deck. <S> If you have a smooth and large enough surface also don't underestimate a wash shuffle - it's an especially convenient way to shuffle large and heavily ordered decks. <A> Or there's always the lazy option: automatic card shuffler. <S> I was surprised, they're available easily for less than $20 on Amazon.
|
I think that for smaller decks like Ticket To Ride, simply splaying them out on the playing surface face down and messing them about, followed by a few riffle and overhand shuffles should be enough to randomize the deck.
|
In Poker is it true that "you must give action to get action"? In your experience, do most players "fold" when someone who seldom plays enters the pot? Does this mean that it is a good idea to play in some borderline (presumably break even) situations, just to weaken perceptions of one's being tight? And how, if at all, does this vary from low to high limit games? <Q> What you're talking about is called Table Image . <S> Table image is important because it represents what other players think they know about you and how you play. <S> If you play very tight (very few hands, only very good cards), and <S> players see this, they're only going to stay in the pot with you, if they also have very good cards (in which case you should be a little worried). <S> It's not strictly true that you must LOSE hands (VPIP, or hands you voluntarily put into the pot), but you do need to play <S> such that your opponents don't know what kind of cards you might have. <S> This may mean bluffing 10% of the time, or it could be more sophisticated, like always playing in position (when you're one of the last to bet), since then they won't know if you have good cards, or are just playing position. <A> Like Neal says this is called Table Image . <S> If you just draw crappy cards for a while and realize people probably see you as tight <S> then that is great! <S> No matter what your table image is you can use it to your advantage if you know about it. <S> Say they think you're really tight, then you'll have an easy time stealing pots with bad cards. <S> Or if they think you're quite loose you probably will get more action on your great hands. <S> Don't bother thinking about if you need to give action to not seem too tight . <S> Instead use your table image to your advantage and scare them out of pots you want to win fast! <A> It really depends on your opponents. <S> If you're playing a typical low-limit online table, for example, most of your opponents are probably multi-tabling and not paying much attention to what you're doing; unless they're using stat-tracking software, it's unlikely they have any idea how often you've been playing. <S> Chances are, if you're stealing the blinds as often as you should, people will call
|
In general though, if ALL you do is only bet when you have a tier 1 hand, then yes, people are just going to fold.
|
How many creatures should be in a draft deck? How many creatures should the average, typical draft deck contain? Obviously this depends on a multitude of factors, including the kinds of creatures in your deck, the kinds of non-creatures you have available, and the overall composition of the block you're drafting. Nonetheless, what's a good baseline for the number of creatures in a draft deck? And how should I decide if I need to run more or fewer creatures than the baseline? <Q> Usually, my draft decks tend to aim for 16-17, 6-7 other spells, and 17 lands. <S> Generally, if you end up with 19-20+ creatures your deck is going to be aggressive but insufficiently versatile. <S> If you end up with 11 or fewer creatures your deck may have lots of "answers" but a shortage of ways to actually win the game. <S> As ever, striking a balance is key. <S> There's nothing wrong with having 12 creatures or something <S> if your deck is packed with sweet removal: take a red/black deck for instance; the creature quality in these colours tends to be low, but you make up for it in the strength of the removal cards. <S> Obviously it'd be daft to be adding bad creatures to a deck to "make up the numbers" when you have excellent removal at your disposal: <S> being able to take out one of the opponent's best creatures is almost as good as playing a creature of your own. <S> Also, make a note of cards in your pool which aren't creatures but basically count as creature cards. <S> Mind Control is one of the very best cards in the latest Core Set because not only does it remove an opponent's creature <S> , it gives you one as well! <S> And most sets have an instant or sorcery that generates token creatures these days. <S> If you draft a lot on Magic Online where it keeps a running total of creatures for you, you'll be familiar with having to take that figure with a pinch of salt - because often it lies! <S> If you're often drastically over- or undershooting that baseline, then (unless you've created some kind of insanely broken rogue decks that crush all comers 3-0) I'd definitely try to steer closer to <S> the 40% creatures mark and see if that works out better for you. <A> Creatures are what makes you win and what makes you lose games in Limited. <S> Therefore I would consider the baseline types of spells for Limited not only creatures, but creatures + creature removals. <S> Creatures with evasion are powerful in Limited, so sometimes the only solution to a sticky situation is a targeted removal. <S> So, assuming a 23-17 distribution, you want a total of 23 creatures and creature removals as the baseline. <S> Then you start replacing your worst creatures with, in this order: <S> Non-creature bombs (such as equipments, token generators), Direct Damage (might already count as removal depending on card and environment) and finally, if you still have room, a little utility, such as mana fixing/acceleration, card drawing/searching, graveyard recycling, or cheap cantrips for thinning the deck. <S> You probably shouldn't go below ca. <S> 15 creatures + removals in most cases. <S> There is nothing worse than sitting on a hand and battlefield full of utility and equipments and getting beaten to death by a 2/2. <A> I mostly agree with the accepted answer, but i think the numbers are a little off. <S> so i will try to be concise: <S> 15-18 creatures is average, and the best answer for draft with no other information. <S> 14 creatures is the absolute lower limit without a good reason 11-13 is the range for decks that are built that way, ex. tempo, prowess, etc. <S> <10 are rarer special cases decks <S> ex. <S> Rise from the Tides decks in SOI draft can run ~5 actual creatures (n.b. <S> normally spells that create token are counted as creatures) > <S> 18 creatures is also a rare special case, in older core sets 20-22 creature decks could be extremely viable. <A> Decks usually have a number of control/defensive cards, evenly balanced between anti-creatures, anti-instants, anti-enchantments etc. <S> I found more useful to put my attacking cards only in one category (creatures, enchantments, sorceries, etc.), so that a big part of my opponent's deck defenses becomes useless or less useful. <S> You can see that, if you follow this phylosophy, there is no "proportionate" or "disproportionate" number of creatures, but it would be rather more interesting having significantly more or significantly less creatures than "normal". <S> Or even no creatures at all. :-)
|
Anyway, 16-17 creatures or equivalent is definitely "average and typical".
|
Best way to improve ourselves when playing against a computer It's often said by world-class Backgammon players that the best way to improve one's play is to analyse one's games with a computer program such as gnubg, JellyFish or Snowie. gnubg has a "tutor mode" that evaluates the quality of the player's proposed move, to know before making a move if this one is bad. I assume the same exists for chess programs (hence the tag). Alternatively, it's also possible to do all the analysis at the end and walk through our moves to look at the errors. My question is whether one of the two methods is better. A third way I often use is to play normally and ask the computer to analyse the move when I'm unsure of the best answer. I do this just after my thoughts, but without following the computer's advice (to stay motivated). Do you know of any public statement from top Backgammon or Chess players, or a study regarding the best way to improve oneself by playing against a program, using these or other methods? <Q> I have no sources to cite, but I think it depends a lot on your own learning style. <S> You will certainly not learn well if the computer just tells you the best play and you follow it, but if you can carefully think through your move before being told by the computer if it's bad, and if the computer has a better move you can reason out why it's better, immediate feedback is fine. <S> However, if you find yourself getting impatient and cutting back on your thinking time, perhaps you should wait until the end. <S> I do Go problems on the computer a fair bit. <S> With Go problems, usually the first move is the key, and often is the hardest move to find. <S> Some programs will tell you immediately if the first move you've made is correct, but I much prefer the ones that will let me play out a bad sequence without telling me it's wrong until the end. <S> That way I see exactly why it doesn't work, and it reduces the temptation to just try something that looks promising to see if it's right. <A> For chess there are many ways to use both chess playing programs and database programs: <S> Play over your own games <S> (you should always record your games, even skittles/fun games, to see where you need to improve) in "infinite analysis" mode (where the computer doesn't make moves, it just evaluates the position and finds the best sequence of moves for both sides) to find moves where you (or your opponent) made tactical mistakes. <S> When the score changes by more than 1 pawn of value that is usually considered a mistake. <S> More than 2 or 3 pawns of value change is like loosing a bishop/knight, etc. <S> I find using a computer program (like Fritz) to analyze my games and to go over master games much more efficient than doing so on a board because you can easily try out different variations and go back to the main line without having to physically move the pieces around on the board. <S> (Sometimes programs make very silly moves when they're losing by a lot and there aren't many pieces left on the board, but if you set them up to use "endgame tablebases" then they make moves which put up the most resistance). <S> Practice the basic checkmates until you can do them on auto-pilot. <S> Practice pawn endings, etc. <S> Play out master games where one player resigned to see if you can win the 'winning' side. <S> Set up positions from books ( <S> especially endgame studies work well), and play them out against the computer, to see if you can win won positions, and draw difficult positions. <S> Use database programs to research the openings you like, to see what kind of games arise from various opening move options. <S> Not only master games, but amateur games from databases are very instructive to go over, to see if you can spot the mistakes and how you would take advantage of them. <S> You can find large numbers of amateur games on sites like: http://team4545league.org/ <A> You may also want to look at the following two books from Gambit Publications: <S> How to Use Computers To Improve Your Chess by Christian Kongsted. <S> The second half is specifically on how to use chess computers to improve our play. <S> Secrets of Practical Chess by John Nunn <S> The new edition has an expanded chapter on chess computers. <S> You can download PDF samples from their respective pages.
|
Practice technique (one of my favorite uses of a computer): play out theoretically winning positions against the computer to make sure you can always win them.
|
In The Resistance is it always a bad idea for the spies to fail the first mission? My first thought was that it was always a bad idea to fail the first mission as a spy. As there are only two people on the mission, the spy has revealed himself to one of the players. With 5 players though, it seems like the spies give too much away when succeeding. Is failing the first mission (as a spy) a bad idea even in a 5-player game? Are there any other situations? <Q> No. <S> You should almost never let the first mission succeed as a spy. <S> So what if your opponents know that one of the participants is a spy? <S> They don't know which one, and they won't be able to win without figuring out which of you it is. <S> By making the first mission fail, you give your opponents fewer opportunities to make mistakes as the game progresses. <S> This greatly outweighs the fact that failing a later mission reveals less information. <S> You do need to get your acting skills into high gear immediately after the mission is revealed as a failure, however. <S> You have to pretend it's obvious to you that your mission-mate was a spy, and appear extremely frustrated if the other players side with her. <S> This can be challenging, but you can't afford to sacrifice a victory point to avoid it. <A> In The Resistance, the biggest danger is having a consistent strategy that is predictable. <S> If there are 2 other players on it <S> I'm much more likely to sabotage, but still not every time. <S> Being on a successful mission almost guarantees that I'll be included in later missions with more people allowing me to cast doubt more effectively on others because "I was on that successful mission!" <S> In groups where people tend to play too consistently I find myself getting bored; it seems like the game is determined completely by luck of who gets picked to go on missions. <A> I'd say no. <S> I've never played with just 5 players - only with 6, 7 and 8. <S> And we're all still pretty new to the game seeing as the spies have always won and hardly any teams get rejected. <S> Basically, the question is if an early start is better than reduced suspicion. <S> In most of our games the first missions have succeeded, even though some contained spies. <S> In our later games the spies usually only won with the 4th or 5th missions, so I'd guess that with more proficient resistance players it becomes more lucrative to fail the first mission. <S> Five players is a difficult situation though, since there is only one other spy. <S> I'd say that you should probably not fail the mission unless you or the other spy are directly after the second mission member. <S> You'll want to quickly establish evidence that you are not the spy. <A> Unpredictability is usually a huge part of the strategy for the evil team. <S> I played a game just last night where the first quest was 2 people, both evil. <S> They passed the mission added a third good person, passed the second mission. <S> Then managed to sail through the rest of the game without suspicion and fail the next 3 missions consecutively. <S> I think it depends a lot on the situation. <S> If I'm evil and on the first team sometimes I will fail it if I have another evil person on the team, so we can just cast suspicion on each other and hopefully the good team will never suspect us both, but this involves signaling so we don't both fail it. <S> I'll also fail it if I think I can convince everyone one of the other team members is guilty. <S> But depending on the order it can be beneficial to pass the first mission, also sometimes I end up on a team with someone I know is extremely vocal and <S> once they know I'm evil will stop at nothing to have me off the team, so if it is a team of 2 I'm usually more wary to fail it. <S> Another thing to keep in mind is if you are playing the Avalon addition and are Mordred you could give yourself away to Merlin, which is a huge disadvantage for the evil team. <S> Its better to get a known evil person on the team to fail it or hide in a team of 4.
|
As a spy, I usually don't fail the first mission if there's only one other person on it, but sometimes I will. No, I disagree with the answer that says to always fail the first one.
|
Learning to count cards In many games, it can be extremely helpful to know what cards have already been played and/or the number left in any given suit. What are good ways to learn to count the cards played (especially in a game such as pinochle where you cannot inspect your taken-trick pile to see at least what you've claimed out of the hand)? <Q> When I used to play Bridge regularly, I started out simply by keeping track of suit counts. <S> How many have been played from each suit. <S> I then added counts for Aces and Kings, keeping track of those on top of the suit counts. <S> I then expanded into tracking all of the trump suit, and followed by tracking the remaining suits. <S> If you play regularly and take a gradual approach, it will eventually become second nature, but it does require regular play. <A> There are many different systems for card counting. <S> All of them involve adding a number to the count if a card you don't like(e.g., a low card) is played(since that increases the amount of high cards left in the deck) and you subtract a number from the count when a high card is played (since this decreases the number of high cards in the deck). <S> The systems vary however in how much is added/subtracted for each cards. <S> Depending on what are the most profitable cards in the deck you might want to choose one system over another. <S> The system that only involve adding/subtracting 1 from the count are much easier to learn and to apply in games since it is less information to keep track of. <S> Important to note is of course that most of these systems are originally developed for Blackjack, and might or might not work very well on other card games. <S> Wikipedia has an excellent article on card-counting. <S> I'd suggest reading this. <S> To practice card counting, the most easy way is just to go through a few decks multiple times a day looking at the top card, saying the new count out loud, and then drawing the next top card. <S> You have to be able to do this as fast as possible without making mistakes. <S> Also, if you like entertaining stories: Bringing Down the House is a story(which <S> really happened) about people winning HUGE amounts of money from card counting in Blackjack, and the troubles they faced.(There also is a movie adaption called 21, but the book is much better.) <A> TL;DR For euchre, memorize the suits in the same order every time and remember the boss cards in each suit plus all trump cards. <S> I only subtract cards played and don't deduct the cards in my hand until I play them. <S> It's too easy to subtract them twice unless you get in to that habit right from the start. <S> Then I started keeping track of which trump are potentially available. <S> I started by keeping track of the highest (boss) trump that could be out there. <S> Even at the hardest, 7 out there <S> and I have none (though I usually just ride these out and don't worry about counting) <S> left-right-ace-king-queen-10-9 can rattle around in my head pretty easily and now I can forget about counting the 7 because I have the list that I can count if I need to. <S> I started expanding this once I got good at it, to the suits with aces outstanding. <S> At worst, now I'm thinking suit-suit-suit-left-right-ace-king-queen-10-9. <S> Once I got really good at keeping this in my head, through practice, I noticed that I keep track of the suits in my head in the same order every time. <S> Now, instead of tracking the suits with aces left, I switched to tracking the boss for each suit and all the trump ending up at boss-left-right-ace-king-queen-10-9-boss-boss (where the trump drifts around in position based on suit). <S> It's easy to lose track of the off suit boss because they could be thrown out of order, off suit. <S> (ie if the boss was King and the queen was thrown off suit, then the king was played in the next trick you could be waiting for the queen to come out ...) <S> 10 cards out of the 24 available <S> tracked helps a lot. <S> I suppose I could shoot for more, but this is usually more than enough. <S> this would give you 18 of the 24 cards, but I haven't gotten to this level myself. <A> In pinochle, to make it easier on you and to get you start it. <S> Just count All the Aces first (4 of each) and trump (20 cards in total). <S> Just focus on these cards and as you practice, you will notice that everything else will become easier to count. <S> As you go, you will find your own way of counting cards. <S> Good luck.
|
For counting in Euchre, which I think is pretty easy to get started with, I started by making sure that I could count down the maximum number of trump that could be available as the tricks progress. Depending on your memory, you could try tracking A-K-Q-J of each suit plus all the trump (watch where you count the bowers) ...
|
Can every game of Klondike-Solitaire be solved? I play a lot of Solitaire games on my Android phone and love to keep an eye out for the statistics. Given that the Solitaire version lets you restart the game endlessly, I usually play until I solve it. But I never managed to solve more than 80% of the games played (1000+). So now I wonder, is every Solitaire game solvable? <Q> No. <S> Example: If all of your cards face up on the board are red, and the cards that come up every third card are also red, and none of them are aces. <S> You lose. <S> Do not pass go, do not collect $200. <A> There is very interesting reading at wikipedia about this topic. <S> For a "standard" game of Klondike (of the form: <S> Draw 3, Re-Deal Infinite, <S> Win 52) <S> the number of solvable games (assuming all cards are known) is between 82-91.5%. <A> Literally just played a game in which one of the stacks (the one containing 4 cards) was lead by the 9 of diamonds, and the cards inside of it were the King of Spades, the 5 of diamonds, the 10 of spades, and the 10 of clubs (I know this because I had the entire field solved except for this stack and used process of elimination). <S> As far as I can see this makes the game impossible. <S> I have a 9 of diamonds in which can never be moved, as the two 10s that it's eligible to rest upon are trapped underneath it in the stack face down. <S> Attempting to get rid of the 9 by moving it to the diamond stack would also be fruitless, as the 5 of diamonds is stuck underneath it too. <S> Unless someone can tell me some way that this could be solved, I'm pretty darned certain that if a card that is leading a stack is covering a stack that contains the two cards it is capable of resting on, and a lower number of it's own suit, then the game is made impossible right from the get-go. <A> And like McKay mentioned, with a random shuffle you can definitely end up with an unsolvable game. <S> I'm sure it is possible to design a Solitaire variant in which each game is solvable, though. <A> However, if you started a list and enumerated the initial conditions -- I feel like I've seen this on a linux version of Solitare: <S> the numbering of deck order, that is -- <S> and you definitively decide a certain one is un-winnable, you then could compare notes across nodes (share with friends) and VOILA: a list of un-winnable starting deck stacks. <S> I've been starting to think the Windows 7 version has the un-winnable decks removed, ... <S> I don't know, it's a little heavy-handed and smug about the statistics. <A> No. <S> Eric Sink decided that he would start a micro-ISV to create a version of solitaire that is always winnable. <S> This was mostly just an experiment to see what it would be like running a software company with one person, but he eventually sold the product which is still available for purchase. <S> There have been some estimates about the number of Klondike Solitaire games that are unplayable (no moves possible, about 1 in 400), and several guesses about how many games are unwinnable , although this percentage varies wildly from 30%-10%. <S> The difficulty of this problem stems from the sheer number of initial deals 54! <S> that would need to be evaluated to determine which were winnable and which were not. <A> To add to the other great answers, this link has a nice explanation of how a deal is un-winnable. <S> Reasons for Getting Stuck in Klondike Solitaire
|
Solitaire is a game that precedes its computer version, and that means that all the cards are truly shuffled, without the computer peeking in to verify the game is solvable.
|
Where can I sell my Magic: The Gathering cards? I played for quite a few years and have a ton of cards that I want to get rid of. I have a mix of all editions before 2007. 7th, 8th, etc... So the question is where can I sell them effectively. And if it is better to just get all rares out, and then sell the rest as a lot at a common hobby store. Thanks for the feedback! <Q> To get the most money for your cards, I recommend that you do the following: <S> Separate out any valuable rares -- anything worth more than a few dollars -- and sell them individually. <S> Sell the rest of them in bulk. <S> Generally speaking, commons and uncommons only go for about $.01, unless they're especially valuable in one of the non-Standard formats. <S> As for where to sell them, you have basically three options. <S> Sell them to your local game store. <S> This is probably the most convenient option, but be aware that the local store is likely to offer you less than you could get in other venues, and they're usually flooded with commons and may not agree to buy your old commons and uncommons at all. <S> Sell them yourself on eBay. <S> This is what I did when I needed to get rid of a few thousand old commons, which I sold in a great big unsorted box. <S> You'll probably get a higher average price per card this way, but you'll have to handle the hassle of shipping yourself. <S> And be aware that big boxes of cards can be heavy , and therefore expensive to ship. <S> Sell them to an online game store that buys cards. <S> This is probably the least attractive option, since they will usually only offer prices similar to those you get selling to a local store, but you still have to ship them. <A> Definitely take the rares out and sell those separately. <S> People often are looking to buy rare's individually, so you'll get much better prices. <S> If you don't mind spending a bit more time on the issue, use your knowledge of the game to sort the commons and uncommons into which seem to be better than average and which are just typical. <S> Look up the prices for those that seem good or are otherwise unusual online and perhaps sell those separately. <S> As to where I'd definitely check your local game store first as you'll get to deal directly with someone who has plenty of experience with card prices. <S> If the owner won't buy them, ask if you can post a small notice somewhere in the store that you are selling them and give a brief description of what you have. <S> Get a bit of word of mouth working for you too buy telling any friends you have that play that you're looking to get rid of them. <S> Finally, if none of these work, try to sell them on Ebay or an MTG dealing site. :D <A> there are a number of good websites where you can sell your cards. <S> Star City Games (or for that matter, any singles website you care to pick, there are literally hundreds) will buy cards at a lower than market price, instantly, with minimal fuss ebay will help you sell your cards but takes a sizeable cut. <S> Magic Card Market for europeans is a good peer to peer selling platform remember though, its not just rares that can be worth money, there are commons and uncommons that are worth more than many rares. <S> wasteland , an uncommon, is worth around $60. <S> Karakas , another uncommon is worth around $100, and mana drain , a third uncommon, is worth $172, there are also various commons, such as Serum Visions which is worth $3, or something like sinkhole , a $30 common. <S> It is very much worth, if you are looking to get the best price for your cards, going through and finding the cards that are worth money, a quick way to do this is to print out a website's buy list and use it as a cheat sheet for cards that are worth money, if its on the list, you may well want to sell it individually, and you should set it aside (for now) and check its actual retail value (often three or more times what the buylist price is). <S> if its lower than you want to bother with (its well worth setting yourself a limit, e.g. anything worth less than $1) sell it as bulk. <S> once you have set aside the cards you want to sell yourself, pick your favourite avenue, the returns you get depend on the time you want to invest. <S> Sell the rest either as bulk collections on ebay, or to a singles website as they will often buy bulk. <A> If you're from northern Europe I really recommend the site www.svenskamagic.com. <S> As others have said. <S> Cards of low value are easiest sold in bulk. <S> You'll probably earn both money and convenience that way. <A> It's like an eBay for Magic: <S> The Gathering, a peer to peer platform. <S> You can list the cards that you'd like to sell, and others can buy them from you. <S> Mythics and rares are of course the most popular ones, but I'd suggest adding as many cards as possible: <S> the wider your collection, the more likely buyers can find you. <S> Likewise, the platform gives you a suggested price, but the more affordable you make them, the easier will be to get them sold. <S> Disclosure: I'm one of the creators of LilianaMarket. <A> Your local community probably has a facebook group where things like this are brought and sold. <S> As they are local they can be a great option as they might be able to pick them up in person instead of paying large amounts for shipping lots of cards.
|
It's easy to create an auction and sell your cards, especially if they're of high value. For UK players, I'd like to recommend LilianaMarket.co.uk .
|
Where to play Go online? I used to play regularly on KGS but have been inactive for several years. I am frustrated by the Catch-22 of the KGS system: in order to play rated games, you must have a solid rating. Solid ratings come from playing many rated games. Does anyone have advice for an enthusiast who wants to play competitively online? Where should I go and how do I establish a rank? <Q> KGS http://www.gokgs.com/ IMO the best server for lower level games. <S> It as an active English speaking community Ranking system is relatively meaningful, even in the lower ranks <S> Many features in the client, such as game reviews <A> IGS http://www.pandanet-igs.com/ ) <S> IGS has a lot of players, but going up the rank ladder can also be quite time consuming. <S> Anyway, if you have an idea about your rank, you can set it up when you sing up. <S> Their english resources have been enhanced in the last year, with a social web and a new Java-based client that's actually quite usable (including an opponent search function). <S> Games tend to be serious and it lacks the communication facilities that you can find on KGS, but it's a good place to learn <S> and it also has quite strong players. <S> There are some robots on the ranked games room to help you get a rank if you start at BC level (beginner class). <A> Dragon Go Server (DGS) <S> For turn-based playing I highly recommend Dragon <S> Go <S> Server , where I play all the time, too. <S> Simple and clean interface <S> Private notes ( <S> very handy if you are playing lots of turn-based go games at once) <S> There is a client for Android and iOS and a Windows notifier "Fine" rating (kyu/dan level with +- 50%) with "proper komi feature" to fine tune komi based on fine rating. <S> Its rating graph (shows rating reliability, has a Games/Time switch on X axis) <S> I know Gōng Yuán Chéng already included a link to Turn-based go servers on the Sensei's Library, and DGS is the first on that list, but DGS should have its own special place on this list. <S> More on DGS here: http://senseis.xmp.net/?DragonGoServer <A> The best thing about the site is the tournament system. <S> There are five annual tournaments with multiple rounds in each category - even games, handicap games, and 9x9. <S> Some tournaments require you to win your group to advance, and some allow all players to advance, and then be matched up according to number of wins. <A> GoShrine <S> The GoShrine is a good alternative to other servers: <S> No download/install needed <S> No Java/Flash requirement Play in the browser simply Levels similar to those on kgs Possibility to play bots as well <S> It's where I play when I use my Android tablet. <S> One disadvantage is there are too few players online at all time. <S> And of course you can review the links on these pages <A> Tygem http://www.tygembaduk.com/ One of the most popular Korean servers and well known in the West for its large player base. <S> It was difficult to sign up to Tygem years ago, but they recently introduced an English client and website, solving this issue. <S> Players range from super weak to super strong (several top pros play on Tygem). <S> Their style tends to be more agressive. <S> There are noticeably many sandbaggers and the ranking system isn't optimal in the weaker ranks. <A> WBaduk / <S> CyberOro http://www.wbaduk.com/ Similar properties compared to Tygem. <S> But I haven't played much there. <A> DashN <S> http://club.dashn.com/english DashN is a Korean go server with an English interface. <S> It is also known as DashBaduk or Dash & Dot. <S> DashN and wBaduk are the only major Korean Go servers that offer clients with an English interface. <S> The common belief is that this is the place to play fighting games. <S> Tactics seem to also suggest a strong emphasis on territorial reduction. <S> ( Sensei's ) <A> Yahoo Games <S> I'm surprised no one's mentioned that Yahoo has Go - there's consistently around 100~200 people on. <S> It's a good place for English beginners to play, and there's even some higher-rated players if you're up for a challenge. <A> GOmatches.com <S> www.gomatches.com <S> Great turn-based GO server. <S> It's completely web-based <S> so you don't need to download anything. <A> FlyOrDie <S> Sometimes I play here <S> You can play on browser without registration, the only one requirement is java... <S> Actually I do not know if it's good, but for a fast match it works well... <A> If you can get a beta key (they give out 200 every time the counter runs down on their site) <S> kaya.gs is a good site. <S> They're working on doing everything that KGS does wrong right. <S> I've played a few games there <S> and I must say, its very cool. <S> You should give it a try or look on their FAQ if you have a minute. <A> http://www.usgo.org/go-internet List of both Real Time Servers , as well as Turn-Based Servers <S> (which I heard are recommended for beginners because of no time-limit). <S> Some of the sites mentioned in answers here might be found on this list. <S> I haven't really tried many of the sites mentioned on the list, because I'm just beginning my adventure with Go. <S> So I can't recommend any of the available links for now.
|
OGS online-go.com is an excellent server if you're interested in turn-based go.
|
Where can I find a good Joseki database? I've been wondering about certain positions that arise often. To help me understand them, I would like to study the joseki moves. Since printed joseki dictionaries are out-dated very fast, I'd prefer an electronic database if possible. <Q> Josekipedia http://www.josekipedia.com/ <S> This is a kind of wiki for joseki. <S> This system has the big advantage of offering explanations, deviations from joseki and refutations,... <S> But I don't know how complete or accurate it is. <A> Kogo's Joseki Dictionary Kogo's Joseki Dictionary is certainly the best known resource in the west. <S> It's an SGF file that contains a huge list of common and uncommon joseki moves including some comments, some even with the game where they occurred. <S> It is reliable in general, even though there are some mistakes (that are probably difficult to spot unless you're dan or even high dan level). <S> KJD is included in Eidogo online , so you don't need to download the SGF anymore. <A> Daily Joseki http://dailyjoseki.com/browse <S> This joseki database is condensed from a database of pro-games. <S> One problem with this approach is that it doesn't contain any explanations or refutations. <S> It also offers some joseki memorization system, but I never tried it myself. <A> It includes a few variations not seen anywhere else and tends to be very reliable (as far as I can confirm this). <S> There are a few tools (like a joseki quiz) rarely found anywhere else. <A> Nice one with discussion of the positions is here: http://senseis.xmp.net/?Joseki <S> This page is referred to as a source by Josekipedia.com: <S> http://senseis.xmp.net/?GendaiJosekiJiten <S> But I am not actually sure what that is, if it is equal to http://senseis.xmp.net/?Joseki or not. <A> I use this one: http://www.learngo.co.uk/Joseki.php?Sequence=4-4,6-4 <S> This one is the best in the sense that you immediately see how the board will look like afterwards, so you can choose proper Joseki according to your current context. <S> But some Josekis (like 5-3) are unfortunatelly missing there.
|
Brugo http://www.brugo.be/ Brugo is probably the only dictionary maintained by pros.
|
Why are stones placed with index and middle finger? I have read that stones should be picked out of the bowl and placed on the board by pinching them between the tips of the index and middle finger. This seems to be a long-standing tradition. Is this standard around the world? Why is this grip used instead of the more obvious thumb and index finger grip? <Q> On the one hand (ha, ha), because the game was popularized by Japan, and Japanese culture insists on a proper form (kata) for everything, that is proper form, and that is how you do it. <S> I doubt that this way of holding the stones originated in Japan though. <S> On the other hand, have you tried placing a stone in the middle of a heated battle with your thumb and index finger? <S> Oh, and when you get used to it, you can also make a nice CLACK stone on the board. <A> It increases precision of your aim while having an elegant look: When you are holding a stone with your thumb and index finger, the stone is held perpendicular to the board (i.e. the outer rim of the stone is pointing down towards the board), so you need to rotate it by 90 degrees as you place it down on the board, and in doing so it is more likely for your hand to touch other stones in neighbouring areas. <S> Instead, if you are holding it with index finger and middle finger, the stone is parallel to the board, and you can place it down without disturbing other stones. <S> Also, your hand obstructs the board less for both you and your opponent. <S> Being able to make a sound with the stone is an added bonus. <A> This is more a matter of etiquette than anything else. <S> One, it creates a "nice" sound on the board. <S> Two, it minimizes the possibility of displacing stones already on the board.
|
The grip of index/middle finger allows you to release smoothly the bottom finger and press down with the top finger, which gives you better precision and less of a chance to mess up the board position.
|
Why are the boards not square? I noticed gobans are not square, but rectangular. Why is that, and what is the correct orientation of the board when playing? <Q> The design of Go components is all about symmetry. <S> This way they appear to be square when you're playing. <S> Another similar issue occurs with the stones. <S> Black stones appear to be smaller than white stones, so the black stones are actually made slightly larger than the white stones to counter this effect. <S> Related and awesome: <S> How many squares are there on a Go Board? <A> This is apparently to combat an optical illusion that "flattens" a board in front of you (as perspective narrows it towards the "horizon"). <S> Therefore, the correct orientation is with the shorter edges in front of the players. <A> My japanese goban is exactly like that (45x42 cm²) and the effect <S> it's actually noticeable after you have been playing for a while. <S> However, I also own a korean folding goban which is a bit smaller (understandably as it is supposed to be easier to carry around, with accordingly slightly smaller nice glass stones) which is exactly 38.5x38.5 cm², and although I cannot now find the reference (looked over the Internet and my books) I actually recall reading that Korean boards are usually squared instead of rectangular; maybe someone can find a source for this. <S> Anecdotically, our go club Sensei (a Japanese ex-insei) once really called us out in the middle of a game cause we had inadvertently put the goban the wrong way. <S> It was amusing and embarrasing. <S> So much, that in the end we called it a jigo, turned the board 90º and started a new game! <S> He actually nodded with his head and smiled the next time <S> he came by to have a look. <A> Indeed it has to do something with perspective, but a full compensation for perpective would require a much more stretched board. <S> In that way, thicker stones require a deeper board than thinner stones.
|
Because perspective shortens the vertical height of the board, the boards are made taller than they are wide. I believe the squares are stretched just enough so that vertically adjacent stones appear to be touching and not overlapping (consistent with horizontally adjacent stones).
|
Why is the 19x19 board so much more common than other sizes? While there are probably some cultural reasons, are there any general reasons a 19x19 board may be preferred? Also, if, say, 21x21 was suddenly found to be in some way superior and a large number of player switched, would modern go strategy need to be significantly modified to account for the changes in gameplay? <Q> A 5x5 board is interesting because beginners very quickly encounter all the basic rules of go - living, dying, territory, corners, sides. <S> A 9x9 board is interesting because the size is just right to develop fighting tactics. <S> 13x13 lets you get into the mindset of occupying corners and linking tactics together. <S> 17x17 might have been the next logical step, until people realized things were still too linear.. <S> And then they brought it up to 19x19 ? <S> A fun fact is that early 19x19 used to have two black stones and two white stones, on the corner star points, making diagonals (d4 + q16, d16 + q4), which is nowadays considered to be an opening for fighting games. <S> It may have been a first step towards a fully empty 19x19 board, or a more spiritual yin/yang reason, who knows. <S> 19x19 board, people usually say, is interesting because it is the largest board size on which there are more points on the sides (under the third line) than in the center (above the fourth line). <S> A 21x21 board has many more points in the center, and therefore the focus of the game would shift to fighting and living in the center, instead of trying to make territory on the sides -- since that would, obviously, just not be as beneficial anymore. <A> Even when you play on a 9x9 board, your basic strategy doesn't change much (or shouldn't); just the speed at which you effect your strategy. <S> I couldn't find concrete information, but the Wikipedia page mentions the fact the standard board had increased to 19x19 from 17x17 by the time it arrived in Japan and Korea. <S> But it doesn't mention a reason for the increase in size. <S> My theory would be that the larger board size increased the time a quality game would take, particularly the beginning and middle phases. <A> The 5 empty spaces from one star point to another and 3 empty spaces from each star point (excluding tengen) to the board's edge creates a balance in early Go in which the first four moves were played automatically (that comment by Trevoke was true by the way, the game didn't used to begin until stones were placed on each corner star-point). <S> That said, I can find no information that implies the Japanese version of the game has ever used anything besides 19x19, and no information that implies (more recently than nearly two thousand years ago) that China has used anything different either, and even the oldest weiqi boards found are a mix of 19x19 and 17x17. <S> This is all moot though. <S> At this point, it's no longer a matter of strategy or balance or what you think might be a better way of doing things- <S> it's a part of culture and history. <S> If 21x21 were suddenly found to be superior for some reason or another (though this is very hard to believe, as it throws off the balance of the game in a big way), a large number of people would not switch, so the premise is flawed. <S> It's not a matter of 'an aspect of the game', 19x19 IS the game. <S> It's like asking if 3D chess will replace normal chess because of insert rationality here - it's simply not going to happen, because chess will always be chess. <A> If you multiply 19 x 19 you get 361, which is close to the number of days in a year.
|
19x19 is, and will continue to be, the most popular board size (as well as the official board size in every country in which its history is respected and professional players exist). It has to do with equi-distant handicap stone placement (in which each stone has equal 'effect' on the starting board position), and a balance between territory and influence aspects of the game (trying to start with each being equally important, as to make more complex fighting and strategies).
|
What is a good strategy for engaging children in playing go? For children what is the youngest age that it makes sense to begin to teach them go? Is it best to start them on a 9x9 board? Will a child that has learned basic algebra be better suited to learn go well? Does anyone have experience working with their own children and can share what did and did not work? I find that teenagers want to instantly master a subject and are reluctant to invest the time it takes to begin to master go. <Q> It's usually a good idea to have an "outsider" teach, going by personal observations and hearsays. <S> My guess on why parents usually make for poor (beginning) teachers is that the children unconsciously think of it as the parent making them play a game that they will always lose to the parent at, and therefore tend to be less than enthusiastic. <S> This may be why the children of pros so rarely play Go. <A> One thing you have to watch out for with really young players is that they will focus too much on capturing, and you have to try not to encourage that. <S> I started teaching my daughter when she was five, and she's surprisingly good at reading. <S> Unfortunately she hasn't really caught the bug, so we don't play too much. <A> When I was teaching my cousin, I started out by explaining the rules for capture and the strategies of territory. <S> We started out in a 9x9 area so she could get a feel for the rules without feeling overwhelmed by the size of the board. <S> After a few games we decided to move to the full 19x19 play area. <S> I let her play as she pleased for most of the game. <S> Towards the end, after defeating some of her weak strategies, I started to point out advantages of placing that would thwart or weaken my goals. <S> Even though I won the game, by a fair margin, the results were: <S> She got a basic understanding of the rules <S> She was able to freely try and explore options, which I would explain why they failed or succeed Even though she didn't win the game, she had the satisfaction of beat or outwit my stones <A> In my experience, kids like the colorful names for shapes, especially animal names like "tiger's mouth" and "dog's head". <S> I'm not saying necessarily that you should let them win, but <S> if you don't make sure they're having fun even when losing! <S> Hint, compliment good moves, coach a little bit with a smile and a laugh. <S> It can be most fun if you have >1 beginner <S> so they can alternate playing each other and playing you simultaneously. <S> There's no need to explain "ko" until it comes up. <S> I think the most important thing is enjoyability. <S> A kid who had a good time playing Go will be easy to talk into playing again. <A> I've never had this experience with "kids," only teenagers and older. <S> The way to get PEOPLE interested in Go is to let them watch you play it. <S> During the game, you might make comments like, "I'm trying to chase <S> /capture my opponent's stone's" or, "I'm trying to limit his influence <S> , see the wall of stones he has." <S> At appropriate points in the game, say "Atari," and point out what constitutes a capture. <S> Or engage in a "ko" fight, and explain that players can't repeat moves in a ko, without making an intervening move. <S> Basically, you need to let the audience (including children) sort itself out. <S> Some won't be interested, some will be very interested, and some will develop an interest at a later date. <A> My three and a half year old doesn't really get the strategy but seems to have, like, the aesthetic for it. <S> She makes enough good moves (accidentally or not) for it to be interesting for me to play. <S> We even finished a game today. <S> I try to think of it as pretend playing today so it will easier to teach her the game more legitimately in a year or so. <S> I use the words "eyes" and "atari" and "liberties" to describe her moves back to her <S> and she sagely nods along.
|
If you want a kid to be happy about continued Go experience, do your best to make sure they're having fun. Just like any beginner, start on a small board with simplified rules. I think you should teach them as soon as they're old enough that they won't eat the stones.
|
How many points are won/lost during this exchange? $$ six=two$$ -.a.....$$ -....... $$ -...OOOO$$ -4....XO$$ -1OOOOOX$$ -XOXXO.X$$ -2X5.XX.$$ -3......$$ -------- White territory around a is safe.Move 2 and 4 can be swapped for identical result. Most moves have a name (at least in Chinese) I believe 2 would be called 破 (pò) = break (not absolutely sure)Does it have a name in english? More importantly, in terms of points what is lost or won by both sides? <Q> First of all, moves 2 and 4 absolutely cannot be swapped for the same result. <S> If white plays at 4 first, black would connect at 2. <S> And white has to spend another move protecting the cut. <S> It's a whole world of difference. <S> Secondly, the name for white 2 is "throw-in". <S> The corresponding Chinese name is "扑", which means "to leap". <S> Now, let's analyze the situation: $$ six= <S> two$$ -.......$$ -....... $$ -... <S> OOOO$$ -4.... <S> XO$$ <S> -1OOOOOX$$ <S> -XOXXO.X$$ -2X5.XX.$$ <S> -3 <S> ...... <S> $$ <S> -------- <S> versus $$ Optimal exchange$$ -....... <S> $$ -....... <S> $$ -... <S> OOOO$$ <S> -c.... <S> XO$$ <S> -2OOOOOX$$ <S> -XOXXO.X$$ <S> -1Xa. <S> XX.$$ <S> -b <S> ...... <S> $$ <S> -------- <S> In the actual game, black presumably captures two stones (2 and 6) while white also captures two stones, so that part balances out. <S> Compared to the optimal solution (lower figure), black put 2 more stones in his own territory (at a and b in the lower figure) while white only put one more (c). <S> So that's a -1 point for black right there. <S> The true loss for black lies in the fact that black could have had sente (lower figure), instead of gote as happened in the actual game. <S> The point value of that is dependent on the rest of the board, but is usually quite high. <A> Now that the black mistake in the original sequence has been explained by Laval , maybe it's interesting to give an analyse of the original position. <S> It's not very easy to tell who will be able to play first at a . <S> $$ Initial position$$ -....... <S> $$ <S> -....... <S> $$ -...OOOO$$ - <S> ..... <S> XO$$ <S> -.OOOOOX$$ <S> -XOXXO.X$$ <S> -aX.. <S> XX.$$ - <S> ....... <S> $$ <S> -------- <S> If the temperature of the board is sufficiently low (<6 pts) <S> then a is a double sente and should be played as soon as possible by both players. <S> (Net gain will be 1 point if black is ko master, but up to 3 points if he is not) <S> However let's have a look at the continuations if the other player does not reply: <S> $$B Black continuation, 7 points$$ -.......$$ -46..... <S> $ <S> $ -32.OOOO$$ -578.. <S> XO$$ <S> -1OOOOOX$$ <S> -XOXXO.X$$ <S> -XX.. <S> XX.$$ - <S> ....... <S> $$ <S> -------- <S> and: <S> $$W White continuation, about 6 points (12 points gote, assuming black is alive)$$ -....... <S> $$ <S> -....... <S> $$ -...OOOO$$ - <S> ..... <S> XO$$ <S> -.OOOOOX$$ <S> -XOXXO.X$$ <S> -OX12XX.$$ <S> -.3..... <S> $$ <S> -------- <S> Black continuation is a lot bigger than white's one . <S> (Sorry in my previous count, I miscounted.) <S> Black continuation is only slightly bigger than white's one. <S> This means that both players might have the opportunity to play at a first. <S> Black might play it while the temperature of the board is between 7 and 6 (that is, before it strictly becomes double sente), but white will only play it below 6. <S> So, black having the opportunity to play <S> a first is a little bit more probable, and it might be taken into account when estimating the score. <A> However white will need to defend and connect 4 - this will cost white 1 more point. <S> So total win/loss for this is:Black -2 points. <S> White -3 points. <S> -Note black did not lose a point due to 2 and 3. <S> As the exchange resulted in a equalization of points, 1 stone gained (1 point) for 1 point lost (due to the capture). <A> The "slow" connection on A2 is actually the biggest move. <S> That's because it protects the cut at c2, as well as the stone on a3 from capture. <S> And it threatens a big sequence starting with a4, meaning that White is forced to play a4, and Black has the next move. <S> Compared with the diagrams above, Black is two points better, and White is one point better, for a net gain of one point for Black, who keeps sente. <S> In a close game, if one person gets to make 5-10 one-point moves in sente, that's enough to win the game. <S> So the above sequence is better than Black's pushing out at a4, getting cut by a2, and having to capture on a1 AND go back to prevent the cut at c2. <S> Even if it were a point more than the sequence above, it would be gote.
|
-Black lost 2 points, one at 5 and another one that is needed to be played at 2.-White lost 2 points due to the reduction of 1 and 4.
|
How to handle handicap as white? I found it very difficult to handle the handicap when my opponent is given 6 or more stones. I don't really like to force something complex when I know it could be severely punished. The right way to handle such handicaps must be to play opening moves that are very light and flexible. However, I have never found any books providing guidelines for playing white in handicap games. Are there any? Or is there any kind of general advice I should know about? <Q> There are a few good books about handicap go. <S> Handicap <S> Go <S> is a really good one, but it's out of print. <S> Get Strong at Handicap <S> Go <S> has a lot of examples of good play by both White and Black. <S> Kage's Secret Chronicles of Handicap Go discusses handicap games played between two professional players of nearly the same rank. <S> It also includes reviews of games with professionals giving stones to amateurs. <S> In a high-handicap game, avoid strengthening Black's stones. <S> If Black plays correctly you won't be able to avoid this, but then you need to lower the handicap. <S> You need to keep your groups light, and think about sacrificing often. <S> Many times you can convince Black to capture a few unimportant stones in gote. <S> As long as you keep from making Black too solid, you should be able to exploit shape problems later in the game, and in the endgame you should be able to pick up 20 points or so. <S> Also, never resign. <S> You never know when Black will give you a gift :) <A> In high handicap games the most important thing for white is patience . <S> Black starts with an overwhelming advantage and it is easy to become discouraged if your opponent does not make huge mistakes right away. <S> But White must remember that a typical game lasts around 150-200 moves and even if each of her moves is just slightly more efficient (let's say one point on average) then at the end of the game White will have gained back well over a 100 points even if Black does not make a single large blunder. <A> You obviously have to read better and avoid any unnecessary losses. <S> Your endgame has to be superior, and you should not make any tsumego mistakes. <S> Apart from that, playing flexible is probably the most important idea. <S> At the same time, you should also see further and try to let black have what he wants, while you're working for a bigger goal that he is unable to see. <S> There's a nice saying: "White is always trying to kill a bigger group than black is trying to save." <S> Another idea that is very fun to use (and that also requires you to have superior reading) is to make black overconcentrated. <S> In many instances, black won't even notice that his 20 stones make for a solid 8 points of territory. <S> Since your tsumego and shape skills are superior, you will also be able to find invasions that hurt black. <S> Frustrate him by invading right before he could close his area - or happily punish if he forgot to do so. <S> Apart from that, watch out for moyo potential and make a plan for taking care of it early - limiting with the idea of overconcentration could be a way. <S> Apart from that, playing flexible is probably the most important idea. <S> Keep your groups light as necessary, avoid giving black an easy target, and solidify them in an active way later. <A> In a handicap game of six or seven stones, there are two distinct ways for white to play. <S> This is defined by the fact that Black has san-ren-sei stones on the left and right sides of the board, but not at the top or bottom. <S> That is a slow, "patient" way of playing for White to catch up to Black's handicap. <S> The more aggressive way of playing is to start with kakaris on the against the stones on the upper and lower right sides of the board between the corner and san-ren-sei stones, with the third move being a "capping" move against the san-rei-sei stone. <S> This leads to a quicker win (or loss), depending on how well Black plays tactically. <S> It could be that Black is tactically only three or four stones, weaker than White (although six stones weaker overall), and can hold his own in the complications, given the extra stones. <S> In which case the safer course is to kakari from the open sides.
|
The "safe" way for white to play is to make kakaris from the OPEN portions of the board on the lower and upper sides.
|
What is a good way to get used to counting points? Being able to count is important - in the end, it's about the points. Does anyone have any tips to get used to counting during a game, little things that can speed it up or make it a little less tedious in the beginning? <Q> The advice I have heard most is to count in pairs. <S> The human mind can easily count groups of around four objects, and so it may be beneficial to eventually move to counts of fours, but pairs tend to be easier in my experience. <S> Once you have your count for one colour, either subtract that number from 50 (or 100, if there's a lot of empty room), or start counting down. <S> Otherwise, you are very likely to forget the score you counted, making you start all over again. <S> this is less accurate, but in the mid-game speed may be more important and you may be unable to give good estimates, anyway. <S> Make sure to multiply the value of an area by the probability of the player keeping it; a good way to do this automatically is to count in threes or fours when looking at large areas that are very likely to be invaded. <S> A fairly obvious trick is to count in your opponent's time; however, be careful that you still count the effect of your move before you play it (if possible), and not afterwards. <S> Especially in the yose, if you have time, try to count how many points a move will cost. <S> In many cases, you may find that taking sente may be worth more than responding to the opponent's move. <S> Finally, if you happen to have trouble keeping track of the score, consider learning binary; <S> it'll let you count to 1023 on your fingers, which should be enough for most games. :) <A> Also try an intuitive count as a way of training that intuition. <S> Think about how you've come out in the exchanges you've had with your opponent. <S> Did you get something and your opponent got something? <S> That's roughly equal. <S> Did you come out with a very poor result in one place and your opponent in another? <S> That's also roughly equal at that point. <S> If you've been robbed and your opponent has not then you're behind. <S> This approach will also lead to you asking others for advice on how to assess positions and results of exchanges. <S> In the long term this is very useful. <S> Point by point counting is actually easier to learn. <A> You can make notes. <S> Note what are your estimates of every territory avery 10 or 20 moves. <S> Not only it will allow you to track the score but also you will learn on your mistakes (in the end of game you will get accurate score). <S> But also you will learn values of particular moves expanding territories. <S> You also will get a grasp on value of thickness as territories will start to appear "out of thin air". <S> Also with time you will remember all you have written, as it will become a habit. <S> Good luck! <A> The way I was taught is to count groups of two points: 0.5 for each empty space (1 for every 2) 1 for each of the opponent's dead stones on the board. <S> In my experience, this makes counting board score much easier. <A> Count the space, ignore the stones. <S> I usually count space like Japanese rule. <S> I don't count very often, usually after most of the board are shaped. <S> After counting, remember the delta. <S> For example, if I am 5 points behind, play like I am going to gain 6 points. <S> Adjust the delta along the game. <S> In such way, I don't have to count staring from zero every time.
|
Another useful trick is to simply balance large pieces of territory against each other, and then count what's left; Count a dead stone as one pair, and if you see a lone empty spot, just mark that in your mind and continue, removing the mark and adding a pair once you see another lone empty spot.
|
How to protect a large piece of side territory I've played several games where I have gained a good chunk of side territory, but lost it due to invasion by the other player. Below is an example, ignore the placement outside of the area black surrounds and focus on solving the problem inside. $$ Defending the side$$ .............$$ .....OOOOOOO.$$ ..XXXOOXOX.XO$$ OOX..XX.X.X.O$$ OX.....X...X.$$ XX.........X.$$ X..........X.$$ ------------- White has several points of injection, what would be some good strategies to make any attempt at minimizing or taking away this territory fruitless. <Q> The answer is: Don't, unless you really have to. <S> The situation shown in your question is already solid territory. <S> In this case, adding any inside stone to "protect" your territory further will reduce your score. <S> You should try to decide if there is anything that can be exploited in your area. <S> Let's see how it is in your case: $$ Initial position$$ ............. <S> $$ ..... <S> OOOOOOO.$$ .. <S> XXXOOXOX.XO$$ OOX.. <S> XX.X.X.O$$ <S> OX..... <S> X... <S> X.$$ XX......... <S> X.$$ <S> X.......... <S> X.$$ ------------- <S> As a simple rule of thumb <S> : Imagine your opponent playing all inside forcing moves in sente, then try to find the vital point. <S> Is there a way to live? <S> $$ <S> Wcm1 Is there a way to live? <S> Even if black plays very simple, white cannot do anything after B10.$$ ............. <S> $$ ..... <S> OOOOOOO.$$ .. <S> XXXOOXOX.XO$$ OOX.0XX6X4X8O$$ OX219.. <S> X537X.$$ <S> XX......... <S> X.$$ <S> X.......... <S> X.$$ ------------- <S> If not — as in this example — do not add stones. <S> If you are unsure, it is good practice to still play away (this is vaguely related to the concept of kiai). <S> As sole exception, if you're far ahead and it's an important game, well, I suppose you may add an inside move to make 110% sure. <S> Of course, sometimes you do have to defend without question. <S> If that is impossible, simply add a move at the vital point. <S> Where is the vital point? <S> Shape sense will tell you. <S> Around 10 kyu you should see spots that defend most or all weaknesses. <S> Until then, there is no recipe, so just keep playing until you've built up enough experience. <S> Again, as a rule of thumb, try to fix potential cuts, make sure every part of your group has enough eyespace or is solidly connected. <S> If the inside area is very large, play somewhere in the center to make divide the potential invasion space in two fractions, each too small to do anything. <A> I use what I call the "three cut point" rule. <S> That is, my position is in danger if there are three cut points close to each other. <S> For the time being, your position is "safe. <S> " There are only two cut points on the left side. <S> The main danger comes if white takes the ko. <S> That potentially creates a bunch of other cut points. <S> With the move, I might consider filling the ko and eliminating this aji. <S> If white took the ko, I might connect at one of the cut points, and let white fill the ko. <S> The other danger is that White will play a insertion move on the right side, "forking" two Black stones. <S> The one nearest the edge is a stray stone and can be given up. <S> The one more toward the center needs to be protected, because losing it would create more cut points. <A> Defending a large chunk of territory is not easy, that's why the 3-3 point is highly regarded. <S> In your position, the main weakness is at 2: $$ ............. <S> $$ .OOOOOOOOOOO.$$ <S> .OXXXOOXOX.XO$$ <S> OOX.8XX.X.X.O$$ <S> OX246.. <S> X...X.$$ <S> XX35.7..... <S> X.$$ <S> X.......... <S> X.$$ ------------- <S> Note that you can't completely ignore what is going on on the outside <S> - I have added surrounding white stones.
|
Usually, you should try to defend actively, by moving out or attacking a weakness of your opponent's stones to make your own stones more secure.
|
When is Mechana Initiate worth buying? Is the Mechana Initiate worth buying (except at the end to get some easy points)? It's only 1 Rune or 1 Power, which seems weak compared to the other Initiates. <Q> If you're not going to be cycling through your deck again, the goal of buying cards is to maximize the value of what's in your deck. <A> The key thing with the Initiate is the flexibility. <S> While often weaker than other choices, sometimes that's all you have available. <S> I've seen some games where only the Mechana Initate player was able to afford some of the power cards due to that flexibility. <S> It's true that he will increase the size of the deck, so if you're going for a power-combo deck, then he's likely not a good choice. <S> However, if your deck building is based more on value-per turn opportunities (score rushing), you can often win before combo decks get going. <S> This initiate will be key that that kind of strategy. <A> I'm not sold on the Mechana Initiate as a good card. <S> The flexibility IS nice, but you're choosing between making it a Militia or an Apprentice -- two cards you'd be well-advised to aggressively prune from your deck. <S> It does very little to help you either purchase the big-ticket items or go big game hunting. <S> In the early game, I suspect the correct move is to ignore it and let somebody else clutter their deck with it. <A> I've managed to play many games on digital with all expansions to date which include up to Dawn Of Champions, and even several promos. <S> There's already been some good answers concerning "in general", or for just that set (base game/CotG). <S> I'll also add... <S> Copy effects <S> so you can get both a rune AND a power <S> (although yeah... <S> it's still only 1 of each, and usually more rare where you'd need 1 of each). <S> Use as "cannon fodder". <S> If you have an effect that forces you to banish or discard a card, may as well be that if it can't be a Militia nor Apprentice. <S> If it's an effect where you get to acquire a card of "up to x more honor than the card you banished", then you count from 1, whereas banishing a Militia or Apprentice is considered 0 honor. <S> For example, you can Banish a Mech. <S> Initiate with a Storm Of Souls card, and acquire a card that is up to 3 honor, not just 2 (2 more than the banished card in this case)! <S> With Realms Unraveled (exp #6), there are cards which give you a bonus if you've played <S> 1 or more Mechana Hero(es). <S> He's a cheap way to get to that! <S> With Dawn Of Champions (exp #7) there are cards that give you a bonus if you play any Mechana card (hero or construct). <S> Another thing with DoC is there is the "Champion" mechanic where each player starts off with a random faction (Enlightened, Void, Lifebound, or Mechana). <S> If you're given mechana, all mechana cards you acquire will give you one Reputation. <S> Normally, you add Reputation by paying 2 runes, and that method is limited to once per turn. <S> If there are 2 Mechana Initiates in the Center Row, 2 runes to buy them gets you 2 Reputation! <S> Because of DoC's crazy Rally mechanic, you may end up getting a Mechana Initiate for free. <S> There are Promo cards, and perhaps from regular sets where you get bonuses from playing Mechana cards/heroes, 1 of each faction, etc.
|
Late-game, it's a reliable way to get one honor for one rune.
|
Strategy for studying professional games? I recently took A. Dinershtein's Go style test . It was useful to me, as the test is aimed at finding professional players who might think the way you do, for study purposes. It has definitely worked for me. But what should I bear in mind while studying professional games? <Q> A lot depends on your strength. <S> I find that memorizing them is useful for me. <S> I've also heard a lot of people suggest that you need to play them out on a real board. <S> It helps teach your fingers where the pro moves are :) <S> If you're not a dan-level player, you probably shouldn't focus too much on fighting sequences - you won't be able to understand all of the variations the players are considering. <S> From an amateur perspective almost everything that happens in a pro game is an even trade, so you should look for sequences that don't seem even to you and try to figure out why they actually are. <A> Most pro games are fairly even until a "turning point. <S> " This is when one player makes a mistake, as related by the author of the game commentary, usually a pro. <S> Sometimes the commentator is one of the players, who says, "I made move X that lost the game, or "My opponent's move Y lost him the game." <S> Then the thing to do is to study the game up to the turning point, to see why it was even till then, and <S> then after the turning point, to see why the winner had a clear advantage. <S> Some games are closely matched to the end, with White finally winning by less than the komi, or alternately, Black beating komi by say, one and a half points. <S> A model book in this regard is Kato's "Attack and Kill," about his winning streak of some 20-odd games, in which he points out his opponent's "losing moves." <S> He is also self-critical, pointing out places where he made move X, which should have lost, but that the opponent's move Y was an even worse mistake, that resulted in a Kato victory. <A> I used to memorize games as a fairly large staple of my studies. <S> Some general points: 1) <S> The position at any point is approximately even. <S> A "losing move" to a professional–one that everyone agrees is bad–is still probably close enough to even for anyone but a high-level dan. <S> If you are at that point or getting close to it, be sure to look up the commentaries if there are in and read through them. <S> 2) Take your time on each move. <S> Analyze how you would move, see how the professional moves, and analyze why the professional might have moved there. <S> It is oft repeated that you are about 3-4 stones stronger when you study, so take advantage of that and try to see as much as you can. <S> Even if you are wrong, the process of thinking about it is very valuable. <S> 3) Start with ten moves at a time and see if you can increase it over time. <S> So put down ten moves, then reset. <S> When I would do it I would go back to a blank board every ten moves and try to play back to the current point. <S> 4) Replay your own games from memory immediately after you play them. <S> If you played a person at a club, see if you can get them to go with you. <S> 5) <S> During the endgame try to count the value of each move. <S> This is an easy time to do that, and it is excellent practice. <S> Hope that helps! <A> Replay through a game twice. <S> Each time focus on just 1 side. <S> Memorizing games can help, but it's even better to memorize games that cover variations and/or provide commentary. <S> Don't try and understand every single move though, that is just too daunting even with provided in-depth commentary. <S> Instead, try and gain the overall idea and feel the flow behind their play. <A> Yuan Zhou just published a book on this topic. <S> Check out Slate and Shell for sample pages. <S> I am a big fan of Zhou's books and will certainly buy this one. <S> He has a nice way of writing towards kyu level players. <S> Title <S> : Learning from Pro Games <S> Author: Zhou, Yuan <S> Year: 2011 <S> ISBN: <S> 9781932001-57-0 Price: $20.00 http://www.slateandshell.com/SSYZ015.html <A> I am a novice player, so take everything I might say cautiously. <S> But I have been working through "Invincible - The Games of Shusaku" by John Power <S> and I think it has been helping me, even if there is a lot I don't understand yet. <S> It is mostly commentaries on games from Honinbo Shusaku, who is arguably one of the greatest Go players. <S> The one thing to keep in mind is that these games were played before Komi was invented, so generally black can be more defensive and white <S> must be more aggressive <S> then you would likely see in a modern competitive game. <S> Still, the general tactics should remain the same. <A> I learned the game's rule when I was 5 or 6 years old. <S> However, I was really hooked after I read a go book in a small bookstore in Xian (西安) when I was eighteen. <S> The book was written by Go Seigen (吳清源－名局細解). <S> The book explains every single detail in games between Go Seigen and other top Japanese Go players. <S> It was so inspiring. <S> It was like reading a great painting. <S> It was just beautiful. <S> I'd say I fell in love with go because of the journal to Xian. <S> More than twenty years later, I have written a program on iPad to read the annotated games of great pro players. <S> The first game to test the program with, is a game of Go Seigen XD <S> So, I'd say pro games, like great paintings, are art.
|
Memorizing pro games is training your pattern memory, and replaying through your own games after you've played them is excellent practice here. It's a really good idea to look at each sequence or exchange in the game and try to tell what each player got out of it.
|
Where can I find reusable white playing cards for prototyping? The question title says it all : Where can I find reusable white playing cards for prototyping? I find services online to generate cards but not reusable white cards (that you can write on and erase later). <Q> While it doesn't directly answer your question of where to get reusable playing cards, I have helped friends play-test card games before, and we have always just grabbed a handful of junk Magic common cards (because who doesn't have thousands of those lying around?) <S> , put them all into sleeves, and then slipped pieces of paper between the face of the card and the sleeve. <S> One of my favorites is taking a stack of note cards, cutting them in half, and using each half for a card face. <S> Now you can just change out the slips of paper when you want to update a card, and you can just recycle the old slips of paper afterwards. <S> When we've been short of paper, we've even cut up grocery bags, or written on the backs of receipts or used envelopes, its all the same. <S> Once a card is nice and stable, you can print off a nicer version and slip it into a sleeve and card if that's what you want. <A> That sounds very challenging, given that your erasable cards would need to NOT erase themselves during shuffling. <S> I'm designing a card-heavy game myself, and at the moment, my plan for prototyping is to print the cards on light cardstock (I have a laser printer) and then cut them out manually. <S> I don't expect them to last particularly long, but for the prototyping phase, I don't need them to. <S> The downside is it's a bit labor intensive <S> (though I figure a small guillotine-style paper cutter will ameliorate that), but the cost in materials will be negligible. <S> Would something like that be an option for you? <A> Plastic Projector Sheets Cut to sizes you need. <S> You would only be able to use dry markers, or maybe ink pen, but whichever surface you decide to use pen marks would probably be left behind. <S> Pro: Basic erasable cards or portable flexible 'white boards' <S> (You can probably also use inkjets on them and erase them after as well, but that remains to be tested.) <S> Con: <S> It is transparent <S> If you are going to store the information on these sheets for a long time, or shuffling, consider buying card protectors, like those for trading cards. <S> I use this all the time for flowcharting. <S> (You can put a white sheet of paper behind each sheet.btw) <A> You only get one use, but the labels are quite easy to peel off and replace.
|
One technique that works ok is to get an old pack or two of playing cards and a roll of sticky labels, and just stick labels over the faces.
|
Is there a strategy for consistent winning in the base dominion game with the base setup? I've just started playing dominion a little while ago, so I'm pretty new. I get the basic tactics (big money, deck thinning, don't buy copper, etc.) and I do ok when the kingdom cards vary. However, when playing the "basic" game [moat, cellar, village, workshop, woodsmith, militia, etc.] I can't ever seem to win and I don't understand why. No one is playing militias (I've tried them to disrupt others strategies...to no avail) We play "tournament style" where you can pick your first 2 cards to purchase. Maybe my initial buys are not so good? I usually start out with smithy+silver, and then pick up a mine when I get my first $5. From then on I usually do: $2=cellar, $3=silver, $4=silver, maybe one more smithy, $5=market, maybe silver, $6-7=gold, $8=province. Basically I'm trying to do some variant of "smithy big money" but it isn't working out so well. Does any one have a consistent strategy for the base game that works? <Q> My favorite Dominion article, Building the "First Game" Engine , looks at this problem. <S> The article works out some very good strategies, comparing them to a baseline of Big Money + Smithy. <S> They run simulations to "prove" which one is best. <S> A Village/Smithy/Province (V/S/P) strategy beats Big Money + Smithy <S> a little more than half the time, and eventually the find a strategy that beats V/S/P a whoppping 89% of the time. <S> Best of all, the article showcases the depth that a single set of 10 kingdom cards can have. <S> Their best answer is complicated (surprising to some, given the common overestimation of Big Money + 1 or 2 other card strategies). <S> It uses a Workshop to pick up early Villages and a Remodel, a Mine, several Smithies and eventually a Militia, with Markets and Cellars "sprinkled in". <S> Of course it's not a definitive "best solution", but it's several clear steps ahead of an already very competitive baseline. <A> Open with Militia and Silver. <S> Get a remodel on turn 2 to get rid of your bad cards and maybe throw in a smithy or another militia. <S> Skip the mine, it's not really that great a card in this set as it gets pretty useless towards the endgame, whereas with remodel you can still turn gold into provinces. <S> If you have 3, buy a silver for the first few turns, then maybe switch to village or nothing <S> once silver ends up being one of the worst cards in your deck. <S> At 4, buy maybe 1 smithy, then go with one of the 3 options. <S> At 5, take a market as it's better than silver 95% of the time. <S> At 6-7 take gold, at 8 take a province unless its really early in the game. <S> Once you get to the point where you only have <2 reshuffles in your deck, but nothing but victory cards! <S> Even take an estate if you have to. <S> At this point, your will only draw each card in your deck about 2 more times, so that duchy starts looking way better than a gold, since the you'll barely be able to use the gold at all. <S> Forget that workshop, woodcutter, and mine exist. <S> Take 1 moat only if people are getting lot of militias. <S> Maybe take a cellar if you end up with a lot of copper and estates in your deck despite your use of remodel. <S> Take a cellar only if you want to use a lot of actions and already have plenty of silver. <S> Take village if you have a lot of action cards in your deck and consistently not enough actions to play them. <A> You are buying way too many actions that don't actually combine well. <S> Literally, that's it. <S> You'll be able to buy your share of the Provinces in 14 turns, on average, which is a solid strategy. <A> Smithy/ Village is a good combination to have a few of, as it will allow you to draw a lot of cards in your hand. <S> A single workshop very early can help to get the silver flowing, and help to get Smithy/Village cards, but no more. <S> From there, buy Province, Gold, or Silver as you can.
|
Try buying a single Smithy, and then buy the first thing you can afford from this list for the rest of the game: Province, Gold, Silver.
|
How can I arrange a Christmas gift exchange for board game geeks? My circle of board game geeks usually celebrate Christmas by a simple gift exchange game where we take turns rolling dice to accumulate gifts, and have 2/6 chance to get a new gift but 1/6 to lose one. However, I feel like we're playing the rock-paper-scissors or Monopoly of gift exchanges. How can we spice this up a bit to make it more worthy of board game geeks? Just playing games and giving the winner a gift doesn't cut it, because we want it to be fair. <Q> Or Dominion, or Agricola, or anything else that produces a score that can be used to determine <S> not just who won but 2nd place, 3rd place, etc. <S> Whoever got the low score opens a present. <S> It's theirs! <S> For now. <S> Now, everybody takes turns choosing a present, starting with the second-lowest scorer and working up to the winner. <S> When it's your turn to choose, you may either open a new present, or steal an opened present. <S> If your present gets stolen, you're presented with the same choice; steal somebody else's, or open a new one. <S> (A given present may only be stolen once per round.) <S> The round lasts until somebody finally grabs a previously unopened present. <S> Thus, whoever goes last gets the choice between the best of the N-1 known quantities, or take a chance on the Mystery Box Of Mystery. <S> I do this with both friends and family <S> every Christmas, with the order being determined by random draw rather than a game. <S> Makes for a good time. <A> Our group plays a game of Werewolf, we call our holiday version Santa vs. the Grinch, that is combined with the gift exchange. <S> Here is the link to that file on BoardGameGeek.com: <S> http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/50348/grinchwolf-gift-exchange-for-30-or-less-players <S> It's fun and handles a good size group, up to 30. <A> There are several games that use auction mechanics to divide up gained resources. <S> Consider a game like Ra that evenly divides up bidding chips (suns) to players, with each getting <S> a low, medium, and high valued chip. <S> Then there an auction for a set of tiles with people bidding the chip they think is worth the value. <S> In your case, you can do something similar, create chips of increasing values from 1 to the number of gifts in the game. <S> Each player buys a random chip in exchange for putting a gift into the pool. <S> Now the game begins. <S> Then players take turns. <S> On his turn a player can either add a gift to the current set of gifts being auctioned, or begin an auction. <S> When the auction begins, each player starting to the left of the player who began the auction <S> either places one or more chips in front of him to bid on the item(s). <S> Each player much exceed the bid of the previous player or pass. <S> Multiple chips may be used, their values are added. <S> Once everyone has passed the winner takes his gifts and the chips used are discarded. <S> Everyone else who didn't win the auction keeps their chips. <A> If there are lots of small presents, you could play a Coloretto-style game with them. <S> Players take it in turns to reveal (or unwrap?) <S> a small present. <S> They add them to one of N heaps (where N is the number of players). <S> Instead of revealing on their turn, a player can claim a heap and remove themselves from the game. <S> The remaining players continue until the only remaining player takes the last heap (plus any unassigned presents if there are any). <S> Give each participant a total budget and a number of items they should get (which don't have to be equal in value) and bring them wrapped, or use standard playing cards to identify them and play with.
|
If there's one wrapped gift per person, you could do it as a white elephant exchange with pick position determined by a game of Settlers.
|
What is the meaning of 'karai' and how is it applied? A Western insei recently wondered about the term "karai": Japanese players call black 57 "karai", which is a term which I haven't heard used in western go at all! The meaning appears to be close to "(a move creating) a solid position, including a territorial profit". Professionals appear to love "karai" moves and groups. This term is apparently unknown in the West and so far I found no books explaining or even mentioning it. What does it mean exactly, and to what moves is it applied? An example board would be great. <Q> "Concentrating on getting territory, rather than playing for influence." Pasting in the native speaker sources from the Sensei's answer (put there by <S> Bill Spight <S> I <S> think):辛い（からい）厚みよりも地をとることを意図すること。from <S> Weblio's Basic Go Dictionary <S> 厚みより地をとることを目的とすること。from <S> a different go dictionary <S> 厚みよりも実利（地）を重視していること。From <S> the katteyomi go dictionary <S> Also, if you google for "地に辛い" (ji ni karai, i.e. concentrating on taking territory) you get it described as a style of some players (Wikipedia mentions Hane Naoki, Iiyama Yuta, but also says this style of play is becoming more widespread/dominant recently). <A> (This is a preliminary answer, I'm hoping for someone to come up with a more founded answer with example situations). <S> To my knowledge, karai means "clear and sharp" and is typically applied to important, big moves that globally put pressure on the opponent to come up with a (global) strategy. <S> This is different from kiai which is a little closer to (local) tactics. <S> There is also the somewhat related term "aji karai" which refers to a shape free of weakness. <S> The precise difference to 'honte' is unclear to me, though. <A> Strange, as the Japanese word "karai" means hot or spicy, or salty. <S> It does not sound, to me, like a word that would be used to describe a nice, solid defensive move. <S> [EDIT: <S> but it seems it is, see the comments] <S> I'm wondering if the original person mis-heard or mis-typed the word "katai". <S> That means solid. <S> As a negative connotation it would mean tight, stiff and close (i.e. too slow a move). <S> As a positive connotation it would be strong, firm and steady, a move that gives your group a definite life.
|
It can also mean strict, harsh, tough.
|
Table-top Golf game with coins? About twenty years ago I saw this game board. It was huge, the size of a table. Made of wood. And on it was an 18-hole golf course, complete with pegs and barriers for hazards. You played with coins (or at least, when I saw it people were using coins). Using your thumb, you'd slide a quarter or penny or nickel, whatever you had presumably, and you'd bounce it off the sides of the board and the barriers and pegs, hoping to get it in the next hole. Each hole was an indented circle drilled out of the wood and was numbered. Players took turns, and could hit each others coins out of the way. I've been looking to find it again for ages without any luck. As big as it was, it was probably expensive and produced in a limited quantity. I've search the net for penny golf, quarter golf, coin golf, for years with no luck. Now that I see a board/card game section of stackexchange, I though I'd give it another shot. Anyone heard of this? Thanks! <Q> I originally posted this question as a guest and am unable to select an answer, however, thanks to everyone who posted here, I have my answer <S> and I'd like to share a little information with you all on the topic. <S> World Wide Games of Colchester originally made the game. <S> It was indeed called "Fore Par", and it included wooden pucks with little rubber rings on the outside of them to help them bounce. <S> It was a large, plain wooden board (the exact dimensions of which I am still trying to pin down) with pegs and recessed "holes". <S> At one time, the game sold brand new for $158.50. <S> Here is an archived article from the NY Times that mentions the company and the game and cost, as well as other games made by WWG: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/12/nyregion/from-adi-to-skittles-to-yoot-making-fun.html <S> In some instances, Fore Par was included in a "cabinet" set of games you could purchase from World Wide Games. <S> World Wide Games was eventually purchased by S&S Worldwide. <S> Sometime later, SSW would build a similar game known as "Bumper Golf". <S> I didn't recognize the game because of the graphics and I thought for sure they weren't the same game (since it didn't use coins), but since I found a picture of the original Fore Par, I've been corrected. <S> In fact, looking closely at both of them side by side, you can see that the layouts are EXACTLY the same, the only difference being the starting point for the 4th hole is shifted slightly to a different position. <S> (See photo). <S> I wish I knew a little more history about the original Fore Par game, and a history of the company World Wide Games. <S> Seems they cared about making a quality product that was used by many educational institutions (schools, YMCA's, etc). <S> It makes perfect sense that I originally played this game as a child at my elementary school. <S> At my school, the wooden pieces were long gone, and the board had been played with coins for many years. <S> So long that years of coin-impacts had worn away at the wooden sides and hazards at the best places to bounce the pieces. <A> I have this game. <S> It is called Fore-par table golf. <S> It was made by world wide games Inc. out of Delaware OH. <S> The board is made of all wood and is very durable. <A> The original game was called "Fore Par" and it was manufactured by World Wide Games. <S> It was a wooden board with, as noted 18 holes, bounded by wood bars and dowel pegs to make the shots trickier. <S> The 'golf ball' was a wood disk which had a rubber ring around it so that it could bounce off of the pegs, bars, and frame around the board, so one could 'bank' shots in as in pool. <S> World Wide Games was bought out by S&S World Wide, out of Colchester CT, who continued to manufacture the game for several years, along with "bumper puck", a bumper pool style game which used the same pucks. <S> Unfortunately, the company no longer makes either game, and I have been unable to find replacement pucks anywhere, which is sad, since I do have one of the games. <A> What you describe sounds a lot like Carrom , but on a golf course-style board, so a (slightly gimmicky) <S> Carrom variant. <S> Do the games described on this page <S> sound like what you saw? <S> In particular, Bumper Golf sounds like a strong candidate: <S> The game board depicts an 18-hole golf course. <S> Players shoot wooden disks from numbered tee spots, trying to sink their disk into the equivalent numbered cup. <S> An American Carrom variant based on golf is also described on Wikipedia , but unfortunately there is no reference for further information: <S> A version of American carrom was played in Southern California schools in the 1950s–1980s, using a somewhat larger square board and wooden rings struck with cue sticks.[citation needed] <S> There was both a golf version and a maze version. <S> In the golf version, there was a series of nine "holes" (really just green areas on the board.) <S> A player had to start at the tee for a particular hole and get a carrom coin completely within the green region to advance to the next hole. <S> Sand trap hazards would cause the player to lose a stroke and lake hazards would cause the player to lose two.[citation needed] <S> A modified commercial version also exists. <A> I played this game only a few weeks ago in Sweden! <S> I went over to a friend's place for Christmas, and after dinner her family pulled out this really old game from Finland, just as you described! <S> Using coins, 8 or 9 levels, with wooden obstacles to increase difficulty. <S> You can play in teams (we did men vs women), and each player has 5 attempts to get the coin across the obstacle and into the scoring zone (the hole itself, or numbered sectors around it). <S> After 5 failed attempts, you get 9 points. <S> Hole-in-one is 1 point. <S> Like golf, highest amount of points loses. <S> It was a lot of fun! <S> I forget what it was called... <S> I'll ask my friend and get back to you. <A> Sounds a little bit like Shove Ha'penny. <S> Only cooler. <A> I think what you are looking for is called Strokes Table Golf ( http://www.strokestablegolf.com/ ) <S> It is a Carrom like game with a custom board exactly as you describe it. <S> It has jumps, ramps, and other hazards. <S> My feeling tho is this may just be the modern version of the game which is different than what you had played. <S> They also have an iPhone app.
|
Bumper Golf, published by S&S Worldwide is a version of the Carrom golf board game sometimes seen in parks and arcades.
|
Is it common practice to publish/sell online versions of board games? I bought the Ticket to Ride: Europe game by Days of Wonder, and it included an online registration code. Visiting the website, I noticed that some of the games had a free online preview available. I have tried the Ticket to Ride one. It was a (Java) version of the original TTR game in not a very good quality. My question is: Is it common practice for publishers to provide online versions of their games? Are they usually free, provided you bought the board game, or do they have to be bought separately? <Q> I've never encountered any other company doing so for free or even reduced cost on their own dime, save for the "instructional" modes. <S> I've heard there are a couple others doing so, but I've not encountered them. <S> I've often seen companies link to such venues. <S> Days of Wonder used to only give you 6 months access to their online lobby with a game, but it allowed access to all games. <S> Now, they provide access to just the games purchased, but noting that a few unsupported games are able to be accessed free (Including Queen's Necklace online...). <S> Also note: Many electronic versions of various games are unlicensed - there are a few dozen free versions of Monopoly that are actually not licensed; the official version isn't free. <S> Keep in mind: most boardgame companies are not staffed with programmers; DoW is an exception. <S> Update <S> 3/5/2012 : <S> I've since noticed others doing so. <S> Amarillo Design Bureau licensed a programmer to create and maintain SFB-Online. <S> A couple other companies have likewise placed electronic versions of their games up as pay to access; most of the "unfree" access now is advertising supported or is in-game payments. <A> This is becoming increasingly common practice, driven by the lounge console game markets and the rise of tablets. <S> It's not yet standard, however, and depends on the publisher. <S> Days of Wonder in particular have been doing a lot along these lines. <S> It's not usually free; generally the online game is expected to pay for itself separately. <S> However, it's common for the online game to be cheaper, or to have a free promotion. <A> There are a huge number of modern board games to play digitally now. <S> For most games, there is very little hope for the publisher to make any money out of it, considering the cost of development. <S> Only for a tiny number of games, I think, it is a viable option. <S> Most board game apps are not free. <S> On browsers however, the huge majority of conversions are free. <S> In that case, publishers ask for less, usually nothing to license their games (one big platform actually asks for money!). <S> Online play is used as an advertizing tool. <S> The more people can try the game online and enjoy it, the more chances they will buy the physical game. <S> Usually games that are free-to-play on online platforms are less polished than apps, but they also tend to have a much longer life. <S> With many apps, it is hardly possible to find anyone to play with after a couple of days after release. <S> Please check out Happy Meeple ( http://www.happymeeple.com/fr/ ). <S> This is the most beginner-friendly online platform. <S> It has tutorials, good AI, no waiting time, sound/music, animations. <S> It has fewer games than others but they are clearly more polished, easy to understand, quick to play. <S> It is the perfect place to start with the hobby. <S> I hope this is useful.
|
It's actually quite rare. Several 3rd party developers have made money by paid subscriptions to their sites and hosting lots of games under license, and others by advertising supported free online play of various games.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.