text:
Is there an unofficial term for an artifact that produces mana?
Some terms have an unofficial but widely known meaning in Magic jargon. For example, a "cantrip" is a spell that lets you draw a card, and a "bear" is a vanilla 2/2 (with "vanilla" having its own meaning!)
What about a card that produces mana like Sol Ring, Rakdos Signet, or Talisman of Indulgence? Do they have an unofficial name?

The canonical name for these seems to be 'Mana Rocks', probably so named after one of the very first, Fellwar Stone.

The number of Google results is impressive. This does indeed appear to be an accepted term.

Does a Mox count as a "Mana Rock"?  How about a Black Lotus?  Surely not!

I'm pretty sure the name refers to the Moxes, not Fellwar Stone.

I'm less sure it refers to the Moxes (though not entirely sure it refers to Fellwar Stone either); the term seems to have primarily originated in EDH/Commander play, where moxen are outright banned.  It's more likely than anything else, I suppose, to be an offshoot of 'brown' as the color of artifacts and the notion of artifacts as generically being mineral of some sort or another.

"Mox" is typically a term to itself meaning a 0-cost artifact that produces mana.

"Mana Rocks" might be a genuine term, but I don't think it's a particularly useful one, as it's not very descriptive of the use of these cards.
If I was talking about this class of card, in a way more likely to explain why I'd want to include some in my decks, I'd just go for "artifact-based mana acceleration".  I know this answers your question less well than Steven's answer, but on the other hand I, and I'm sure many others, would never use the term "mana rocks"!


text:
Help identify a game with a vampire and his servants
A friend asked me quite a question yesterday. She was trying to remember a game that she saw in a game shop when she was a child, in the 80s-90s. On its cover was a vampire at a table, ready to eat, with two servants bringing plates and one trying to trip the other.
I guess by the description of the box that each player tries to bring the vampire's food first, or perhaps as many times as possible, and prevent other players from doing so.
Can anyone help identify this game?

Maybe she could try to identify the cover on http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgamefamily/6428/vampires

Inevitability, these sorts of questions become discussions and help one person. Clairification is needed to determine in what language the game was released, was it really the cover, did they get the details right, and soon you arrive at a game completely different than the initial description.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

sort: votes


text:
In Bridge, Can I Ask About Previously Played Cards to the Current Trick?
In Bridge, one is allowed to look at the four cards played to the last trick (if the next round hasn't started).
Can I similarly ask about cards played to the current trick?
I was sitting at East, and the third round of a suit was led by West. Declarer followed suit from dummy immediately.
I asked: "Who played the master card?" (It was West, and I didn't want to trump partner's trick.)
Dummy protested, "You shouldn't have asked that question, because you just advertised your void." But partner had already played (as had dummy). So only declarer would "benefit" from my question.
Was my question proper or not in this context? If it was improper, was it for the reason dummy said? And do I have the right to ask declarer to play in a "measured" (rather than "immediate") fashion, so I can see the cards played?

As far as I'm concerned, asking for completely public information, like which player set a given card down on the table, should always be okay in any game. But maybe I'm out of place in the world of bridge.

How does that question announce your void?  You could just as easily have had a higher card, but you wouldn't want to take a trick your partner was already winning.

It sounds like you're playing a less formal game, so I don't see a problem with asking the question.
In a more formal setting each card would remain in front of the player that played it so the question wouldn't be necessary and most likely an irregularity.

Accept because of remark about card remaining in front of player in a tournament.

The difference is actually between duplicate and rubber bridge: I've played extremely formal rubber, and extremely informal duplicate.

I'm not sure that in a home game, the situations you describe are similar. When you review the previous trick, you're seeing all four cards at once, with no indication as to who played what (although of course you know who won the trick because they're about to lead to the next). When you ask about a specific card on the current trick, I think you are basically doing what dummy suggested ... although I don't think it's necessarily whether or not you're void that is being revealed (unless partner led the ace), but rather the idea that you have a winning card and aren't sure whether or not to play it. That information could be valuable for your partner on subsequent tricks as well as this one.
I do, however, agree that you should have leeway to get more information than you would in a tournament (especially given that as I understand it, dummy isn't allowed to call attention to irregularities during play). The intent of playing a card to a trick should not be to mislead or confuse opponents as to which card was just played. It may be a semantic difference, but in this situation, I think you should be able to ask declarer which card was just played from dummy. The idea may be the same (do I need to win this trick or not?), but the question is focused on what just happened rather than on its effects.

Your point seems to be, I can ask the question, but need to do it the "right" way. And if the cards are laid in front of players during a tournament (particularly duplicate or IMPs), then the point becomes moot.

Yeah, that's a good way to summarize it.

Law 66A of the ACBL says that you can only REQUIRE another player to show you his card if you haven't turned your card face down on the table.  However, at a lower level club game I don't see any problem asking to see the other player's cards if you've put your card face down on the table but you could receive a perfectly correct "No!" answer.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
Can I have multiple copies of a creature with Cipher?
As far as I understand, Cipher works like so: when a card that contains Cipher is cast, you encode it onto a spell on the battlefield, like a creature for example. Every time that creature attacks and deals damage to a player, a copy of the encoded creature is made.
If the opponent does not have anything to block a flying creature I've encoded, and for 3 turns straight I can deal damage with the creature that was encoded, does it result in 3 copies? Can you only make one copy?

Cipher copies the encoded spell, not the creature - have another look at the reminder text:

Then you may exile this spell card encoded on a creature you control. Whenever that creature deals combat damage to a player, its controller may cast a copy of this card without paying its mana cost.

"This card" is referring to the card it's printed on, the spell with cipher. So if for example you cast Last Thoughts (allowing you to draw a card) and encode it on a creature, each time that creature deals combat damage to a player, you get to re-cast Last Thoughts for free (and draw another card). This can happen as many times as you can manage to deal combat damage to a player with the creature.
I should also point out: you can only encode it onto a creature, not anything else on the battlefield. (And, I know it sounds pedantic, but there's no such thing as a spell on the battlefield - things on the battlefield are called "permanents", a word you'll see on some cards.)
Hopefully this makes more sense to you than copying the creature - you're encoding the spell onto the creature, tying them together, so that the creature can cause the spell to be cast again.

"This can happen as many times as you can manage to deal COMBAT damage to a player with the creature." -- important distinction :)

@Affe yay for Double Strike!!! :-)


text:
Can someone Bioshift counters off a creature after combat damage has been assigned?
A friend has a Primordial Hydra with 10 +1/+1 counters on it, giving it trample.  I block it with a Vampire Nighthawk, causing it to die. My friend then uses Bioshift to take the counters off "in response to it taking lethal damage".
A: Can he do this?
B: Would my creature die and I take the remaining damage if he does it?

To reiterate, this worked when combat damage used the stack, it no longer does.

nope, no more damage on the stack.  not since 2010

That ruling is sooo 2009

No he can not do this.
Damage does not use the stack.

510.1. First, the active player announces how each attacking creature assigns its combat damage, then the defending player announces how
  each blocking creature assigns its combat damage. This turn-based
  action doesn't use the stack. A player assigns a creature's combat
  damage according to the following rules:
510.2. Second, all combat damage that's been assigned is dealt simultaneously. This turn-based action doesn't use the stack. No
  player has the chance to cast spells or activate abilities between the
  time combat damage is assigned and the time it's dealt. This is a
  change from previous rules.

Then once the damage is assigned and SBA are checked, IE it goes to the grave yard, then players have priority.

510.3. Third, any abilities that triggered on damage being assigned or dealt go on the stack. (See rule 603, "Handling Triggered Abilities.")
510.4. Fourth, the active player gets priority. Players may cast spells and activate abilities.

So at the time he wants to move the counters the creature would be dead and gone.
EDIT: In response to B:
Since the nighthawk only has a toughness of 3, in step 510.1 your friend would assign 3 damage to the nighthawk and 7 damage to you if the hydra was 10/10 with trample.
When it comes to trample you only ever have to assign lethal damage to the blocker before you assign damage to the player the blocker is blocking.

Question A
No.
First of all, one can only do something in response to a spell or ability being added to the stack, so one can't cast Bioshift in response to damage.
Now, let's look at the real question. Is there a time when Bioshift could be cast such that the Hydra will deal full damage without dying? No. Here's how the turn goes:

...
Declare Blockers step.

Blockers are declared.
Damage assignment order of each attacking creature is announced.
Damage assignment order of each blocking creature is announced.
Stated-based actions are performed.
Abilities that previously triggered (if any) are placed on the stack.
Players get priority.

Combat Damage step.

Damage assignment of each attacking creature is announced.
Damage assignment of each blocking creature is announced.
Combat damage is dealt. (Simulatenously)
Stated-based actions are performed. (Destroying the Hydra)
Abilities that previously triggered (if any) are placed on the stack.
Players get priority.

...

Bioshift would need to be cast between 3.2/3.3 and 3.4, but players do not get priority then.
This has not always been the case. From 6th Edition (1999) up until Magic 2010 (2009), Combat damage was placed on the stack, and one could respond to it. Item 5 of this article explains the reason for the change.
Question B
He has to assign at least 3 damage to the Vampire Nighthawk (since it has three toughness and hasn't yet taken any damage) and up to 10. The difference (presumably 7) would be assigned to you, the attacked player.

It's a little bit of a tangent, but I thought it might be worth adding an answer about what the controller of Primordial Hydra should do if he wants to bioshift his counters onto another creature.
He can't do it in response to damage, as has been expertly explained in other answers, so I wont repeat it here, this answer is mostly about improved strategy. He can kill your nighthawk and save at least most of his counters, he just wont be able to trample over the damage from them this turn.
If he casts bioshift after you have declared blockers, but before damage is dealt, he can transfer all but 3 counters from his hydra onto another creature he controls. This lets him kill the vampire nighthawk but keep most of his counters on another creature.
If the creature that gets the counters is also attacking, then he still gets all the damage, in the instance that it isn't, then at least he keeps most of his counters for later attacks(and a creature with 7 +1/+1 counters on it in addition to anything else it does is pretty sweet to have!)

I recognise this is not a direct answer to the original question, so it may not really belong here, but I do think it provides useful information from "the other side of the coin". I think it's useful to explain what the best way to handle this situation from either side of the exchange

Some comments simply don't fit in the comment box.


text:
What does it mean when the Animator "counts as" the Finger of God?
In Monty Python Fluxx, the Animator reads:

Counts as the Finger of God if the real Finger of God is not on the table.

Does it mean that the Animator has just the nominal value of the Finger of God or does it have its ability too?
Suppose I have the Animator and the Finger of God is not on the table. Someone plays a goal which requires the Finger of God. Am I 50% winning?
Suppose I have the Animator and the Finger of God is not on the table. Someone plays a goal which requires the Animator. Am I 50% winning or do I have to wait for someone to play the Finger of God so that my Animator is just the Animator again?

It can count as the Finger of God for the purposes of Goals AND for having the ability.
That means:

I actually thought the answer was no, but in hunting for a source, I was corrected! So, yes, the card does have the Finger of God's ability as well. (The official FAQ seems to be down, but it was mentioned in this post on BGG.) This seems contrary to the game's aim of always having all the rules in effect visible on the cards on the table, but never mind.
Yes, the Animator counts as one of the required cards for any Goal which requires the Finger of God, so long as it isn't on the table somewhere else.
The Animator is always acceptable for any Goal that requires the Animator. It doesn't stop being the Animator even if it can also "count as" the Finger of God.

It's worth mentioning, however, that the Animator cannot be both the Animator and the Finger of God for the purposes of the Goal, "The Meaning of Life" (mentioned further down in that same forum).

@SirGalahad No problem. Glad I could help and welcome to the site! If you think an answer has answered your question, you can "accept" it by clicking the tick under the vote counter on the left of the answer. You can also up-vote helpful questions and answers all across the site to thank the contributors (More info). Enjoy your stay!


text:
Can I use the Finger of God on other players' turns?
In Monty Python Fluxx, the Finger of God reads:

If you have this on the table you may smite (i.e. discard) any Creeper. After smiting, you must put this card back into your hand.

Can I use it during someone else's turn? The card doesn't specify. The card "Excalibur", for example, clearly stresses "during your turn" for a similar action.

This appears to be a duplicate of this question.

@tubedogg it is definitely related, but I do not think it is a duplicate. I could be wrong though, I have never played fluxx.

My mistake, I misread the other question. They are not duplicates.

Yes you can. The action clarifier makes sure the card is not overpowered--there have to be reprecussions. For the card "Excalibur," the reprecussion is that you can only play it on your turn. For "Finger of God," the reprecussion is that it goes back into your hand. Since you have to wait until your next turn to play it again, it is what keeps it in check.

This answer is wrong.

No, players may not play cards or take free actions, except when it is their turn.
From the Online FAQ , and the Monty Python Fluxx rule book.

Q: Do I get to play any cards or take any actions when it's not my turn?
A: When it's someone else's turn, there's not much you get to do -- there are no cards you can play out of turn. But you will sometimes need to make minor decisions and perform card maintenance during other players' turns. For example, if someone plays a Hand Limit and you have more cards in your hand than are allowed, you'll need to decide what to keep and what to discard.

Further evidence that supports this conclusion is that the Pirate Fluxx and Star Fluxx rules list a new card type Surprise that can be played out of turn (image of purple Surprise cards with Lightning Bolt symbol from Pirate Fluxx.

Q: Do I get to play any cards or take any actions when it not my turn?
A: When it's someone else's turn, there's not much you get to do -- unless you have a Surprise (the only type of card you can play out of turn) . But you will sometimes need to make minor decisions and perform card maintenance during other players' turns. For example, if someone plays a Hand Limit and you have more cards in your hand than are allowed, you'll need to decide what to keep and what to discard.

The release date of Pirate/Star Fluxx is after Monty Python Fluxx, so it makes sense that until the release of Pirate Fluxx, no cards could be played out of turn, but when those sets were released with the new Surprise card type the rules specifically called that card type as an exception.

Monty Python Fluxx (Released October 2008; mostly themed after Monty Python and the Holy Grail, with selected elements from the Monty Python's Flying Circus TV series). [...]
Pirate Fluxx (Released February 2011)
Star Fluxx (Released September 30, 2011).

The Pirate Fluxx online page even notes that:

Yarr! Grab yer Cutlass! Pirates have taken over Fluxx, the ever-changing card game, and their rules be new and strange. There'll be times ye must Talk Like A Pirate, and rules about how ye can Plunder from yer mates. But the most excitin' treasure fer Fluxx fans new and old is the Surprise! - a new card type that you play out of turn! [...]


text:
When a 7 is rolled, are the cards discarded randomly?
When a 7 is rolled, and a person has more than 7 cards, do the cards get discarded randomly or does the card holder get to pick which one(s) to discard?

No, the card holder chooses.
From the rules, page 11 (emphasis is mine):

Each player counts his Resource Cards. Any player with more than 7 Resource Cards (i.e., 8 or more), must choose and discard half of them.


text:
Is a robber laid a robber played?
My wife and I were playing Settlers of Catan and she moved the robber onto one of the numbers where only my settlement was. She took her hand off of the robber and told me to spread my cards. I was out of cards and told her I had none for her  to steal. She then grabbed the robber, said "just kidding" and proceeded to place it on another player's settlement.
I believe that the robber should stay on the original settlement as "a robber laid or placed  is a robber played". My wife believes that because she did not take a card from me she has the right to move the robber again even though she had already placed it somewhere.
Who is right and why?

In general, the times people will insist mistakes like this are final will be when they're desperate for the win, and see the mistake as an opportunity. Nothing about the game has changed since the robber roll was made - no trading, rolling, new turns, etc, so there's no reason (in a simple and clear case like this one) not to allow a redo.

In this case, I would go with the "Don't sleep on the couch" strategy. Ergo, your wife was right. QED.

In my experience, unless you take the game very serious, consider the "don't sleep on the couch" rule suggested by corsiKa :)

There is no real "correct" answer here, in terms of official game rules. It is going to depend completely on the friendliness/casualness of your playgroup. In a tournament setting, such a thing would need to be clarified in the tournament rules; otherwise a judge would need to be informed of the situation and make a ruling.
My game group pretty much always tends to follow this basic rule: If no other player has taken an action that revealed new information to you after you made your move, you are still free to undo your move. Note that this action could be as simple as a "whew, glad you went there!" or an actual game-action such as playing a card.
In your case, I think the rule would apply. Because the number of cards in hand is open knowledge in the game anyway, you did not take any action that revealed new information (showing that you had no cards shouldn't be considered new information).
Basically, you are free to enforce whatever rules you decide on... often if there's an uncertainty in such situations, we also just take a vote amongst the players, and see who is ok with allowing the take-back. There's nothing "wrong" with a rule that says "you took your hand off, therefore the play is finalized", but in my opinion it decreases the general friendliness and thus the overall enjoyment of the game.

I also play with "undo until information is revealed". I keep this as a strong rule within our group. While it occasionally takes a little while longer, it means people aren't stuck trying to analyse a complex sequence of actions or make sure they haven't missed something before playing. If I'm in an environment that considers every move locked in, I'll just sit for way longer with every single decision I make.

Play Mistake rules (as defined by the Convocation of Dining-Table after the Monopoly wars of 1992):
Core Code of Practice

If all players are "veteran" gamers, they should agree in advance what constitutes an committed play error. In the case of an unanticipated situation, one takeback per player per game session is permissable.
If any player is a "veteran" and another is not, a casual player is allowed a takeback of any play mistake they have not already made once (for example, you can take the robber move back, but next time).
If all players are not veteran players, any mistake is house-ruled in to not be a mistake for the duration of play, under the principle of "we're going to forget that again, might as well not play with it".

Veterancy is defined by comparing relative skill and number of plays. Basically, if a player self-identifies as "the hardcorez", "I own this game" (literally or figuratively) or "a gamer", they accept the duties and restrictions of veterancy for the duration of play
Specific Rule Exceptions and Extensions

If there is no way that the move would have been made given the public information on the board, and conversation is going on around the board, the player is assumed to have been "distracted". A "distracted" player is treated as non-veteran under the CCoP above.
If play has continued to the point where an approved takeback is agreed by the majority to have a major effect on how the game "would have played", then the mistake is house-ruled in as normal behaviour for duration of play.
By contrast, if the takeback has had no effect on the gameplay, it is acceptable, based on majority agreement to allow a "free" takeback. Free takebacks do not count towards any of the limits in the CCoP above, and may be used even if the CCoP does not normally allow a takeback or if a non-free takeback would normally exceed a limit.
If the player is a "Spike", and losing because of trivial play mistakes would make them miserable, it is acceptable to allow takebacks above and beyond the traditional rules to an approved limit. This limit must not be extended more than once, and applies to all players, not just the Spikes.
If house-ruling a rule away makes the game hopelessly one-sided or unfun, then special provision is made for "infinite free takebacks" instead of house-ruling the mistake away completely. (The "You can't Block with Tapped Creatures" addendum)
If any of the opponents is a dick about the play mistake, they are ostracized for the duration of the game until they apologize. No alliances may be formed with them, no cards may be traded with them, and no-one will pass them the pizza.
These rules only apply to competitive games. In the event of co-operative games, a new convocation will be arranged, and rules will be devised based on the "Pride vs Fun" system.

Being a dick is defined by both majority consensus and symmetry (if I did it and you called me out for being a dick, when you do it, you are automatically considered a dick)
Judgement
In this case, if your wife hasn't played Catan as much as you, or there was conversation going on when she made her decision, the rules would permit a takeback (especially as it sounds like the conversation entered "Grumpy Spike" territory). As at this point, the playing of the robber has had no effect, the takeback could be treated as free.

Certainly, the rules don't get that niggling in any edition I've seen. However, the number of cards you hold is semi-public knowledge (you're required to tell if it's relevant).
I would, however, in this case side with, "You put it down, you asked to pull from his hand, you're stuck drawing 1 of none."

As a two time champion, once the hand is removed the robber play is finalized. This is a simple concept and universally recognized as the correct way to play

I can't think of any time when "This is a simple concept and universally recognized as the correct way to play" is a good idea to write. At its best it still feels rude to me, and at worst - as in this case - it's simply untrue: I do not recognize it as the "correct" way to play, nor, from a quick look over the answers and comments, do most others, so even if in some absolute sense you could show that it is "correct", writing that it is universally recognized as such is patently false.

The play isn't final until the turn ends, and in Catan, that doesn't occur until the dice are rolled by the next player. Not only rude and based on appeal to authority, but a false claim and a counterintuitive one to many people.

The more I read this the more I think, "are there really people who want to make boardgames not fun".  If a player is taking actions and other players haven't done anything its always fine to take things back.  The only things you cant take back are dice rolls and drawing cards.


text:
Can I sacrifice a creature that is only temporarily under my control?
A creature is placed "under my control until the end of turn" through a sorcery spell.
Do I have the option of sacrificing said creature if I cast a "sacrifice a creature" instant, or have a creature or enchantment that has a sacrifice ability?

A scenario that confused me once in actual play was stealing a creature equipped with Blazing Torch from my opponent.  Although the creature now controlled by me had the "Tap, Sac Blazing Torch" ability, it couldn't actually use it, because that would be sacrificing a permanent controlled by another player.  Much to my disappointment...

Gets even worse with older equipment cards where there are frequently abilities of the equipment itself, as opposed to newer ones that are generally worded to grant an ability to the creature!

Yup.

701.16a To sacrifice a permanent, its controller moves it from the battlefield directly to its owner’s graveyard. A player can’t sacrifice something that isn’t a permanent, or something that’s a permanent he or she doesn’t control. Sacrificing a permanent doesn’t destroy it, so regeneration or other effects that replace destruction can’t affect this action.

(Emphasis mine.)

If you couldn't, spells like Act of Treason wouldn't be nearly as powerful. There's few greater feelings than stealing your opponent's big creature he hasn't even used yet to hit him with it, then sacrifice it on him. Hint: don't do that to your wife the first time you play with her, she won't play for weeks. [citation: personal experience].

Grab the Reins would be the poster child for this answer. As it does both parts and does it intentionally.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Can abilities with a [Click] cost be used during a run?
Some abilities have a [Click] cost to them, such as Crypsis' ability to add a virus counter to it.
Does it count as a "paid ability" for the purposes of the Run Timeline? I.e. could I, mid-run, add a virus counter to Crypsis for the cost of one [Click]?

No. If an ability has a [Click] as part of its cost, it can only be used as a main action in the controlling player's turn. It cannot be used on the other player's turn or during a run.
From the rules (PDF) page 21, under Paid Abilities (emphasis mine):

Paid abilities can be triggered at the beginning of each turn,
  before and after each player action, and at certain points during
  a run, unless the ability requires a click, in which case it must be
  triggered as an action.

Scored the answer for the rules reference and quote.

Can you reference the rules part where explained that "paly an event" is a paid ability?

No, the rules state that abilities with a Click cost can only be used as an action. So since a run is an action you must wait for the run to finish before activating Crypsis. (Or use it before the run.)

No. Any abilities that cost a click are actions, and actions can only be used in that players action phase, and that action must be fully resolved before another action can be used.
There are some cards where clicks are still spent during a run. The most notable card which is printed with a click costed ability is Adjusted Matrix, which modded an icebreaker into an AI with:

[Click]: Break Ice Subroutine.

This ability has been errataed to:

You may spend [Click] to break any subroutine on a piece of ice currently being encountered.

To prevent this confusion. This is the same wording as used on bioroids, such as Eli 1.0, which are the most common exception to not spending clicks outside of the action phase.


text:
A board game called PALM BEACH or something to that effect
Does anyone remember a board game called PALM BEACH or something to that effect that was played similar to monopoly ? I am looking for a copy or more info.
From what I can remember, The characters all started out with $1,000,000 dollars except "the count" who started out with $500,000 -- that is the most distinct memory of the game I have that might assist someone in remembering.
Does this sound familiar to anyone ?
Also, it was not "palm-beach-opoloy" nor was it a monopoly re-skin - it was a distinct game onto itself.
Followup Q&A:
Q: when did you play it ?
A: it must have been around 20 years back

I guess it's not this then, since you say you played it 20 years ago.

This must be it.

1976 Board game:  Palm Beach
Source: http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/lifestyles/blast-from-the-past-groovy-vintage-palm-beach-find/nWDNK/
Found an old ebay listing with more photos here: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-1976-Palm-Beach-Game-Complete-Monopoly-Style-Board-Entertaining-Fun-/230915467545?nma=true&si=w8Yhok%252BHv7Zg0Y1acAhEKk1lbZU%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557

Wow, Yes, that is it...

Now... the real question is, however, can you find another one for sale for around $20 ?

@ire_and_curses Why thank you sir! I am very proud of my google-fu. flexes, breaks a rack of blade servers in half

@user4889 It's a bummer that evidently you missed that ebay auction by about two weeks.

Does this ring any bells? Palm Beachopoly:

Want a slice of paradise? Palm Beachopoly will let you buy, sell and
  build an empire in beautiful Palm Beach County, Florida even if it's
  only on paper. This fun-filled game, which features a historic hotel,
  local attractions, shopping districts, charitable foundations, and
  much more is a perfect way to experience Palm Beach County...

Unfortunately, I haven't been successful in learning anything about the rules.
As an aside, there are a large number of weird and wacky Monopoly-like games out there. I wouldn't expect too much gameplay depth, though...

The Barnes and Noble link is dead.

The only result for a search of "Palm Beach" on BoardGameGeek is "Palm Beach Island Resort"
There's almost no information available, but there is a brief description:

Palm Beach Island Resort is described as a tactical game. By placing needed infrastructure onto the spaces of the Island, a tourist resort is created that will be visited by guests from around the world. The goal of the game is to build Bungalows and encourage the tourists to part with their money; that is, make a tidy profit. Each player acts as a travel agent trying to fill his bungalows up.

Perhaps this was it?

release date 2006, so cannot be what the OP was looking for.

@user1873 Ah, good point.

It most likely was a reskin of Monopoly, Palm Beachopoly.

Thanks, but that was not it (not a monopoly re-skin)

I have the game.  It is a 1976 board game called "PALM BEACH" A GAME.  The box is lime green, pink and white with black lettering. Looks like a Lilly Pulitzer print.  It looks as though it has never been played.  The money, cards and playing pieces are in pristine condition as is the board.  The game is complete and includes the instructions.

you could improve this answer by looking at those instructions and checking to see if the details in the question (starting money, a count) match them. You could also include photos to help jog the asker's memory. Then this would actually answer the question. I will point out, though, that the asker has already accepted an answer identifying the game and that answer is a close match to your newer one. As it stands your answer isn't really adding any information, but you could edit it so that it does.


text:
Am I at legal risk if I use a mechanism from another game in my own design?
I'm juggling with a card game idea based on a popular fantasy universe. The game still has a long way to go yet.
But before I really invest in developing the card game I want to make sure I'm not wasting time and want to verify if I'll be able to develop the card game at all.
The game will use a tree of influence mechanism, where each player can acquire cards and can have those cards control other cards. They can even try to steal cards controlled by other players. The scope of the game is base on the nature of characters of a fantasy universe where there is a lot of back-stabbing, short-term alliances and power mongering.
After thinking about that mechanic I remember playing Illuminati by Steve Jackson. I just want to know if that mechanism is patented.

I think this probably belongs over on patents.SE, so I've flagged it for a moderator to take a look.

@SocioMatt I think this is an area of overlap and the question is probably fine on either SE.

I just figured that the question asks whether this is patented, and generally speaking, the users over on patents.SE may be better equipped to answer. Not that we couldn't find the answer; I agree there is overlap.

@SocioMatt - let's leave it here and try the experiment.

Just one tip: if its based on a popular fantasy world, I think you should make sure you have the copyrights for that world..

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer

This answer* on startups.SE suggests (though doesn't completely confirm) that the mechanisms of a board game cannot be patented (which I suppose explains why we have so many deck-builders, for instance), but you may be at risk of copyright infringement if you go so far as to copy graphics, trademarked characters or names and copy used in the rulebook.
It goes without saying that since you refer to a "popular fantasy universe", you may have more to worry about from them than from Steve Jackson if you intend to use existing characters etc.
Given that, I think that using a mechanism from another game is acceptable.
*The linked question is about an electronic adaptation of a board game, but I believe the answer still applies

+1 for the advice 'worry more about copyright than patents'. As I understand it, mechanisms can be patented, but only if they are provably original; cards controlling others almost certainly wouldn't qualify.

I believe the only board game related patent is "tapping" for Magic the gathering. Not sure how enforcible it is though.

@Nick Actually I believe only the actual term "tapping" is restricted in that case. The mechanic appears in many other games, but uses different terms to refer to it (e.g. "exhausting").

I would agree too... if someone had patented the mechanism 'using Dice for randomness' how manic & complex would board games be?

@Johno +1 for "exhausting"; glad someone still remembers the Vs. System.

@Johno http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/search-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN/5662332 You'd think you couldn't patent stuff like this, but turns out you can patent anything.

Yeah, I know I'll have to get agreement from the fnatasy universe copyrigth holders, I just wanted to amke sure I could present them something without worrying about the fact that it might be protected. Thanks a lot for the answer.

Apparently you're not familiar with  U.S. Patent 5,662,332 (http://www.google.com/patents?vid=5662332)

@ChrisDodd I think the WotC patent was for collectible deck building games.. Definitely not an expert though, just something out of my memory.

Looks like your link has evaporated, unfortunately.

Combining some of the comments to the previous answer, and contrasting the accepted answer, some board and card game mechanics can be patented as well as the content (art, instructions) being copyrighted/trademarked.
There's a fine line to draw, but also a relatively simple rule of thumb. Basically, if you can find an example of a game that uses the mechanic which was documented as being played prior to  the ratification of the United States Constitution, then the game and any mechanic it has at that time are not eligible for patent, and you have an excellent case for moving forward with a game using the mechanic, whether you find a filed patent or not.
This "public domain" rule encompasses a lot of the basic mechanics that people know and love:

Pretty much every board game involving a regular grid constraining the directions and limits of movement of pieces, regardless of the shape of the spaces or the lines, drawn or implied, connecting them.
Maps of real geographic terrain, including pretty much any "projection" of the world as a map (you can't use actual prints from mapmakers - they're copyrighted - but the shape of the earth, and the names of cities, states, provinces, countries, and continents belong to no man or corporate entity)
Jumping one piece over another and landing in an adjacent space in line on the other side (draughts, Dai Hasami Shogi, countless others)
Capturing a piece by moving into the same space on the board (Chess, countless others)
Stacking pieces to indicate rank (draughts)
Having various pieces with different roles, movement or capturing rules (Chess, Shogi, draughts variants such as Dablot Prejessne, countless others)

In addition, if a game mechanic was first shown in a game more than 20 years old, and the mechanic was patented, the patent has almost certainly expired and is now in the public domain as well. If it was developed and widely used more than 20 years ago, but never patented, you can generally make the same claim. Until 2011, patent law was based on a doctrine of "first to invent", meaning that if you could prove someone else had the idea first, you could get any patent filed after that date invalidated in court. This is what happened to Apple when it sued Microsoft for infringements of patented design elements of Apple's Mac OS; it turned out that Apple had first gotten the ideas from Xerox, who was therefore the "first to invent" and Apple's patents were void.
However, patents filed since 2011 are based on a "first to file" doctrine, meaning that in order to invalidate a patent, you have to prove the idea was overtly released to the public domain prior to the filing date, and so simply proving someone else thought of it first is insufficient; you must prove that they thought of it and made some overt action releasing the IP for general use. If all of the Apple and Microsoft startup stuff had happened in the last 10 years, and Apple v. Microsoft were to be heard this year, Microsoft would be in a world of hurt because Xerox, who never patented the ideas they let Apple use, would have nothing to say about Apple having filed the patents. So, if it's a relatively novel game mechanic, seen for the first time in a game released in the last couple of years, be very careful.


text:
How do you resolve black cards in quests you haven't started in Shadows Over Camelot?
If you pull a black card that goes against a quest that you haven't started, do you still place the black card on that quest, or do you discard it? So, if you get an Excalibur card before starting the quest, what do you do with it? For the Grail, can you fill the board with despair cards before even starting the quest?
If the answer is that the black cards are only used once a quest is started, on a solo quest is it only used if drawn by the knight in the quest, or by any knight?
Also, is the answer different for perpetual quests?

The rule book under Progression of Evil a.) Drawing a Black card (page 10-11)
Yes, you follow the instructions on the card Special Black cards or Standard black card or place the card in its respective quest, regardless of whether any Knight has begun a quest. The instructions are on the card, or detailed on the pages listed here. Excalibur cards move the sword towards the evil side of the river. Grail cards like Despair can fill up the quest before you even start, and if it does you lose the Grail Quest and turn it over, further Black Grail cards place siege engines outside Camelot.
The very end of section a). explains that a quest immediately ends when you place the final black card (or Saxson/Pict) to fill a particular Quest, and tells you to consult the particular quest for win/loss conditions. In general, you will add a number or White(win)/Black(lose) Swords to the round table, add a number of Siege Engines/Draw White Cards, and whether the particular quest is flipped over or not. This information is usually printer on the Quest cardboard itself, but is explained in detail within the rule book.


text:
Are creatures destroyed if their destruction happens at the same instant they lose "indestructible"?
Scenario:

I play Timber Protector which makes all other Treefolk indestructible (I only have Treefolk in play).
My opponent plays a Day of Judgment.

Does this only destroy the not-indestructible Timber Protector?
or
Does Timber Protector get destroyed, all my Treefolk lose their indestructibility,
and then they get killed at the same time?

The destruction only happens once, it's instantaneous, and there's only one creature vulnerable to it when it happens.

610.1. A one-shot effect does something just once and doesn’t have a duration. Examples include dealing damage, destroying a permanent, putting a token onto the battlefield, and moving an object from one zone to another.

Think of it a state machine. There's only two game states in the scenario.

State 1:  Timber Protector and some indestructible Treefolks are on the battlefield.
Action: Destroy all creatures.
State 2:  Timber Protector is in the graveyard. Some Treefolks are on the battlefield.

This is an accurate model of Magic. Take triggered abilities, for example. They trigger based on the state of the game before the actions (if they are LTB triggers) or after the action (default), but not during. There is no "during" anywhere in Magic.

Taken from this page:

700.4. If a permanent is indestructible, rules and effects can’t destroy it. (See rule 701.6, “Destroy.”) Such permanents are not destroyed by lethal damage, and they ignore the lethal-damage state-based action (see rule 704.5g). Rules or effects may cause an indestructible permanent to be sacrificed, put into a graveyard, or exiled.

Therefore, as ikegami said above, all treefolk are indestructible when the Day of Judgement resolves except for the Timber Protector and survive, while the Timber Protector is destroyed and goes to the graveyard.
Now, if another board wipe occurs before you give them indestructibly or regeneration, then all of your treefolk are destroyed.
EDIT:
However, if you were to use a board sweeper such as Blasphemous Act instead all your creatures would be destroyed because then all creatures would have 13 damage marked on them, the Timber Protector would be destroyed because of damage, then all other treefolk would lose indestructibility and die because of lethal damage (which wouldn't leave the creature until the cleanup step).


text:
Third Hole in Cribbage Board
What is the third hole at the start of the cribbage for?
It's shown behind the 2 pegs in the image below:

That is for the Game Peg (also known as a spilikin). At the bottom of the board, you see the three straight stripes - those are for keeping track of the number of games you have won. Until you have actually won a game, your spilikin for tracking wins is stored in that third hole.
Consider the following picture: it appears blue has just won the game, and is awarded two game wins for skunking the red player. The red player has yet to win a game, so his spilikin is still in the starting position.

The wacky terminology is half the fun of playing cribbage.


text:
What happens when I copy Precursor Golem with Rite of Replication?
I came across this issue with my friend a while ago and came up with many possible answers:
How many golems will you get if you copy Precursor Golem with a kicked Rite of Replication?

It depends on how many golems you have in play when the Rite of Replication is cast.

The short answer, assuming that your Precursor Golem still has (exactly) his two buddies with him: 28.  The sequence goes something like this:

Rite of Replication (kicked) targets Precursor Golem.  Note that the text of Rite now effectively reads 'Put five tokens that are copies of target creature onto the battlefield', and the copies of Rite of Replication will all copy that version of the text.  (From rule 706.10: "A copy of a spell or ability copies both the characteristics of the spell or ability and all decisions made for it, including modes, targets, the value of X, and additional or alternative costs.")
Precursor Golem's ability copies Rite and targets the 'lesser' golems (the ones without the 'make extra golems' ability); note that these copies of Rite go on the stack on top of the original Rite (this isn't relevant here, but can be if you kick another Rite!)
The copies of Rite resolve, each one making an additional five 'dumb' golems; this puts 10 new golems into play.  You now have 1 Precursor Golem and 12 'dumb' golems.
The original Rite resolves, making five additional Precursor Golems.  Each of the five 'make two dumb golems' abilities of these new Precursor Golems goes on the stack.  Right now you have 6 Precursor Golems and 12 dumb golems.
The new Precursors' token-making abilities resolve, giving you 10 more dumb golems.  You end up with 6 Precursor Golems and 22 dumb golems.

Beyond this - well, beyond this things get interesting.  The next step in the sequence - a second kicked Rite - brings you up to more than four million Golems; for the details, see https://docs.google.com/document/d/1L_FIQrjBdh5J66KKAT2JJ2gTx1KfbXJUfXrdydjzhrY/edit - which also goes into what happens if you kick yet a third Rite...

I thought it would be (3 * 5 * 3 ) +3 which would be 48 as there will be 15 original golems * 3 which would be 45 + the original 3 which would make it 48.

You only cast one spell.

Precursor golems copy the state of the spell that targeted on to it. So if you cast a kicked rite of replication spell it would copy 5 time on 3 golems. Then each those golems would make 3 a piece. Then add in original 3 to start with.

wesdfgfg Not all of those golems have the 'when this comes into play, put two additional golems into play' - that's a triggered ability on the original Precursor Golem but NOT on the 'dumb' golems it makes.  (And a good thing - otherwise you'd have an infinite loop!)

Oh right. The normal golems don't make copies

To clarify: what you're claiming/asking is essentially that the Golem's triggered ability determines which Golems the spell is copied to on placing the ability on the stack, rather than on resolution of the triggered ability?  The document never claims that the Golem's ability needs targets; the Golem's ability is still a triggered ability.

...get. Each copy targets a different one of those Golems.". When you have multiple Precursor Golems their abilities all go on the stack at the same time with the same number of spells. This means that the second kicked Rite of replication leaves you with 186 Precursor Golems and 1402 golem tokens in total (rest of redr's comment)

And this was written before Primal Vigor... If one or more tokens would be created, twice that many of those tokens are created instead.

For a kicked Rite of Replication, you will get

15 new golems for each Precursor Golem on the battlefield (Five new Precursor Golems which will create two Golem tokens each)
5 new golems for each other golem on the battlefield

So if you have a Precorsor golem and the two tokens it created, you will get 25 new golems for a total of 28 golems.
Note: Your Rite of Replication will be copied for any golems other players control.

So I stumbled upon this question recently and I've seen so many different answers that I decided to tackle it myself so to calculate how many you should have after casting Rite of Replification, you can use this formula:
Total Precursors Golems = p*(6^p)
Total Tokens Golems = ((t-1)*(6^p))+6+(((p*(6^p))-p)*2)
Where 'p' is equal to the number of starting precursor golems
Where 't' is equal to the number of starting token golems
NOTE, this formula assumes that you've targeted a Golem Token
For those who would like to understand, read on!
Before we get ahead of ourselves, we need to understand a few things.
• Firstly, the initial target of the Rite of Replication will only ever have ONE copy of the Rite targeting it since the spell is not copied onto the initially targeted creature. This means that to ensure that the maximum number of Rites are affecting the Precursors (to ensure we get the best exponential effect in future Rites.), you must target one of the golem tokens.
• Secondly, the copies of Rite of Replication are not "cast". And will not trigger the Precursors ability.
• Lastly, When multiple Precursor Golems are in play, their abilities resolve one at a time and, as they do, the Rites they create will resolve before the next Precursor trigger.
For this example, we'll assume you played a Precursor Golem, so your started with:
1 Precursor Golem and 2 Golem Tokens:
• Rite One: 6 Precursors and 22 Tokens
    When you cast Rite of Replification for the first time, the target is irrelevant since each Golem will only get one copy of the spell regardless of the target. You will copy the Precursor 5 times (to get a total of 6 copies, and gain 10 tokens [2 per new Precursor ETB]). Then you will get an additional 10 tokens for the two Rites targeting your existing 2 tokens.
• Rite Two: 279936 Precursors and 3779142186 Tokens. No, seriously.
    These numbers are so large because, as stated above, each Precursor trigger will resolve one a time, putting the Rite of Replification copies on top of the stack causing them to resolve before the next Precursor trigger. I call these "waves". How many "waves" will we have? That is determined by the number of Precursor Golems in play when the spell was initially cast. In this example, we have 6 waves to go through.
    Wave One: All but one Golem (the initial target) is multiplied by 6 (5 new copies, and add on the original), then for each Precursor created this way we get two more Tokens for a total of 36 Precursors (6x6), and 187 Tokens (((22-1))x6+(30x2)+1). Then we just repeat this process until the final wave, wave 6.
    Wave 2: 216 Precursors and 1477 Tokens
    Wave 3: 1296 Precursors and 11017 Tokens
    Wave 4: 7776 Precursors and 79057 Tokens
    Wave 5: 46656 Precursors and 552097 Tokens
    Wave 6: One thing is different about wave 6. After resolving wave 6, our original spell finally resolves meaning that we DO NOT EXCLUDE the one Golem Token we initially targeted, leaving us at our final total. 279936 Precursors and 3779142 Tokens
I've made a spreadsheet you can view with the formulas, I've done as much as I can before Google Sheets just gives up on the math, have fun casting Rite 8 times without issue!
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1O07ykGcr27JkW4hetw-yAf0AS2kt_PJ4qGcoH3ijNT8/edit?usp=sharing

You are 100% correct! Thanks for pointing that out, in the spreadsheet linked above I have added a second tab where I have broken the Rite of Replication into 'waves'.
Each wave ignores one of the golem tokens, except for the last wave (Which effectively includes the original spell therefore does not ignore the targeted golem token)
Seems like I've got it now

Nailed it. Hopefully, more people can digest the way I've explained the interaction


text:
Are there any card games that enforce "Dealer's Respect"?
When playing card games like President at school, the dealer often declared "Dealer's Respect", which required that no player pick up their cards before the dealer had finished dealing, because the dealer could not do the same.
Is this actually a rule, custom, or convention in any games?

It's a common convention wherever cards are involved; the game doesn't have to be a traditional card game played with a poker or bridge deck.
I think the convention evolved from the trick-taking family, especially Bridge, and the manners and social conventions thereof. Poker, and its emphasis on ensuring a clean deal, is another good possibility for the origins of the convention.
In general, it's just a good idea; here are a couple of reasons why, off the top of my head.

If nobody touches the cards, then any discrepancy in the number or order dealt is on the dealer, making "misdeals" a little easier to spot.
Picking up an incomplete hand can be very distracting to the dealer who is attempting to count the cards dealt, which can cause a misdeal.
The dealer, when dealing across a larger table, often uses the pile of cards already dealt as a target and backstop for the ones he's now skimming across the table. Picking up that pile makes the target go away and can cause the dealer to miss.
The cards you're picking up, if the dealer isn't very accurate, may not be your own, and if that happens you've just forced a misdeal, when otherwise the errant card can simply be pushed over to the correct player's pile.

I've commonly heard the superstition that it's bad luck to pick up an incomplete hand. Theoretically that's hogwash, but it actually has some merit; those of us with terrible poker faces give others at the table information not only about the hand, but about each individual card picked up as it's dealt.
However, I can't think of or find any set-in-stone rule (outside of a casino) that requires it to the point of prescribing a penalty for the specific action of picking up or looking at an incomplete hand. It is simply good manners.

In the case of children playing President, a common penalty was to flip face-up any cards dealt to a person who had already picked up their cards, until they had put them back down again.

Also, in Mao, picking up an incomplete hand is worth a penalty card (so I've had happen to me the one time I tried playing it).

Mao is a bad example, because formally it only has one rule: players must never disclose the rules to any other player. The exact set of rules each group comes up with over the play of several hands is more or less unique to that group, and it's never a guarantee that any particular group has adopted the "don't pick up an incomplete hand" rule.

It's also the reason I stopped playing it after one round. The rules of the game are too dependent on the group of people playing them, and it's impossible to even play the game properly until you're an "insider" of the group you're playing with, which requires stumbling around getting penalty cards left and right until you've learned all the rules that everybody else already knows. It's a hazing ritual in the form of a card game, and I find it intolerably stupid.

Not touching your cards until the dealer has finished dealing is generally considered good etiquette, or "good table manners". I.e. picking your cards up before the dealer has finished is considered rude, rather than cheating.
Etiquette depends on social norms, so it can vary between different countries, different age groups, different social groups, etc. For example, there are probably words you use in front of your friends that you don't say to your parents.
Whether or not you need to follow a particular social rule depends on who you are playing with, the easiest thing is to wait and see what everyone else does.

You don't need to be cheating to break a rule. Although I suppose in your case the "rule" is a rule of etiquette.

Yes there is.
The answer differs game by game.  Games also differ in the level of codification of the customary procedure.  It is a rule with mild sanctions in rubber bridge, a basic necessity in duplicate bridge, a convention in other games, a non-problem in yet others.  I will illustrate with two detailed examples.
In Mariáš, the arguably most popular family of card games in my country, there are very specific rules about shuffling, cutting, and dealing.  In some modes of the game or after certain circumstances of the previous game, shuffling is prescribed; in others it is prohibited (under a financial penalty), which is very untypical for a card game, and any prohibition on shuffling would be pointless without strict rules on subsequent dealing.
32 cards are dealt among three players as follows: one 5 card block to each player, then 2 cards left as a talon, then again one 5 card block to each player.  A bidding conversation ensues between the two players who are not dealers, followed by another such conversation between the higher bidder of the two and the dealer.
It is common (although not mandatory) for players other than the bidder to start looking at and organizing their first five cards already before receiving the other five cards.  It is not clear whether the dealer, who enters the auction last, has more or less time than the others to evaluate her hand for possible contracts that way; and it saves time for everyone.
For the opposite example, take bridge.  It is played with 52 cards dealt one by one, which takes longer than in the previous example; furthermore, the dealer enters auction first, so no time could be saved by anyone not waiting for the dealer.  In its competitive variant (duplicate bridge), the same deal will even serve multiple tables (groups of players) and not all those players will necessarily be present when the cards are being dealt. The laws of duplicate bridge describe the procedure thus: "The cards must be dealt face down, one card at a time, into four hands of
thirteen cards each; each hand is then placed face down in one of the four
pockets of the board.  The recommended procedure is that the cards be dealt
in rotation, clockwise. "  An even more explicit rule can be found in ACBL laws that apply to rubber bridge as most people know it.   ("Players should not look at the face of any card until the deal is completed.")

There are some games (like Roborally) where time matters, so if people pick up cards before the dealer is finished, they're gaining an advantage. At that point it's worth making it an actual rule, not just a convention. But it sounds from your question like you're thinking of games with standard playing cards, and I can't think of an example with those. There can still be an impression of fairness, though - it just feels right when everyone gets to look at their hands at the same time.


text:
Why is Bang! so predictable when I play it?
Bang! gets rave reviews from every source. However I can't see how to play it other than in a very predictable and routine manner.
It seems like every game generally follows this routine:

Everyone waits for the first shot.
Outlaw shoots at sheriff.
Deputies/Renegades shoot anyone who shoots Sheriff
Renegade eventually turns on Sheriff

People say "try to figure out who people are", but how? There's no information, you just wait until they shoot, and then you know for certain.
The only divergence in the strategies I've found is for the Renegade, pretending to be a deputy at first.
I'm sure this is a great game, and I want to convince my friends of it, but I just don't know how.

It's a good question, but a difficult one to answer objectively I think.  There are lots of games that are "fun" and extremely popular without actually being very good games (Munchkin is the one that sprang immediately to my mind).  Assuming that your group's play is at fault, rather than the game's design, is possibly over-self-deprecating...

I was hoping for some mechanics similar to The Resistance, where small bits of information are drip fed, to allow people to theorise/accuse.
I've got the deluxe edition, and we haven't tried the expansions yet. I'm wondering if they add more flexibility/possibilities to the gameplay.

How many people are you playing with? It really affects the game dynamics; we usually don't bother with less than six players because then it becomes a game of "nuke the sheriff".

Bang is as much about knowing and reading the people you play with as knowing the cards. I always know exactly who everyone after the first turn in my group because I can read people and I know their tells. Does that make it less fun? No. It lets me lie and misdirect people. Sometimes I will intentionally shoot a teammate to throw people off. However my friends know this about me so then they have to play the "did he do that to throw me off or because he wants me dead" game. The game is not just "he shot the sheriff so he must be an outlaw/he didn't shoot the sheriff he must not be an outlaw"

I see, so there is quite a bit of verbal banter, either saying you're on one team to co-operate, or lying to misdirect. A bit like poker.
When I played it was with 6 people, and we all just sat around in silence, taking pot shots at the Sheriff til he was dead.
I guess it doesn't say anything about what you can/can't say to people in the rules!

Yeah nothing kills the game dead faster than playing it quietly and conservatively. If you're not flinging wild accusations in one direction and Bang! cards in the other, it's no fun.

Because Bang is a bad game.

@Andrey But it's got great multiplayer! :)

@Tacroy I am sorry i just dislike the game for exactly the reason that the question states.

@Andrey I know, Bang really is poorly designed - I was just referencing the current (and disliked) trend in video games towards "it sucks single-player, but it's great in co-op!"

In some sense, your question is a bit circular. It's predictable because the games were all played with the same, predictable strategy. While it's definitely bad to start shooting away right at the beginning of the game, you don't have to save everything up for one final shootout.
If you're an outlaw, you don't have to just shoot at the sheriff - killing a deputy or renegade is good too, and you can potentially go for that without demonstrating that you're an outlaw. If you're a deputy or the sheriff, you don't have to wait until you know who your target is - in fact, if you wait until people are shooting at the sheriff, it's probably too late. For the deputy and sheriff, most other players are valid targets, so even if they shoot someone without knowing, more likely than not it's someone they wanted to shoot.
For many players, it's advantageous to weaken the players between them and the sheriff. For the outlaws, this is good so that they'll be within range of the sheriff when the time comes, and for the deputy, it's good to have the sheriff on one side and reduce the number of hostile players they're within range of.
And this brings us to your assertion that there's no information. Once people are taking potshots, there's a little bit of information - everyone's trying to eke out a bit of advantage before the late game without putting all their cards on the table. It's still not the deepest game, but it doesn't have to be as dull as the way you've played it.

Thanks for the info. This is useful.
I guess some of the strategy is working out the cost-benefit ratio, of taking out a person you're not sure if they are on your team or not, with the benefit of weakening someone or moving closer to the Sheriff.

Regarding no information, I meant prior to shots being fired. However like others have said, I think this is where banter comes into play.

@Coran The benefits of disguising your role are potentially huge. The costs of shooting, say, one of the right people and two of the wrong people aren't really that high. And my point about information was that if shots are fired earlier, there's potentially some information (combined with banter) before any final all-out shootouts like you were talking about.

Contra the others posting here, I don't think there is much to be gained by pretending to be something you're not.
Outlaws: No one except an Outlaw will shoot at the Sheriff, which means that if the Outlaws hold their fire, the Sheriff will sit there unhurt while everyone else gets whittled down. At the same time, the Outlaws' best bet is to concentrate fire and overwhelm the Sheriff's ability to Missed! and Beer their attacks. Therefore, your best play is to open fire as soon as all Outlaws are able to hit the Sheriff, and keep shooting till the Sheriff dies. This of course means revealing yourselves.
Sheriff: Everyone knows who you are.
Deputy: There is very little down side to having people know you're the Deputy. The Outlaws want to kill the Sheriff; you are a mere annoyance. The Sheriff is on your team. The only one who is gunning for you personally is the Renegade, and the only way to fool the Renegade is to pretend to be an Outlaw, which would be insane (your own Sheriff would be trying to kill you).
Renegade: This is the one person who wants to hide his/her identity. Renegades always pretend to be Deputies at first. However, the key to Renegade victory is killing the Deputy early; if you "play Deputy" and only shoot at Outlaws, you will then have to go head-to-head with the real Deputy, while the Sheriff drinks beer and reloads to finish you off. You have to kill the Deputy before the Outlaws die, at which point you can't very well pretend to be the Deputy any more! So your deception has a limited shelf life.
The hidden identity part of "Bang!" is not really a big part of the game. It adds some uncertainty in the opening turns, but once the Outlaws make their move, things come clear pretty quickly. Most of the strategy is about managing your hand, picking your targets, and choosing what to play when. (It's not a very deep game, nor is it intended to be; it's a party game, fast and simple and fun. If you want a game that challenges your strategic skills, Bang! ain't it.)

Games played according to your routine would be just like chess games where one would move first the leftmost pawn until it gets to the eighth row or is taken, then the next one, and so on, and then the major pieces. You'd be perfectly correct according to the rules, but you'd miss most of the interest. If outlaws immediately shoot the sheriff, they immediately unmask themselves, defeating the purpose of the roles being secret. Everybody should begin shooting other people, avoiding killing someone who might be your ally, but hiding whom you are actually being interested in killing. Only later in the game, when you have understood most of who's who (due to their careless actions or the first deaths), you could concentrate your fire on your actual targets.

I would say the reason that it is so predictable when you play it is that you don't play with a lot of strategy that and you are comparing it to a game where your moves do not out your role so easily. If the Sheriff, Deputies and Renegades wait to make their move until an outlaw shows themselves and the renegade plays law until the end then its no surprise that the game becomes very predictable since there is no strategy involved and you just have the luck of the draw. One thing to remember since you are comparing this game to the resistance is that every move in bang is public while a lot of what you do in the resistance is hidden which allows you to keep your role hidden much longer.
There is no reason that the other roles should not act from the very first turn they have and start to work the table. While the sheriff is penalized for killing his deputy there is nothing wrong with hurting him and chances are the person he attacks will be an enemy anyway as the deputies are always outnumbered.
As a deputy there is no reason not to go after the people who are the biggest threat to the sheriff from the beginning. Target someone who has the best chance to do damage to the sheriff right off the bat even if they just happen to be the sitting to the right or left of the sheriff. In the end their goal is to kill everyone but the sheriff so get started right away.
The renegade should always be careful with what side they chose as they don't want the law or the outlaws to get to strong and a good idea for them would be to work on everyone while trying to pretend to be friends with everyone.
As for the outlaws sure their goal is to kill the sheriff but there is nothing saying that they have to target him exclusively. A good outlaw can easily hide while working to destroy the people who are suspected of being a deputy or renegade to allow for a stronger law side when they take on the sheriff.
In short just remember that every game is as predictable as you make it and if your going to set it up that each role is going to play the same every time then there is no reason to not expect it to be a very predictable game. Try and find ways to mix up the strategy so that it is not everyone waiting for the outlaws to shoot first followed by the renegades turning on the sheriff and you might find the game to be less predictable  .


text:
Can you pick up a locomotive if it's revealed as a replacement card?
In Ticket to Ride: Europe, on your turn you can pick up two cards from the face-down deck, two cards except locomotives from the face-up cards or one from each. When I pick up one card from the face-up deck, it gets replaced right away from the draw pile.
If the replacement card is a locomotive card, can I keep it because if I had picked up two from the face-down deck, it would have been mine?

Ah, looks like this is a duplicate of http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/5824/what-are-the-restrictions-on-picking-up-locomotives

No, once a card has been revealed as a locomotive, you have to "spend" two draws to pick it up, which means you can't do so since you've already drawn one of your two cards.
From the official rules (PDF), emphasis mine:

If a Locomotive card is one of the five face-up cards, the player who draws it may only draw one card, instead of two. If, after having drawn one card the replacement card is a locomotive, the player cannot take it.


text:
Does gaining +x/+x trigger "when counters are added" abilities?
If I had a Fathom Mage and played Giant Growth onto it would the "gain +3/+3" activate the ability to draw a card when a counter is added, or are stat improvements and counters completely separate?

Or are stat improves and counter completely separate

This is correct, unless it says counter, it is not referring to physical counters on the card itself.
Additionally note the duration included on Giant Growth, while counters do not have a duration (or if they do they have a separate wording to remove them explicitly).

Fathom Mage checks for counters, and Giant Growth does not give counters. If it gave counters, it would say it gave counters.
When a term defined by the rules (e.g. "counter") is used, uses of that word only refer to that definition. "Attacked" does not refer to arbitrary offensive actions, "targetted" does not refer to objects affected by arbitrary spells, and "counter" does not refer to arbitrary things that modify power and toughness.
Giant Growth creates a continuous effect that modifies a creature's power and toughness.
Battlegrowth puts a counter that modifies a creature's power and toughness on a creature.
Fathom Mage's ability would only be triggered by the effect of the second spell.

A counter is a physical marker on a card that gives an effect while it's in play.
Giant Growth is a spell that when it resolves, gives a temporary effect until a specified time (i.e. end of turn).
Just because both give a boost to power and toughness in this case, doesn't mean that both are the same thing.  As you say, both give stat improvements, but that does not imply that all stat improvements are of an identical and interchangeable type.


text:
Can I save my spark trooper with a delayed flicker?
What exactly defines the beginning and end of a specific step? Because I'm wondering if my logic seems solid enough.
I'm thinking of trying to avoid the sac requirement on my Spark Trooper by using Voidwalk or the ability of Mistmeadow Witch or the like. This way I hope that when he comes back to the field since all the initial actions that stated at the beginning of the end step resolve, it is thus no longer the beginning of said step meaning I can hopefully bypass the sac requirement when he re-enters and thus use spark trooper repeatedly without having to revive him.

It doesn't matter when the beginning or end of a specific step is. The rules state that any permanents that trigger during the End Step, do not trigger until the next end step. This means that if you exile Spark Trooper with Mistmeadow Witch in response to the sacrifice trigger, it will be removed until your opponents EOT, and you won't have to sacrifice it until your next end step. Voidwalk, due to it being a Sorcery, would require you casting it during the Second Main Phase, so you would need to save the targeted Spark Trooper at the end of your opponents turn as well.

513.3. If a permanent with an ability that triggers "at the beginning of the end step" enters the battlefield during this step, that ability won't trigger until the next turn's end step. Likewise, if a delayed triggered ability that triggers "at the beginning of the next end step" is created during this step, that ability won't trigger until the next turn's end step. In other words, the step doesn't "backup" so those abilities can go on the stack. This rule applies only to triggered abilities; it doesn't apply to continuous effects whose durations say "until end of turn" or "this turn." (See rule 514, "Cleanup Step.")

ok from what I've gathered I can do that to avoid it thank you for the reply

@user1875, I think you meant "you won't have to sacrifice it until your next end step" or "you won't have to sacrifice it in your opponents end step".

@Pablo, no I didn't. Voidwalk is a sorcery, so barring some other trickery, Spark Trooper would be cast during their Main Phase, and would normally be sacked at their EOT. In response, they could blink it out with Mistmeadow Witch during their EOT step, or they could blink it with Voidwalk during the 2nd Main Phase. In either case, the Spark Trooper will need to be rescued again, or it will be sacked during their opponents EOT. The OP needs to save Spark Trooper at the end of every turn, not just their own.

Actually, if you blink the Spark Trooper with Mistmeadow Witch in response to its trigger, it would return the Trooper to the battlefield at the beginning of your opponent's end step, which means it wouldn't be sacrificed again until the end step of your next turn. But you're right about Voidwalk of course.

@DavidZaslavsky, duly noted and corrected. I forgot about the duration of the exile from Mistmweadow Withes effect.

As with every other step, the beginning of the End Step is the instant the End Step begins. If something has happened in the End Step, it's past the beginning of the End Step.
In the scenario you presented, the following has happened in the End Step before Spark Trooper entered the 'field:

The delayed triggered ability created by Voidwalk triggered.
The delayed triggered ability created by Voidwalk was placed on the stack.
Both players passed priority.
The delayed triggered ability created by Voidwalk started resolving, placing Spark Trooper on the battlefield.

As such, Spark Trooper wasn't even close to being on the battlefield at the beginning of the end step. It's ability won't trigger that turn.


text:
Does the investigator have to evade after combat?
I've been through the rule book several times and we've only played the game twice so it could be I'm missing something. The scenario is this:
The keeper moves a monster into an investigator's space.  The keeper's turn ends after keeper actions and the investigator uses their action to fight the monster.  The investigator wins and the monster takes damage, but does not die.  The investigator then wants to use their 2 moves.
Does the investigator have to roll for evade?  Does the answer to that question make a difference if the investigator won or not?

Yes, you must Evade a monster to take any other action than Attack, it doesn't matter if you succeeded in your attack. From the rules (page 9, 14, and 15).

Attacking a monster is the only action that an investigator can perform while a monster is in his space (unless he evades the monster, see “Evade Tests” on page 14).
An investigator must make an evade test against every monster in his space before moving or performing non-attack actions. [...] Regardless of whether he passes or fails, the investigator may then move or perform the intended action. After having attempted to evade a monster, the investigator may freely move and take actions without having to try to evade the same monster that turn. [...] Attacking a monster does not require making an evade test. This attack may be unarmed, with a weapon, or with an “attack” Spell card. This attack does not need to target a monster in the investigator’s space.

Stunned monsters do not need to be evaded.

Q: Do stunned monsters cause evade checks? What about horror checks? Can they take samples?
A: Investigators can freely evade stunned monsters (because they cannot attack). Stunned monsters still cause Horror checks and can still take samples (although they are not moved after taking the sample).

Thanks.  I don't disagree with you. I think the instructions could have stated it explicitly, however.  Evade implies (to me) not wanting to interact.  Seeing as how I just kicked its butt, I would think evade wouldn't be necessary. ;)

@Gregg, the rules do state it explicitly. That was the point of the rules quotes, "Attacking a monster is the only action that an investigator can perform while a monster is in his space [...]"


text:
Was the blind chess match between Sherlock Holmes and James Moriarty in the movie Game of Shadows real/plausible?
I saw the movie and was wowed by two things: the blind chess match in which Holmes wins with the move Bishop-Bishop 8, discovered check; and the mental fist fight they have in their minds. It's such a creative way for two geniuses (genii?) to do battle.
My question is, was the match that they had real/plausible? Was it based on a real, historical chess match? And was it even played as chess masters would play?
My first instinct was that they took a historical and famous chess match, and my gut feeling is strong. But I could be wrong. And anyway, which chess match is this? I figured, if it's a historical chess match, many users here will have studied it before.
I tried to get a screenshot of the last configuration of the board, but they never actually show it.
Instead, I know that Moriarty plays White. His opening move is c4.
When Holmes moves again, he is shown to play d5, some turn after he has played e5 (but we're not sure how many turns after). On the bright side, I have a this screenshot when he plays d5:

Finally, I have the list of moves they made during the end game, when their blind match started. I'll list their alternating moves according to how they said it, as I don't know how to write in notation.
Holmes: Bishop takes Knight, check
Moriarty: King to Rook 2
Rook to King's Rook 3
Bishop to Rook 3
Bishop takes Bishop
Rook to Bishop 4
Rook takes Rook
Pawn takes Rook
Bishop to Bishop 7
Queen takes Knight Pawn
Bishop to Bishop 8, discovered check, mate

I've heard of people playing mental chess before, which is even harder than simply a mutual blindfold match because there isn't even an actual board to act as a reference in case somebody get something wrong.

Just one question, I haven't seen Game of Shadows, but does it really involve a "Dean" Moriarty?  As in, the guy from Kerouac's "On The Road"?

not only is it plausable, but it's actually somewhat ordinary

People are able to do this, not necessarily because they're super geniuses, but because they have so much chess experience, that they have a more developed mental model about how the game is played and how it works.

@thesunneversets, Yes it does. But, this Dean Moriarty is a professor and genius, and quite beardy. This Dean is not anything like the Dean from On the Road.

@thesunneversets You're quite right, Holmes' nemesis is actually JAMES Moriarty (occasionally Jim).

Is it really? Hmm. That's embarrassing haha. I could have sworn I heard or read Dean somewhere though, before ever knowing about On the Road. Strange.

@Johno According to Wikipedia, in Alan Moore's comic League of Extraordinary Gentlemen it is suggested that Dean is Prof Moriarty's great-grandson, but as far as I know a link between the two characters hasn't been suggested anywhere else...

@thesunneversets Oh, Alan Moore! I don't think there's any real link whatsoever between the two Moriartys (beyond inspiration I suppose), but Alan Moore's LXG does love to link as many fictional universes as possible.

Interesting question! Unfortunately it's not possible to easily reconstruct the complete game from the limited information available in the movie. Fortunately for us, this has been investigated in detail at chess.com, where they have done an awesome job of reconstructing the opening and ending from the movie.
The game played in the movie is based on the historical grandmaster game, Bent Larsen vs Tigran Petrosian, 1966 (Santa Monica). Both the opening move sequence and the ending have been changed somewhat to make it a little bit more exciting to watch. You can play through this original game in the linked article.
I won't include the board for the final position here since until we have better chess rendering support, it is better displayed on the linked website. You can click through the moves and see how it all unfolds.
The author of the blog post also emailed the movie's technical director, and got some additional information, including the historical background, which he used to refine his reconstruction of the game's opening and ending:

I emailed the technical advisor Adam Raoof during the chess scene and Qh6 and Kh1 wasn't in the movie but are the correct moves.(I presumed it cause it was the only possible move with queen cause of later Qxb2 and of course the King could have moved to f1 also).
I took a closer look at the chess scene and the opening and you can read the about it in the middle of the blog.They use a different opening in the movie then the Larsen-Petrosian game.
Adam Raoff told me that he choose the game with Larsen as a tribute to him and because it was one of his favourite tournament books and was played in the year of his birth.
Holmes was gonna play white in the original script but soon after they decided on this line the director changed the script so that Holmes was gonna have the black pieces so they reversed the position and lost a move.
Adam added the line 'discovered check and, incidentally, mate', which made it to the film and which Robert Downey Junior thought was  "&&**ing awesome"!

And also, Moriarty makes a lot of stupid moves in that ending, under that configuration.

@markovchain - No problem. Welcome to B&CG!

Here is a reconstructed version of the game. It was originally a Sicilian. The final variation chosen is one of many that leads to mate:
1. e4 c5
2. Nf3 Nc6
3. d4 cxd4
4. Nxd4 g6
5. Be3 Bg7
6. c4 Nf6
7. Nc3 Ng4
8. Qxg4 Nxd4
9. Qd1 Ne6
10. Qd2 d6
11. Be2 Bd7
12. O-O O-O
13. Rad1 Bc6
14. Nd5 Re8
15. f4 Nc7
16. f5 Na6
17. Bg4 Nc5
18. fxg6 hxg6
19. Qf2 Rf8
20. e5 Bxe5
21. Qh4 Bxd5
22. Rxd5 Ne6
23. Rf3 Bf6
24. Qh6 Bg7
25. Qxg6 fxg6
26. Bxe6+ Kh7
27. Rh3+ Bh6
28. Bxh6 Rf5
29. Rxf5 gxf5
30. Bf7 Qb6+
31. Kh1 Qxb2
32. Bf8# 1-0

Are you asking if blindfolded chess matches exist? Yes, they do. I just read about one in the most recent copy of Wired magazine, actually:
http://www.wired.com/playbook/2013/02/ff-grand-master-susan-polgar-chess/

Robson is up first. He sits across from one of the volunteers, Masoud
  Assali, a public-safety officer at Webster. To level the playing field
  somewhat, Robson removes his glasses so a cream-colored blindfold can
  be tied over his eyes. He’ll have to remember the position of all the
  pieces as the game progresses.
“c5,” Robson says.
He is playing black. Truong picks up a black pawn and moves it two
  spaces forward.
Assali thinks for a few seconds. Then he reaches out and moves a white
  knight. Truong calls out a letter and a number that tells Robson how
  his opponent moved—universal chess notation. Robson doesn’t hesitate.
  “d6,” he says. Truong advances another black pawn.
It goes on like this for several minutes: Assali taking his time,
  Robson calling out moves almost immediately. White pawns are captured;
  black advances. Robson soon encircles his opponent’s king. Assali nods
  with a gracious smile: checkmate.

I'm asking if this specific blind chess match isn't just some random series of moves that made them sound smart :)

...like how the poker games in movies, where the protagonists stake massive amounts on the turn of a single card (which magically ends up providing them with a royal flush), are not in fact anything close to the way in which good poker players actually play.

Are you saying that the chess game in the movie isn't a designed game that is based on a historical match?

agadmator has it on h channel, but I don't see anything in the video's description referring to any chess.com article
Sherlock Holmes vs Professor James Moriarty - A Game of Shadows
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNgS3PqqHww
From the video description:

e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cd4 4. Nd4 g6 5. Be3 Bg7 6. c4 Nf6 7. Nc3 Ng4 8. Qg4 Nd4 9. Qd1 Ne6 10. Qd2 d6 11. Be2 Bd7 12. O-O O-O 13. Rad1 Bc6 14. Nd5 Re8 15. f4 Nc7 16. f5 Na6 17. Bg4 Nc5 18. fg6 hg6 19. Qf2 Rf8 20. e5 Be5 21. Qh4 Bd5 22. Rd5 Ne6 23. Rf3 Bf6 24. Qh6 Bg7 25. Qg6 Nf4 26. Rf4 fg6 27. Be6 Rf7 28. Rf7 Kh8 29. Rg5 b5 30. Rg3


text:
Difficulty Ranking of the Ancient Ones in Elder Sign?
Is there a list (formal or informal) of how difficult each Ancient One is in Elder Sign? Clearly, some of them have powerful static abilities (like Cthulhu) and some of them have attacks with the potential to devour investigators. I'm interested in a rough guide of each Ancient One and whether they're easy, moderate or hard difficulty.
Considerations for Ranking Ancient Ones:

How many Elder Sign tokens are needed to banish them versus how many Doom tokens are required before they awaken.
How difficult their tasks to remove Doom tokens are. Count investigations as more difficult than other symbols (peril, terror, lore) and multiples of a given icon as being more difficult than a single icon.

TL;DR
Easy: Azathoth, Yog-Sothoth and Hastur
Medium: Yig and Nyarlathotep
Hard: Shub-Niggurath, Ithaqua and Cthulhu
In Detail
Regardless of the Old One, once they've awakened they're very difficult to beat. Winning that way will always be tough! For that reason, I consider Azathoth to be one of the easiest to defeat. Sure, when he awakens, Azathoth destroys the world (which kind of sucks), but that's his only ability and with a huge 12 Doom required, the investigators have plenty of time to get their affairs in order and start going after Elder Signs.
Yog-Sothoth is also not too tough. Despite having a [do X] or be devoured attack, his ability (which is an alternative awakening trigger) is related to the Other World cards. The Other World cards typically have good rewards, but you can definitely win the game without them, so it's not such an issue to just ignore them.
Next is Hastur, who also has an Other World-related ability; his adds Doom. The obvious strategy there is: stay away from Other World cards. He has a brutal attack which could lose 2 Sanity with each attack once he's awakened. Without clue tokens to defend with, most players won't last more than two rounds. What's more, his task can be very difficult since it gets tougher when there are more monsters on the board (and he generates five himself). If he awakens, he's very tough to defeat, but, like Azathoth, he has a long Doom track making him not such a threat.
Yig and Nyarlathotep are more intermediate. Both have short Doom tracks (8 and 9 respectively) so you don't really have much prep. time before you have to start going after the Elder Signs. Also, they both have strong monster-synthesis. Yig pulls out five monsters. With only 8 Doom, that means they come out fast. Nyarlathotep's ability adds the incredibly tough Mask Monsters to the pool. They keep coming back and don't give out trophies and when they land in the wrong place can cause a real headache. When these two awaken, they're not too tough to reduce Doom for, but Yig devours any player that doesn't lose a Common item, a Unique item AND a Spell (a high price if they can even afford it!) when he awakens and Nyarlathotep's attack can devour players.
Shub-Niggurath is the toughest monster-related Old One. He pulls out seven monsters AND adds to the tasks for all of them. This can make some of them incredibly tough to defeat without items. Once he's awakened, his attacks can devour too, unless the players have trophies. Fortunately, with the number of monsters around, there should be plenty of trophies available by the time he comes out!
Ithaqua is very tough. His ability punishes any player who uses a Unique item or a Spell. It's almost impossible to play the game ignoring those two, so this will definitely sting you at some point. Over the course of the game, this can sap you quite a lot, and make players need to spend turns to heal up rather than completing tasks. When he awakens, there's a 50% chance that each item will be lost, and when he attacks he reduces two Stamina at a time. This focus on just one of the two health stats makes him especially tough for the low-Stamina characters.
And, appropriately enough, I consider Cthulhu to be one of the toughest. It's a toss-up whether he's tougher than Ithaqua and/or Shub-Niggurath, but I'll list him last because he's earned the prestige (:P). Straight out of the gate, he reduces everyone's maximum Stamina and Sanity by one. He's incredibly tough to defeat if he awakens, since he heals during every attack and slowly does unhealable (and unpreventable) damage to all the players. Fortunately, he has a long Doom track (11) and does damage very slowly when awoken, but the reduced maximum to the two health stats is such a significant, unignorable disadvantage that it makes him much tougher than others with long Doom tracks like Azathoth and Hastur.

Thanks. That's exactly what I was looking for: a ranking of the Ancient Ones and solid reasons as to why.


text:
What is the name of the game called "Ace" in south Asia (specifically India)?
This game has a standard deck of 52 playing cards. All the cards are dealt out to the players, and there can be any number of players.
The game goes like this:
First the player who has the Ace of Spades has to start the game by playing that card. Then each player plays a card of their choice matching the suit that was selected. If they already have a card in front of them, it's discarded first.
If any player doesn't have cards of the selected suit then he plays any card of his choice and then the player with the highest valued card will take all the played cards and add them to his hand, and then start a new round.
The game continues until only one player has cards remaining. That player is the winner.
Does anyone recognise this game?

I remember this game. I am from India and we called as ace itself.

I don't understand “if they already have a card in front of them”; how does it get there?

I've found several references to it online as being called "Bhabhi":
http://s193890092.onlinehome.us/malton/bhabhi.htm
http://www.zymbiotic.com/bhabhi/rules
Also, someone on BoardGameGeek really likes it, so it must be bona fide:
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/471299/the-perfect-card-game

The game continues until only one player has cards remaining. That player is the winner.

No, he is the loser. We place funny objects over him. Its called bhabhi (Sister in law) in Hindi. I am from Southern state of India. Here its called kazhutha (Donkey).
The loser becomes the donkey and he wears the funny item for the next game.

We call it bondi in maldives ok.

Welcome to B&CG!  Do you have a link or source for the above?  Thanks

Yes i know its name its "Bhabhi Thulla"

Can you provide any more information or clarification?  A link?  The other answer already provided the Bhabhi name, so is this a specific variant?


text:
What are the differences between Dwarves Brets and Empire in WHFB 8th ed
I'm trying to choose an army for Warhammer Fantasy. Over the last few weeks I brought it down to 3:

Dwarfs
Bretonnians
Empire

I like their lore and models and the possible coloring, but I can't decide on one. I'm a total beginner at Warhammer, but maybe someone can help me out by providing strengths and weaknesses of these armies.
What should I know to help me choose which of these armies I should start building?

Changed your question title to be more "stack exchange"-y

Unfortunately the stack exchange format doesn't really facilitate "discussion" but I'll try to give you an answer of objective statements that might help inform a decision!
Bretonnia: The army book is from 2003, so are most of the models.  There aren't even any rumors that there will be an update soon.  Heavy Cavalry overall was significantly weakened in the eighth (current) edition core rule book.
Dwarves: Army book authors try to spice it up a little bit, but fundamentally this army is about blocks of tough little dudes who trundle forward slowly while they shoot you up.  Some players are really into the thematic elements and love the traditional high fantasy dwarfy legion.  Others think it's just plain boring to have an army that spends a lot of its game turns saying "walk forward, shoot, your turn go."  You have to decide which you are.
Dwarves also tend to be covered head to toe in metal, which makes them an easy army to paint to a nice table top standard for beginning hobbyists.
Empire: Has a lot of variety and effective armies can be built in many different ways.  Swarms infantry, check, elite infantry, check, cavalry, check, shootiness, check, magic, check.  The downside of that is that there are also plenty of combinations that aren't effective and you can end up owning a lot of expensive models that you don't use if you shop without a plan towards a final working army list.  Look at army lists on a Warhammer discussion forum and maybe seek some advice on an army list, then build a shopping list from that.  (Unless you're just rich or something, then go to town)
WHFB vs WH40K is totally a regional thing.  Different cities/stores have different balances of # of people playing one game or the other and it shifts around over time.

thanks this helped a lot, i brought it down to dwarves and the empire. I guess i start with some dwarves models for painting and looking for an playable setup for the empire.