text:
Does a game exist where some win, some lose, and some don't?
In most games, everyone starts off with the potential to either win or lose.  At the end, they've all either won or lost.

Some games have a player who's like a referee -- they can neither win nor lose, they're just the referee, and they're in that state from the start of the game.

Has a game ever been made where everyone starts in the same state, then at the end, some win, some lose, and some neither win nor lose?

Wouldn't most players consider not winning to be losing? Or possibly coming second while the player who "lost" comes third. How would this be different from an ordering of the players?

Role Playing Games are like this. There is perhaps a goal to achieve but unless that goal matters to the role you are playing, have you really won or lost if you do or do not achieve the goal? therefore there is not always a clear 'winner' or 'loser' in an RPG and there are certainly players (the GM) who have neither won or lost. PS you may enjoy this book

The real core of this question is the definition of winning and losing in a game. I feel tempted to propose migration to philosophy.stackexchange

@tsuma534, I'm not asking how winning and losing ought to be defined (a question for philosophy), I'm asking if this specific definition is in use by any games.

I disagree with the premise. Any points based game could be considered a win if you come a close second.

The referee can't win or lose because he isn't playing the game.

If I ever see an answer here that shows an example of an actual game "where everyone starts in the same state, then at the end, some win, some lose, and some neither win nor lose" I'll award it a bounty. I won't start it earlier, as it would be automatically awarded to unsatisfying answer after a week. I think it's impossible to find such game, and would be happy to be proved wrong.

@tsuma534, the referee situation is what the second diagram in the question covers.

How is this on-topic? It's clearly a recommendation question. It's even tagged as such. Note the verbiage in the tag description. Every similar question has been closed.

I think you're really asking a philosophical question about a class of games, not asking for example instances. If that's the case, I strongly recommend you reword this question to avoid closure as being about "game recommendations". See http://meta.boardgames.stackexchange.com/a/1437/50

@ire_and_curses, I'm asking whether that class of games has any members; I'm not asking for a recommendation in any way.

Yes, that's what I thought. That's why you should reword your question a little. Right now, the sentence "Are there any games..." is ambiguous, and can be taken to mean you want examples of such games. That's the textbook definition of a recommendation.

@ire_and_curses, but in order to show that the class has at least one member, you'd have to give an example.  As an analogy, "Are there any primes greater than 10?" can be answered with a single example, yet it isn't asking for a recommendation.

Oh dear. If you really need examples for an answer to have value, then by our site's definition, this is a recommendation question. See http://meta.boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/656/should-we-ban-game-recommendation-questions-done. The reasons this is a problem are summarised well in that link. I think it is perfectly possible to ask a related question that doesn't require existence proofs, but that is your call.

@ire_and_curses, I don't need examples to prove the existence of the class, but a single example would suffice to prove it.  I could reword it as a game identification question "What's the name of that game where X" instead of "Are there any games where X" and it would be functionally identical.

Ok. This is getting too involved for comments. I suggest you post an answer summarising your position to the meta question at http://meta.boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/1435/is-this-question-about-games-with-varied-win-loss-states-a-game-recommendation-q for discussion. Thanks!

The end game tag doesn't belong on this question. End game refers to the strategy that players employ as they approach the end of the game. This question is only concerned with the final outcome, not the strategy leading up to it. Likewise, the game design tag doesn't belong on this question, because the question is clearly not about the process of designing a game. Why was my edit rolled back?

I'm asking the question as part of the process of designing a new title, trying to find out if this end-game behavior is already in use or not.  What I'm not looking for is a recommendation of a game to try out.

Why does it matter whether this behavior is in use or not? If it is, are you just going to give up since someone else thought of it first? Or are you interested in how such a mechanic is incorporated into the game and how you might do so yourself? Maybe add that to your question.

Yes. Though it's rare, some games mix up what it means to win and to lose, because why not? Games typically treat everyone as either 100% winner or 100% loser, but it doesn't have to be that way.
In real life, there are many situations where you don't just win or lose, and a lot of people are satisfied if they're able to maintain their situation. Some games mimic this.
For example, in Galaxy Trucker, rules are set out based on the story of the game. Since you're a simple trucker trying to make a living, you're a winner if you've made any money at all that game (though, as in real life, some people win more than others). If you're in debt then you've made a loss from the venture, so you're a loser. If you're on exactly 0 then you've managed to keep flying without winning or losing!
A friend of mine has a game they're making with several different endings:

If the players can't keep the game's from reaching a lose condition, everyone loses.
If the players do too well then the problem goes away without the higher ups noticing, so nobody loses but nobody wins.
If the players hold off the lose condition for long enough, the higher ups notice and reward the best player. This player wins, but nobody loses!

While some people may play with the main goal of simple victory, it can be quite refreshing when your victory, loss or otherwise is more interesting than just numerical competitiveness.

Tell me now about this game ...in [chat]?

Wait, what, it's possible to actually survive to the end of a game of galaxy trucker?!?! ;)

@Affe Not if you use enough Rough Road cards!

To truly meet with your criteria, there would have to be a ruleset that determines winning conditions as well as a ruleset that determines losing conditions, and some situation that does not fit either of those rulesets.
The best example I can think of that comes close to what you're looking for is Saboteur (+expansion). A round of Saboteur can end in a winning team, a losing team, and a neutral party. During a round, character roles can be swapped so you never know where you'll end up.
If you look at a round in this game, you could say that:

everyone has a chance of ending up in the winning team
everyone has a chance of ending up in the losing team
everyone has a chance of ending up as a neutral party, not concerned with winning or losing

One of these rounds, were it a standalone game, would fit your criteria; but only if you ignore the gold that is awarded (which would very likely affect the metagame). The winning team is awarded gold for winning the round, while neutral parties are awarded gold for secondary conditions. The game, made up of 3 rounds, is judged by the total gold collected by each player. Only one player wins (or several tie for first place), the rest loses. In its current form, I don't think Saboteur could be used as an answer to your question.
I'm certain that a game could be made that works as you describe, so eventually the answer to your question will be Yes. But without rules that explicitly isolate a group of players as "neither won nor lost" I'm certain these players will be identified as "haven't won, therefore lost". So for now, my answer is No, such a game doesn't exist.
Unless you'd count Calvinball.

Oh Calvinball.  Best. Game. Ever.

So are you saying that such games do or do not exist?  If you're not saying one way or another, I don't think you're answering the question.

@Joe I'm saying it doesn't, at least not to my knowledge. The Calvinball thing is a joke.

@Joe your comment got me thinking though, so I elaborated some more on the Saboteur thing. Hopefully you'll think of it as more of an answer.

Magic: the Gathering has 3 end states for a player: win, lose, and draw. With certain optional rules, a game can end with some players winning, some players losing, and some players drawing. In particular, the Limited Range of Influence Option has a clause that says

If the effect of a spell or ability states that the game is a draw, the game is a draw for that spell or ability’s controller and all players within his or her range of influence. They leave the game. All remaining players continue to play the game.

So, if a Magic game with at least 5 people is playing with a range of influence of 1, and a player plays Divine Intervention, when its last ability triggers, the game will end in a draw for that player and the player to either side. The other players will continue to play until (in most cases) one wins and the rest lose.

President, a card game (also known by many other names). The game has many variants and it can be played continuously. Each round has one winner (the president) and one loser (the scum).

I had a peek at the rules and it looks like those roles are used within the game for the next round, but that there are also ranked roles for 2nd and 3rd place in a 4 player game. Is it explicit that, at the end of the game, only the last place is actually the loser?

@Samthere That's only one variant. I've always played the variant where there was only one winner and one loser. Even if you have a vice-president and vice-scum, the players in between those (if playing with more than 4 players) are neutral.

Fair enough, then!

I believe I know a game that matches your query. One Night Ultimate Werwolf has possibility of such scenario in one particular case when Tanner character is used in the game. An excerpt from the rules:

GAME END
After just one night and one day...
  The village team wins:

If at least one Werewolf dies. Even if one
  or more players who are not Werewolves die
  in addition to a Werewolf dying, everyone
  on the village team wins.
If no one is a Werewolf and no one dies.
  It is possible for no one to be a Werewolf if
  all Werewolf cards are in the center.

The werewolf team only wins if at least one player is a Werewolf and no Werewolves are killed.
If you are playing with the Tanner, there are special rules regarding who wins; see the Tanner’s
  role description for details.
TANNER
The Tanner hates his job so much
  that he wants to die. The Tanner
  only wins if he dies.
If the Tanner
  dies and no Werewolves die, the
  Werewolves do not win.
If the Tanner dies and a Werewolf also dies,
  the village team wins too. The Tanner is considered a member of the village (but is not on their
  team), so if the Tanner dies when all werewolves
  are in the center, the village team loses. The Tanner is not on the werewolf or the villager team.

So, if Tanner dies and no Werewolf is killed, Tanner wins, Villagers lose and Werewolfs neither win nor lose.

That is definitely the first example I thought of as well.

Winning and losing seems like a binary question.  And at the core of this argument, you have to define what a win and a loss is.  Usually, you're defining the win condition and not the lose condition (though, this isn't always the case, such as NetRunner, which has you lose the game if you take too much Grip damage or if you run out of a deck as the Corp).  The lose condition simply comes about if you don't win.  At that point, you are clearly in the lose category.  Else, if you were able to obtain the win condition at the end of the game, you'd be able to be a winner.
When people play board or card games, they are looking to win.  And in the psychology of humans: if you didn't win, you've lost.  There really is no way to be in the situation that you're describing without redefining what the game is to you.  One way to do this is looking at how well you've done in the game instead of how badly you beat someone.  Agricola is a perfect example for this.  While you are competing with people in the game for actions on the board, you are essentially playing the game by yourself.  And, at the end of the game, instead of counting your points against everyone else, you count your points and see if you did well.  At that point, you can consider that you simply played a game and got a score...much like many old arcade games that never had an ending.
Another pathway you have to consider are coop board games.  Things like Eldritch Horror, Arkham Horror, X-Com, Pandemic, and a few variants of Legendary.  These are games where the group of people playing are actually playing against the board, which is simply an AI ruled by RNG.  At this point, all players are clearly in the win or lose category.  They either beat the board and win or they don't.
Sometimes, winning and losing isn't so cut and dry, but one needs to define what a win and a loss means to them.  At that point, you have your answer.

Clue (or Cluedo) is close to your question, especially as we play it at my house.  At the end of the game there are three categories of players.

at most 1 winner (the person who solves the puzzle)
possibly everyone can lose (people who declare they've solved the puzzle, but have an incorrect solution.)
people who haven't attempted to guess the solution.

Most people would consider the "haven't guessed a solution" to be a loss.  But not in our house.

I haven't found any and here is why I think that is.
A situation such as in Nexus Ops where the game ends as soon as 1 player is eliminated could be re-imagined that the victor is the player who defeated an other and they are the loser, everyone else was just there.
To me it does not sound like an enjoyable mechanic to be the actual result of a game, but could be used as a possible scoring mechanic to add and remove some bonus points to those players involved in ending the game.

There's also a subset of cooperative/competitive games, where a team of players will be pitted against another "team", generally a single player. Fantasy Flight does a lot of these games: in Middle Earth Quest, for instance, a team of several players (the "good guys"; think The Fellowship in LotR, except the game takes place prior to the main trilogy) unites against one single player, who controls Sauron. At the end, either the players or Sauron will win; additionally, I believe (though I will have to check myself on this when I can dig up the rule book) each player also has an individual quest, so while most players have a common cause, they also have unique subplots as well, which can guarantee various degrees of "winning" based on whether or not they are completed.
Similarly, in Betrayal at the House on the Hill, all players start out allied with one another, but part-way through the game, a second phase, the Haunt, begins, and based on semi-random conditions one player is determined to be the traitor, and is pitted against the rest of the team. Either the traitor or the "heroes" will win, and the other(s) will lose.
Additionally, it is possible, in certain cooperative games (Arkham Horror/Eldritch Horror, Forbidden Island/Forbidden Desert, etc.) where the players are generally wholly cooperative and playing against the board, rather than each other, for the team to win, but for one or more PCs to have died during the game. So if, for instance, in a game of Arkham Horror, you have five Investigators and you defeat the Ancient One (or win before it awakens), but two Investigators die over the course of the game, the argument could be made that the three players who survived "won", while the other two either didn't win, or "lost"; since total player death is considered a lose condition, it makes sense that if some, but not all, players die, not all players have "won" the game.
Of course, this all depends strongly on how you are defining winning, losing, and the grey area in between, if indeed there is any (I would argue there is, but I can certainly see the argument for the binary win/lose system) but my ultimate answer is yes, with some caveats.

Actually there is a game wich has that kind of ending.
It is called Shadow Hunter.
In the beginning people get a random card (hidden for the other players) with a character on it and a win condition associated.
There are three factions :

Shadows : They have to "kill" all the Hunters
Hunters : They have to "kill" all the Shadows
Neutral : Each one has a particular goal.

If there are enough players in the game, there are characters from the three factions in play. And if a Neutral makes it to the end of the game but has not fulfilled it's win condition, then it's a non-winning player.
This is not really what you described as not all the players begin with the same win/loose conditions. But because it is random everybody begins with the same odds of having a win/loose character (shadow or hunter) or having a win/loose/nothing character.
I hope my answer is useful to you.

So at the end, you could have a winner, a loser, and a neither-winner-nor-loser?

I'm pretty sure most people consider the Neutral character to have lost in that situation.

Sure, we used to play Texas Hold'em that way. Winner takes the pot, runner-up gets his stake back. So, one winner, one 'not loser', n-2 losers.

My game, "Win, Don't Lose" is like that. In fact games with player elimination are often like that, such as King of Tokyo. Some players are eliminated, and then someone wins. The game ends and the other players are in limbo.

This doesn't answer the question. You say your game is win don't lose but you fail to explain what you are talking about. Also you mention King of Tokyo and in that game there is no difference between the players who are eliminated and the players who did not win.

Maybe in your mind. The KoT rule book doesn't say that when someone becomes King of Tokyo the other players lose. There is a difference.

In Win, Don't Lose there is player elimination (referred to as "losing"). A player can win by eliminating everyone else, but there are other avenues to winning. And when you win by one of those avenues, the other players don't win or lose. It says so in the rule book! :P

A game does not have to specifically say you have to lose in order for you to lose. In fact other then saying a player is eliminated the only reference it says to losing  is if all remaining players are eliminated at once. If all Monsters are eliminated at the same time… everyone  loses!

If there are ways in "Win, Don't Lose" you should explain what you are talking about so that other people can get some use out of your question. just saying that some players don't win or lose doesn't do anything to answer the question

Short answer: no.
Games are designed to make someone win and the rest lose. That's why they are called games. There are games where all players can lose and in the same way that they all can win, Coöp games are like that.
I've played a lot of games and have only found games where one can draw (eg chess, checkers, etc) but than nobody loses, not a situation where one wins, one loses and the rest doesn't lose. I've searched on the internet for a good half hour and I couldn't find any game which at the end have the state you asked about.
From wikipedia about games:
"When you strip away the genre differences and the technological complexities, all games share four defining traits: a goal, rules, a feedback system, and voluntary participation."
Concluding, a game has a goal, don't achieve that goal and you lose.
As in how I see board games:
When you play a game, you win or you lose.


text:
Identify a game: escape from a labyrinth of square cards on an alien spaceship
Can anyone identify this game?
The players are contestants trapped in a labyrinth on an alien spaceship, racing to find the exit.
Locations are square cards that can be rotated during the game.  At the beginning of the game all locations are upside-down, getting revealed as the players explore.
In some locations players can find items that they can use to help themselves or hinder the other contestants.
It is a rather new game, created some time in the last five years, I think.  The designer lives in California.

Sounds even more like Alien Labyrinth.

Fun fact: the name was basically given by the question's title :D

Maybe you're thinking of Space Maze?

This isn't it, but I can certainly see the similarities!

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What makes a cooperative game require multiple players?
Many cooperative games (like Pandemic or Arkham Horror) could be played by a single player, even though they're intended to be played by a team of players striving against the board.
What makes a cooperative game require multiple players?
What aspects can a cooperative game have that make it actually impossible to play as a solo game?
I'm talking about a fully cooperative game here, where everyone wins or loses together.

Many cooperative games suffer when one player knows the game best, so they just tell everyone else what to do.  If the other players are new enough (or meek enough), the game turns into a one-player game with a bunch of confused spectators.
If the game can't be played by a single player, the knowledgable player's advice is still advice, but it's less compelling.
Note that I'm not asking what to do about overbearing players.  I'm asking what makes it impossible for a cooperative game to be played solo.

That can very a lot based on the type of game. Just because one player can take charge of a game doesn't mean that it has turned into a one player game. There is very little that can be done about one player controlling other players moves.

@JoeW, I'm not asking what can be done to stop one player from controlling the game.  I'm asking what makes it impossible for one player to play all by themselves.

Well, Pandemic does say in the rules that you're not supposed to show each other your hands, which ostensibly does make it impossible for one person to play it.

@Jefromi It says you cannot show each other your hands, but it also say that you can openly ask and tell what cards are in each other's hands; so the lack of showing doesn't actually prevent any open knowledge; it just forces more communication.

Again what might work for one style of cooperative game might not work for another

@GendoIkari Yes, I know, and most people end up with full information, but the point is that the room for error (you misremember what's in someone's hand or neglect to ask about something important) is not there if you reduce it to a single player. It's a very small distinction, but it's the beginnings of hidden information as you mention in your answer.

As long as we have AI - yes, physical games can have AI with rules that govern their moves, like the dealer in Blackjack - hardly anything requires multiple players. Excluding AI, an unlimited number of tasks could require multiple players. Given that, I think that this question begs for a long but non-comprehensive list of tasks that could (maybe not easily) be handled by AI. Therefore, I closed as "unclear what you are asking", because I don't think this was your intent.

@Rainbolt, did you read the answers given so far?  Hanabi, for one, can't be played by one player, no matter how complex of rules they're using to simulate the other players.  It requires a group of people who each don't know certain information.

@Joe Obviously I voted to close without bothering to read the question or its answers.

@Joe On a more serious note, you're wrong. Anything a human can do can be simulated by an AI. If you meant to ask, "What task does not require multiple players given a reasonable amount of money and resources?" then I still would have closed the question as Too Broad, because there are effectively an unlimited number of such tasks.

@Rainbolt, I'm assuming that the player does not have a robot capable of playing boardgames, but rather that they have just the game itself and other items you might reasonably have at home, such as a pen and paper.  With that assumption, one person cannot play Hanabi.

@Joe Had you asked about Hanabi specifically, I probably wouldn't have voted to close your question, because it is indeed unreasonable to expect a homemade AI to be able to play well. But you chose to ask about every game ever and failed to restrict resources, which led me to my Too Broad and Unclear combination of close votes.

Strong vote to stay open. Yes, there's more than one way to design a game like this, but it's actually a fairly specific game design/mechanic question, not at all overly broad. There are only so many ways you can require interaction between players.

Does anything prevent an RPG from being played single-player (plus GM)?  Would you want to play it that way?

@xorsyst 1) That's still a two-player game, even though one of the players has a special title/role.  2) RPGs are out of scope for this site.

The biggest thing I can think of is limited knowledge. Hanabi is a cooperative game where each player has access to different information (no one can see the cards in his or her own hand, but can see everyone else's cards).
As soon as different players have access to different information, playing by yourself becomes impossible. The other examples I can think of are partnership card games: Bridge, Pinochle, Canasta, Tichu, etc. They all have strict rules against communication between partners, so you cannot let your partner know what cards are in your hand. Due to this rule, a person could not end up playing both sides of the partnership by himself.
This type of thing could easily be implemented in non-card games as well, as long as there is some information that some players have but other players don't.
The other way that one could make a co-op game actually require multiple people is to have rules against table talk. Even if all knowledge is open, you can make it illegal to discuss moves. For example, you could play a Pandemic variant where any discussion between players about what should be done is illegal. You are still allowed to ask what cards other players have (or just play open-handed; same thing really), but no other discussion allowed. Thus, each player needs to decide what he wants to do on his turn all by himself, and the challenge comes on picking up the slack where other players are lacking.
Damage Report took another approach. All players play simultaneously and asynchronously (not everyone is on the same turn), and there are enforced time limits to turns. This prevents the game from being played solo (though a dominant player can still influence others)
"Hidden roles" type games can also work this way. Battlestar Galactica, for example. You could consider this a co-op game, because most of the players are all working together. Though instead of fighting against the game itself, as with Pandemic, you are fighting against the 1 or 2 other players who are not on your team. But due to the fact that roles are hidden, each player only knows his own role. This makes it impossible to play by yourself. Of course most probably wouldn't consider this a co-op game, but the basic principle is still there.. most of the people playing the game are playing co-op with each other.

@ikegami, that sounds like an answer, rather than a question.  I'd give it +1.

The point on Damage Report is even more evident in Space Alert, where the time and information overload typically exert extreme pressure on non-expert players. It is okay if a captain delegates and influences other players, but it is extremely hard to control the game to the extent where one could in, say, Arkham Horror or (standard) Pandemic.

I like this answer, but I wanted to point out that sometimes Hidden Role games suffer from this more than others might...  Consider the Battlestar Galactica game where they Cylon player meekly goes along with the human plan, not being confident enough to know when to deviate from it.

Some games have a semi-simultaneous element...For example I think Space Hulk: Death Angel is a fantastic cooperative game, and it accomplishes tension by making all the players choose which of their 3 possible actions they will take simultaneously and secretly, even though they then execute those actions serially.

Many-vs-one games like Scotland Yard are semi-cooperative games that implicitly discourage table talk since if you openly discuss your strategy, your adversary will know what it is and be able to play accordingly.

In addition to @GendoIkari's excellent answer, a possible way to force the need for multiple players is to force simultaneous action with time constraints. Space Alert, for instance, requires that all players react to imperfect information and is simply too fast to plan perfectly.

FFG's upcoming XCOM board game tries to do something like this using a phone app to accompany the game.

A game whose game states are too complex for a single player to handle is another way to require multiple players, although this is subjective to the player or the design of the game.
For example, Sentinels of the Multiverse is a cooperative multiplayer game where each player makes decisions for a single a character and the players cooperatively track the antagonistic actions of the game. The game requires a minimum of three characters. The game state for this game is often very complex because characters take actions which are often modified the previous actions taken by other players, usually in the form of bonus and penalties requiring arithmetic. It is played using cards and tokens.
So if SotM is played by a single player, the player has to make decisions for three characters and track the antagonistic actions of the game, which amount to a more complex fourth character. Since it has no centralized board, information about the game state is distributed across many card (on the order of 30+) and tokens (often 70+). This can make something as simple as keeping track of whose turn it is exceedingly difficult to do without error.
As mentioned above, the design of the game can mitigate this effect. If the game visually tracks enough of the game state to allow the player to know what is going on without having to remember, then this isn't an issue. Pandemic is a good example of this kind of a game. The player's skill and memory would also play a part in mitigating the issue of complexity.
Another game mechanic which works into the games state complexity issue, is when the game allows multiple sources of hidden information to effect the current decision. For example, Let's say a 4 player game gives each player a hand of 7 cards intended to be kept secret. Players take turns taking actions, but when it isn't your turn, you may play cards from your hand to assist the active player. So at any give time, you're assessing 7 cards to determine if they can help someone else. However if you're playing this game solo, then you're actually handling a hand of 28 cards, and also attempting to make decisions about what action is most optimal.

In my experience a strong player can easily keep track of several times the state as a weak player and think of moves much faster.

SOTM isn't that difficult to play alone, that's even how it's played in digital and no complains from that so far. It's not really difficult to play alone, especially since a lot of the informations are around, and that's true for "real" version too, except oblivaeon where you'd be in for a rough ride...

Have you played Space Alert or Escape? Both these games force co-operation by use of a soundtrack.
In Space Alert things can go awry that cause you to be delayed or bump into each other and it is different every time. While a regular player may have ideas things can still go completely wrong and screw their plans. You have to co-operate to win and even thinking carefully is no guarantee of success.
In Escape you are forced to co-operate by having multiple objectives all over the place and a dice rolling mechanic. You don't have the time to think or plan a strategy much and so the focus on action ensures co-operation.

Can you describe what you mean by "force co-operation by use of a soundtrack"?

Yes! The games have a soundtrack and so you must work together in a time limit outside of your control. There is little time to assess the situation and you must think on your feet for the good of the team. A terrible player could still de-rail this of course but I have never seen that happen.

co-operative games for children often rely on pooling resources against some sort of "ticking clock" - the wave is coming in, or the giant is going to wake up. A single person playing alone and getting one resource per turn wouldn't accumulate them fast enough to beat the clock. Three players means three chance at a resource before the clock ticks again.
I suppose one person could play all three seats, but that would feel really weird.

As I read the question it's all about preventing/discouraging one player from controlling multiple characters/seats. So the only part of your answer that addresses the intent of the question is "would feel really weird".

I think this would be improved by adding some games instead of just saying "often".

I had this exact question myself :) Some great answers in here!
Another factor is if there is randomness introduced before and/or during each player's turn to play. If there is no uncertainty introduced between each players' turns, that means both turns can be combined into one optimal move which has multiple sub-moves.
A major problem with Pandemic is that once disease cubes are added to the board, nothing adds to the uncertainity factor for the players until all 4 players are done with their turns. Which means it makes sense for one optimal move between all 4 players to be decided first before making any moves.
Contrast that with Battle of Hogwarts. Each player's turn begins with a Dark Event and a Villain effect as well. When you play a turn, you don't know what's going to happen next. You don't know who's going to be affected next. You have a good sense of where it could go because the hands of all players are open. However, the uncertainty factor is quite high too - and in between players' turns.
So I  don't play Pandemic with others. I see it as a one-player game.

Why is it relevant whether you know what's going to happen next? Most games involve changes between your turns that can't be predicted with certainty, but that doesn't mean that the same one player who made an earlier play can't evaluate the new state and make a later play too. (Also you have the rules of Pandemic wrong: new disease cubes are added after each person's turn.)

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

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


text:
What's the most intuitive way to use a die for a pass/fail test?
I'm working on a board game for general, non-gamer audiences.  (Think people who have played Monopoly and Uno, but not Risk or Settlers of Catan.)  Sometimes the player faces a test with only two outcomes: pass or fail (with some consequence).  Success and failure are both equally likely.
What's the most intuitive, non-gamer—friendly way to use 6-sided dice for a pass/fail test?
There are a number of possibilities that result in a 50% chance of success, such as:

Roll a die.  Even: pass.  Odd: fail.
Roll a die.  1/2/3: pass.  4/5/6: fail.
Roll a die.  1/2/3: fail.  4/5/6: pass.
Roll a black die and a white one.  Black>white: pass.  White>black: fail.  Black=white: roll again.

So far, I've been quite surprised to see how easily non-gamers can be confused by simple board game mechanics, so I'm trying to come up with something as non-surprising as possible.
(Replacing the die/dice with another object, such as a deck of cards or a spinner, would be too expensive for this particular game.)

There's a huge difference between rolling an even and rolling snake-eyes in terms of probability. My suggestion would be to figure out the probability you are looking for and then choose the simplest mechanic that generates those probabilities.

Define what constitutes successfully completing an action or passing a test, then, like @MattR said, determine the probability of success based on the number of possible outcomes. Tailor the use of the d6 around how difficult you would like the player to achieve that success.
For instance, consider Arkham Horror; the player rolls a number of dice according to a skill, and 5/6 counts as a pass; the more dice you have in the pool, the more chances you have to succeed.

@Joe But method and probability are so closely linked. Your first even/odd single die suggestion would be okay if you only ever want a 50:50 chance, but it generalizes really poorly. "Roll one die, you need a 4 or higher" does the same thing, but the method lends itself to adjustment to different success probabilities (1/6, 2/6, etc.). Using two dice seems completely unnecessary unless you want more control over the success probability than one die allows, in which case it's the only way to go.

Disregarding common (I have no data, so no idea), I think the easiest method to understand is roll 1 die, and have a certain threshold for success (e.g., 4 or higher). I think associating higher numbers with better outcomes is natural, so and I think spelling it out as "4 or higher" rather than ">3" or ">=4" makes things plenty clear, even for non-gamers.

Would replacing the dice with specialized dice that just have "PASS/FAIL" written on their faces be too expensive for this particular game too?

@goldPseudo, "PASS/FAIL" dice would be perfect, but yes, they'd be too expensive.

I come from a RPG background, and I've had a lot of success with odd/even when designing games for new players. Flipping coins worked well in a card game I wrote, and players can usually supply one.

Like Dave mentioned, if you are mostly concerned with players grasping the game mechanics, then simplify it as much as possible.
I see 2 options (PASS,FAIL), so I want 2 sides. I want a coin.

There is a problem with one of your examples, "Roll a black die and a white one." This actually has three outcomes: Black > White, Black < White, and Black == White. None of these outcomes have a 50% chance of success.

If your only concern is to give the players ways of making a 50/50 choice, then I agree with Dave's comment above - simply flip a coin.  There's no need to introduce extra parts for this.  (P.S. : players will be frustrated at having game-relevant events decided by coin flips.  Whether you care about this, or whether you choose to use that frustration for good, is up to you - but you should be aware that it will exist.)

Adding a second die adds too much complexity and actually skews the results since there are 6 results out of the 36 that do not result in a pass fail, and it particularly creates an issue if the dice are not rolled together, giving the pass/fail for the other die a target. Stick with one die.

Whatever non-expert game you play (Monopoly, snakes and ladders, etc.), rolling a 6 is good, rolling a 1 is bad. So I'd say "You win if you roll a 4 or more" is the most intuitive way to speak to a non-gamer.

Is it really? Sometimes, you want to aim for a specific space and you don't want a high number...?

@Malady Sometimes that is the case but in general higher is better

@JoeW - Yeah, but there must be a better game to choose than those two grid-based ones...

@Malady Why? What is wrong with using two examples where generally rolling higher is better? Why are you so focused on the games themselves instead of the end result which is a high roll (4 or above) counts as a success and a low roll (3 or below) counts as a failure?

@JoeW - Because, it's saying that "If your player has played Monopoly, then they know that bigger number is good"... Which is incorrect and therefore bad for OP? Although they did green check it, so whatever.

Let my clarify what I think I had in mind, 6 years ago, when writing that answer: for non players, that means people who only play Monopoly, Trivial Poursuit and Scrabble (with an occasionnal UNO), if you have 2 players and give them a dice each and you just tell them "roll the dice to see who wins", they will naturally assume that 6 is better that 1. Therefore, if you want your game to be understandable for the beotian, make it so that 1-2-3 loses and 4-5-6 wins.

Succeed on a roll of 4+.
Unequivocal and plain English.

This is a duplicate of this other answer that was posted a day earlier than yours and has plenty of upvotes. The only difference is that he explained his logic. In one sentence.

Fair enough, but I actually think the brief answer is more useful and the language I used is something you'd actually see in a rule book. Figured it was worth seeing if anyone else agrees. Looks like not.

If you have an eye toward a professional-quality build of the game eventually, you might want to look into laser-etched dice.. but this doesn't necessarily help you in the prototyping phase. Take a look at Zombie Dice, for instance. Each face is either pass, fail, or neutral; and there are three different colored dice, each with different probability distributions. If you want the most intuitive design, having each face be either a green checkmark or a red X would be your best bet, I think.
But... If it truly is always a 50/50 chance of success, maybe you're starting with the wrong assumption. Why does it have to be a die roll? In this case, why not flip a coin? Heads - good, tails - bad is perhaps the most intuitive interface for a 50/50 chance. The downside here is that if you boil things down to literally a coin toss, players may become aware of how big a luck swing they are being subjected to. If they have no way to mitigate a 50/50 chance, and the game is made up of a series of 50/50 chances, they probably aren't going to like the game very much. Make sure your design has sufficient choice outside of those chance encounters.

The chance of success in this game at a dangerous event is 50%, but the player has a great deal of choice in whether or not they have to face these events.  Also, custom dice is fine, but the publisher I work with wants to stick to standard dice as a component, as they're much cheaper.

Flipping a coin in the context of a board game is awkward. Because it's hard to control where the coin lands on a potentially stuffed table. Dice are much better in this, as they can be put into a cup and "rolled" by placing the cup upside down on the table. This has essentially zero chance of disrupting the setup while being simple to execute.

Succeed on a roll of 4+. Because higher numbers are usually the better results to get, in evaluations / grades, and this is "Pass / Fail".
If it were just using it as a way of picking between two equally wanted results, then I'd say Even / Odd, because there's no value judgement there.

There are already two answers saying effectively the same thing. They were posted more than five years ago. What does this usefully add?


text:
What happens if you submit orders for another player?
In Diplomacy you submit written orders for your units each turn on a slip of paper.  Once everyone has submitted orders, all orders are revealed.  The culture of Diplomacy allows various sorts of shenanigans.
What happens if you submit an order slip for another player's units?
For example, let's say you're playing Turkey and someone else is playing Germany.  You submit two pieces of paper: one for Turkey and one for Germany.  The German player submits orders for only Germany.  When the orders are revealed, everyone can see that two different sets of orders were submitted for one country.
Back when Allan Calhamer (the inventor of Diplomacy) was playing the game, a move called a "Flying Dutchman" was sometimes used.  In this move, Turkey would include among its orders an order to move a German unit.  If no one noticed (or no one objected), the order would be executed as written.  According to him, it was never really outlawed in the game, it just got rarer over time.  What I'm asking about is only a small escalation above a Flying Dutchman, I think.

Is the culture of everyone who plays Diplomacy (not just your play group) really so flexible that it allows shenanigans to the extent of directly breaking rules? Is your play group like that? Do people commonly cheat in other ways? (Also... you can likely tell who did it by handwriting, right?)

Yah, I'd say this falls outside the rules.  Submitting two sets of orders for yourself (with one labelled that it supersedes the other) is generally considered acceptable however.

@Jefromi, you'd be surprised what's allowed in Diplomacy games sometimes.  I'll make an edit to show the precedent I'm reading about.

The "Flying Dutchman" did not involve entering orders for someone else's units.  It involved using an extra piece that you were not entitled to, often by executing an extra build or neglecting to execute a removal due to a lost center.  Separately, he talks about writing orders for a country and removing their actual order set.  But I would still consider this to be allowed only if your gaming group has specifically said it is OK.

I believe the traditional response is to feed the game board to a tiger and award the offending player a toothbrush covered in jam.
Which is to say, you're asking what the rules say should happen in a scenario that cannot happen if you're following the rules. That implies a contradiction, and contradiction implies anything.
The rules of the game say "...each player writes an order for each of his/her units on a piece of paper." (emphasis added). If you choose not to play the game that way, you're pretty much going to be on your own when it comes to deciding what the implications of your alternative rules are.

So Calhamer's Flying Dutchman is completely outside the rules?

@Joe It's certainly outside the rules as they're written. You can't really expect that the rules will tell you what to do if you don't follow them. That's something to sort out with the people you play with. You can play by the rules in the box. You can play with well-defined house rules. (It sounds like Calhamer did this.) You can play a game where people just cheat or break the rules, and then you have to argue and try to sort it all out, so that the cheating and rulebreaking basically is the game, go for it. But at some point, you have to decide what game you're playing.

Absolutely.  I was just assuming (without warrant) that if Calhamer did it, it was probably allowed.

In that case I'd assume from the handwriting it would be pretty obvious which were the real Germany's orders. If you submit orders for another player, then your version won't be executed.

And if you can't tell, then I guess you argue a lot, and know you're playing with someone who doesn't really care if the game gets messed up?

Avoid this situation by having everyone submit a public key signature on all of their moves, which can easily be verified by the other players.  Implementing this with pen and paper is left as an exercise for the reader.

Honestly if you need to go this far to verify orders then I would say the group you are playing with has some trust issues.

I think of it this way, in Diplomacy the goal is to win by using every tool in at your disposal against your fellow players. However the communication with the judge is different and needs to be truthful (not counting submitting multiple set of orders that supersede each other)
It is one thing to deceive other players with fake orders, and letting others get their hands on "someone else's" orders it is another thing to do with the judge and can lead to issues. For example how would the rest of the group react if Germany submits fake orders for France that allow Germany to easily take more territory and gain in power? Most groups would have some serious problems with that and it would most likely lead to a lot of problems for the judge and the game.
However if the orders where just faked for the other players while they where making their plans then that is a different story and can be a very good idea. But on the flip side if you get caught doing this it can lead to you not being trusted again.


text:
How do you pronounce "Hacan" in Twilight Imperium?
One of the iconic races in Twilight Imperium are The Emirates of Hacan.  However, there is no pronunciation guide.
I can think of many ways it could be pronounced:

HA-KAN /hɑkɑn/, rhymes with "spa don"
HA-ken /'hɑkən/, rhymes with "glocken"
huh-KAN /hə'kɑn/, rhymes with "pecan" (for some people)
HAY-ken /'hejkən/, rhymes with "shaken"
HACK-ken /'hækən/, rhymes with "slacken"

and so on...
Official sources are appreciated.

It would appear there is no official source "Keep in mind there is no official pronunciation guide, so there is no one definitive answer, but Ha-KAHN is more likely. For one, the soft 'c' sound is something of a Romance language thing, with English acquiring it through the Norman conquests, and Hacan isn't a very Latinate word... So there's I think a lot of evidence for Hacan with a 'k' sound." according to this link: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/777406/rex-pronunciation-thread-based-official-sources

This also exists: https://www.howtopronounce.com/hacan/ but not directly related to the game itself.

Also an option based on some Eastern European languages it could be Ha-chan (properly written Hačan).

The most simple solution is to pronounce it like you are coughing up a hairball.

Short answer: Ha- Kahn

Rationale:
There is no official pronunciation from Fantasy Flight as of yet (and I hope they don't release one, because this is one of the best things to argue about in the game).  That said, we have some theoretical basis to come up with one by considering that "proper" pronunciation will vary by language.
The first question we have to ask is whose word is "Hacan"?  Is that their spelling or the Anglicization?  I am assuming here that the language of Federation of Sol descends from English, which is not a perfect assumption since Sol is both the English and the Latin name for the sun, but they do at least use the latin alphabet.  I would further assume that "Hacan" is the Anglicization or at least "Solanization", since it is written in the latin alphabet.  A lion race probably has different phonemes than humans (due to their different anatomy and vocal chords) and the true pronunciation may not be easily expressed in the Latin alphabet.
The true pronunciation in Hacaneese is probably something with a growl or a roar in the middle, since this is a race of lions, and I assume that is what is implied by the heavy use of A's in the word.  Similarly, I assume that the Xxcha begins with a clicking of the beak that can only be properly made with a beak (that humans lack).
This then leaves us with the question of how close "Hacan" is to the actual word in Hacaneese.  There are three typical possibilities.  One is that it is very close.  For example, the typical English pronunciation of "Shanghai" is only off by one phoneme from the proper pronunciation in Mandarin (ignoring tones).  Another is that it is an approximation with some creative liberties, such as the English "Belgrade", which bears only mild resemblance to the Serbian "Beograd".  Finally, we could be in a situation where we use a totally different word, such as "Germany" instead of "Deutschland".
In any case, it is likely that "Hacan" follows at least vaguely regular English* pronunciation rules, or else the Federation would have spelled it differently.
 The fact that the Sol word for the Xxcha attempts to capture the sense of the word in the Xxcha language leads me to believe the same is true of the word "Hacan", meaning that "Hacan" being in the "Germany" category is unlikely (since it at least resembles the true pronunciation).  I would also contend that Hacaneese is different enough from future English that it is also unlikely to be in the "Shanghai" category since a near perfect phonetic analogue is unlikely to exist in English.  This means that the word is an English approximation of some lion word with a roar/grows in it, but is as concerned with having a regular English pronunciation as it is with mimicking the authentic pronunciation.
I think that "Ha - Kahn" would be the English word closest to the true pronunciation that is still consistent with the spelling and English rules of pronunciation.  There is precedent in English for a mid word "C" followed by an "a" to be pronounced "K" (ex. recap) and the hard C much more closely resembles a roar/growl than the soft "Ha- san".  I believe the A's have the same pronunciation as each other since this is still a reasonable English pronunciation that vaguely resembles lion noises.
* "English" being a stand in for "Future English or whatever other language the Federation of Sol uses"

Caveats:
We only have the Xxcha as the demonstration that "Hacan" is not in the "Germany" category.  We are also assuming that the language of the Federation closely resembles modern English, which it may very well not as even the same language changes a lot over thousands of years, so even if they use English, it may be a very different English (look up the Great Vowel Shift for an example of this).  Given these two things, you can make a case for basically any other pronunciation on the grounds that we use a totally different word from the one they use or that Federation pronunciation has migrated enough to defy our intuitions.  After all, Xxcha is a word that starts with a double "X", which no current English word does.

I've decided to accept this answer if for no other reason that it's the most well-thought out explanation I've ever seen on the matter. But of course if an official pronunciation ever is presented, I'll have to change it.

I always imagined it being pronounced like this in this old Bugs Bunny Cartoon:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlMJfX_V6Ic
Which is to say that the C is more like an S.
This is because the game portrays them as being the "Hacan Emirates" which borrows from the name Emirates from the "Arab Emirates". And the picture they have uses a turban, and they are considered "Traders"
This implies to me the are based on the Arab trading culture. And so I think their name should be pronounced as such.

I agree wholeheartedly that the "Emirates" and the turban are great indications of the inspiration for the race and their name--and that these should be taken into account for pronunciation--but I don't think Hacan implies Hassan. Hakan seems closer.


text:
Card game vocabulary
I am building an online version of the game of Set, and I want to get my vocabulary straight. So far, the words I have are "card", "deck", "(card) feature", "set", "player" and "dealer".
I am missing words describing:

the initial laying of 12 cards (lay out? initialisation?)
the addition of 3 cards when a set has been found (add on? filler?)
the set of cards that are face up, on the table (board? table?)
the attempt made by a player to demonstrate a set (move? call? attempt?)
the different types within a feature (variations?)

What are the technical terms used in card games, such as Set?

(Part of) the rules of Set read as follows:

The dealer shuffles the cards and lays twelve cards (in a rectangle)
  face up on the table so that they can be seen by all players. The
  players remove a 'Set' of three cards as they are seen. Each 'Set' is
  checked by the other players. If correct, the 'Set' is kept by the
  player and the dealer replaces the three cards with three from the
  deck. Players do not take turns but pick up 'Sets' as soon as they see
  them. A player must call 'Set' before picking up the cards. After a
  player has called 'Set', no other player can pick up cards until the
  first player is finished. If a player calls 'Set' and does not have
  one, the player loses one point. The three cards are returned to the
  table.

As such, I'd recommend for your terms: (1) layout, or possibly deal; (2) replacement; (3) the cards [on the table]; (4) calling 'Set'; and (5) variation.  (Not in the above paragraph, but earlier in the rules I'm looking at, it states "Each card has a variation of the following four features".

(1) layout, or possibly deal; (2) replacement; (3) the cards [on the table]; (4) calling 'Set'; and (5) variation.

I agree with these terms. You might add another for the Sets each player holds until scoring at the end of a round. Per the rules of Set, in the scoring portion:

The number of 'Sets' held by each player are then counted, one point is given for each and added to their score.

Though if you simply score in real time, you may not need this mechanism.


text:
What is this game with multiplying aliens and random weapons?
I remember playing a game with my parents when I was a kid (in the mid 1990s) where you played either as the crew on a ship being invaded by multiplying aliens or as the aliens themselves.
The board was a series of rooms on the ship with the crew-members and weapons strewn all over the place. The part I remember most was that weapons had a random effect (picked from a pile), so you never knew if they would damage the aliens or cause them to multiply until you used one.
The goal of the crew was to escape the ship, and obviously for the aliens it was to kill the crew.
Does anyone know the game I'm talking about, or have I got my games mixed up?

The Awful Green Things From Outer Space by Steve Jackson Games

Ah! Of course! Thanks. :) You answered so fast it's too early for me to mark it as accepted...

I happen to know of its existence because it has been on my 'must try sometime' list for quite some time now. Never played it, but it looks and sounds like a blast!

It was definitely very disconcerting using a weapon for the first time and not knowing if you were going to get less or a whole lot more trouble from it! Other than being amused by that I'm afraid time has murked any further recommendation than "seemed like fun".

It's a long-standing personal favourite of mine, mostly because I really like asymmetric games.  (Also, an Awful Green Thing was the first miniature I ever scratchbuilt and painted.  But I never got round to making the crew.)  But don't play if you hate random factors; the balance between crew and Green Things can depend heavily on the randomised starting position, and on whether the crew has a good area-effect weapon available - if the Comm Beamer or Fire Extinguisher turn out do heavily lethal or shrink damage, the crew's in a much better position than if they don't.

@StuartPegg time to come back and hit the Accept button!

@aramis: Why would I unaccept it?

I was goign to say that it clearly wasn't but sounded a lot like Snits -- which is also by Tom Wham.

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/


text:
Do you still pay 10x the dice when getting the chance card that takes you to the nearest utility if the property is mortgaged?
The card does not say anything about whether or not the property is mortgaged.  Also, it does not say anything like "twice what is entitled" like the similar railroad card does.  I would go with you still have to pay, but I'm looking for backup to my opinion.
Here's what the card says:

Advance token to nearest Utility. If unowned, you may buy it from the Bank. If owned, throw dice and pay owner a total ten times the amount thrown

Yes, you have to pay.  Consider what the card says:

Advance token to nearest Utility. If unowned, you may buy it from the Bank. If owned, throw dice and pay owner a total ten times the amount thrown.

This has nothing to do with paying rent.
As you mentioned, there is another Chance card that sends you to a railroad:

Advance token to the nearest Railroad and pay owner twice the rental to which he/she is otherwise entitled. If Railroad is unowned, you may buy it from the Bank.

This card refers to the amount to which the owner is otherwise entitled, namely rent.  If the property is mortgaged, that amount is zero.  The card you're asking about makes no such reference.

You may be right that this is a good interpretation of the way the rules actually read. I'm not sure that this is what it should read; it seems to go against the "spirit" of the game.

@TomAu, I'm not sure that's the case.  The amount you pay when landing on utilities already follows different behavior from other property types, so it's quite in the spirit of the game to treat them differently from other properties when landing on them via Chance cards.

Absolutely this, I'm astonished how many people confuse this with rent. Not the same.

At first I agreed with this based on the card's wording, but this interpretation would mean that, were the utility owned and unmortgaged, you would pay 10* the roll in addition to the normal rent. As long as being moved to a location by a chance card counts as landing on that location (which it almost certainly does). With this in mind, do we expect that the intended result is to double-trigger utilities?

@Samthere, that would make an excellent follow-up question.  Both of the cards referenced above would be relevant to it.

@Samthere Dewi's answer (https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/a/29449/9999) provides the compelling case that you don't pay double rent because you didn't roll dice to land on the utility (the dice you rolled took you to Chance) so the "normal rent" from the utility is 0

I was initially on the side of "it's not a rent" (so is unaffected by mortgage state). But thinking about it, I've been forced to change my mind.
My initial thinking was as follows:
The following cards levy fines, but are not considered "rent" for being on the Chance/Community Chest square, and hence set the precedent: card-based fees are not rent.
"Make general repairs on all your property"; "Pay poor tax of $15"; "You have been elected the Chairman of the board - Pay each player $50". Community Chest: "Doctor's fees"; "Pay Hospital fees of $100"; "Pay school fees of $150"; "You are assessed for street repairs".
The following cards direct movement which could land you on an owned position, without giving instructions about rent to be paid, nor what may/should be done if the property is unowned. These cards set the precedent: buying or renting rules are unaffected unless stated.
"Go Back 3 Spaces"; "Advance to St Charles' Place"; "Advance to Illinois Ave"; "Take a trip to Reading Railroad".
My initial point of view was based on these two precedents. They seemed clear.

But then I thought further.
Only one other card directs movement to an ownable square. This card sets the (far weaker) precedent: terms for buying unowned spaces are restated, if the rental terms are also modified on the same card.
"Advance token to the nearest Railroad and pay the owner twice the rental to which he/she is otherwise entitled. If Railroad is unowned, you may buy it from the bank."

The Utilities card remains ambiguous. The possible interpretations that I can see, are:
1) The card's fee is in addition to the rental mechanism; you roll dice to calculate the fee, and also separately calculate the rent, if the property is unmortgaged.
2) The card's fee modifies the rental mechanism; you never pay normal rent, and only pay the fee (as rent) if unmortgaged.
3) The card's fee replaces the rental mechanism; you never pay normal rent, but you always pay the fee, whether mortgaged or not.
Option 1 is the only option you can go for, if you are arguing by the first two precedents, that card fees are not rent; or that rents are normal unless specified.
Essentially, you are arguing that the fee is a fare to get there, rather than a rent to stay there.
And yet, nobody is arguing for this option. Over and above the harshness of getting fined twice for a single event, there is a bigger problem.
When reaching Utilities by this card, if the property is owned and unmortgaged, the rent cannot be calculated as normal, using $4x[the dice rolled to get there], as you arguably did not roll dice to get there. The dice you rolled took you to Chance, and you were sent to the utility by a card! $4x0 would be zero rent. No other card (such as "Go back 3 spaces") can cause you to land on a utility, so it's just this card one which has this issue.
So the card must be stopping the normal rent from happening. Which leaves the other two options. Is it changing that rent to a different amount, or is it getting rid of it entirely and replacing it with a taxi-fare to get there instead?
Given that:

the precedent "card fees aren't rent" won't work here;
the precedent "rent is unaffected unless stated" won't work here;
the dice reroll seems designed to resolve that rental problem;
there's no other card which prevents rent payment;
there's no other property which can still earn when mortgaged;
the Railroad card seems intended as a parallel;
the Railroad card doubles normal rent and respects mortgages...

...I'd rule for option 2: that the payment is intended to be a rent, and that mortgages should be respected.

This answer would be better with a summary of the conclusion at the top.  Something along the lines of "I argue you do not pay rent if the property is mortgaged.  Here is why:"

No, you do not have to pay.
If a property is mortgaged no rent can be collected.  I think that rule trumps the wording on the card.
The wording on the card does in fact differ from the railroad chance card(s) or any other property chance card; this is because the rent works differently for utilities.
I believe the wording "IF OWNED, throw dice and pay owner a total ten times amount thrown." was not meant to allow rent collection when mortgaged but rather to give the owner 10 times amount even if only one utility is owned (as opposed to the regular 4 times).

The card says pay "ten times the amount thrown". It does not say "pay rent". Mortgage prevents a property owner from collecting rent, but it does not prevent the owner from collecting ten times the amount thrown.

+1 for your part about the intent of the card. I 100% agree with this part of your answer, and no-one else (that I've noticed) has called out that it is probably ensuring it is 10 times rather than 4 times. I'm still not sure whether play should follow the letter of the card or the intent of the card, but I think your answer is a very important part of the debate.

I thin you are right - and you think I am right. Maybe we should up=vote each other's answers.

@Rainbolt, Re "It does not say 'pay rent'", If you're right, you'd have to pay rent (when not mortgaged) in addition to that payment.  That doesn't sound right to me.

@ikegami I agree - it doesn't sound right. Either one of us is wrong, or we're both right and that's actually how it works.

@Rainbolt, We can't both be right, cause you say it's not rent, and I say it's not in addition to the rent.

@ikegami sigh That's not what I meant. Nevermind.

Actually, NO!
Yes dear reader you are not supposed to pay the rent in that chance card. Now I know that you're asking questions already but hear me out. First, let us look and understand the chance card.
"Advance token to nearest Utility. If unowned, you may buy it from the Bank. If owned, throw dice and pay owner a total ten times the amount thrown."
Now let's focus on the 3rd sentence. In the sentence focus even more on the second word. Yes the word is OWNED, and what makes an individual owned a property?
First you bought the property, you received it with the title deed. Then you are now the owner. Next!
When it isn't mortgaged of course! Because when it is mortgaged, the property is sold 50% to the bank(creditor or lender). Which means the bank has the property with the title deed until it is payed. Look at this for support of my evidence.
"A title deed is the legal document which legally confirms the ownership of a property and is filed at the Deeds Office, and it contains details of the property.
A title deed is the legal document which legally confirms the ownership of a property and is filed at the Deeds Office, and it contains details of the property.
From the time that you register a mortgage bond with your bank on the property that you purchased, they keep your title deed in safe custody until such time as your home loan is fully paid.
Up to that stage they are legally entitled to keep the title deed as it effectively belongs to the bank who has loaned you the money to buy the home."
You technically have 50% loan of the property sold, therefore while the property is mortgaged. The bank had the property and title deed until you pay it.
Now how about the train chance card?
Now we need to understand the card first.
"Advance token to the nearest Railroad and pay owner twice the rental to which he/she is otherwise entitled. If Railroad is unowned, you may buy it from the Bank."
Focus on
"pay owner twice the rental to which he/she is otherwise entitled"
Remember we have 4 RAILROADS and the text would describe it as pay the owner TWICE the rent on which he or she is entitled or how many railroads he or she owns. How can I prove this? I'll use an example that it based on facts and the rules in the game.
Let say: there were 3 players named a,b, and c. A owns 2 railroads and b owns also 2 railroads and c owns nothing. Now c rolled a dice and it landed on chance he received the railroad card that pays twice. Now c lands on a's railroads.
A is entitled to 2 railroads, therefore c pays 100. This part was meant to clarify on how many a person owns a railroad. To support my proof further look at the word OWNER once again. You cannot pay the owner when it is mortgaged, it isn't his/hers but the bank does.
Edit: more proof on this:
Now lastly focus on OTHERWISE ENTITLED, this means you own or the railroads you own. You can search on google otherwise entitled means so that you will understand it further. So again, the card is trying to say:
"Advance token to the nearest Railroad and pay the owner twice the rental fee to which he/she is otherwise entitled or  properties that he/she has rights to (to all those railroads she/he currently have pay the rent twice). If Railroad is unowned, you may buy it from the Bank."

The use of a word in a board game may not (and in the case of Monopoly, certainly does not) correspond to its legal or industrial definition in the real world. This applies both to mortgage (which you have totally wrong) and to deed (which you have ignored the statement on the Chance card to focus on).

You're logic doesn't really makes sense.  If we go by it, then the property is not owned, and I can then buy the property from the bank.

@Nij but the rules in game and the game is different from the real world. I get that but, I was referring to the word OWNED I added those word to add sense why we are not supposed to pay it. If you don't agree with me, I'm not forcing you. This is just an opinion. Because for me there's no reason to pay a property that is mortgaged.

@ Kevin what part doesn't make sense. I'm sorry for my grammar, I'm awful to be honest.

Your reasoning is based on what "owning a property" means in the real world. 1: your understanding of what "owning a property" means is wrong, especially when it comes to mortgages, 2: this understanding from the real world is not applicable to the game. You are making statements about something that can be objectively determined, so it being an opinion is irrelevant, your response is simply not a valid answer.

The bank does own your property when mortgaged. Because it was sold for 50% of the price in the game. The title deed was to make sense on what happens to it when mortgaged. If this understanding is not applicable? How come Hasbro did??? Technically you're not an owner of that property when its mortgaged, try it on monopoly android or even in monopoly plus, even ubisoft applied this. And my base on owning a property is from the game. I said you buy a property with a deed(just an add on to my explanation). But I just want to emphasize what happens to your ownership when it becomes mortgaged.

If you're somewhat confused with the title deed part, I'm sorry I suck at grammar if you think it was incorrect its okay that was to give idea anyways but this is was I meant to point out. That was to add sense btw, but what the point there is that when you mortgaged a property, you lose ownership because 50% of the price is given to you as loan from the bank. And what I meant on lose of ownership the bank takes your property until you payed the debt. So the card says "if owned" and you can't own something mortgaged from the bank. Its not your property, bank does.

No, the bank does not own the property. The entire point is that it's mortgaged, not sold. You still own it - nobody else is able to buy it from the bank. You owe a debt for which the property is collateral, and therefore in the rules you may not collect rent on it. The rules for an electronic form are totally irrelevant: for many games they are simply wrong or not correctly implemented, and they are not the rules for the board game which is under question here.

Check on monopoly Wiki about mortgage, it states it is sold back to the bank. For 50% of that properties price.

Unimproved properties can be mortgaged through the Bank at any time. Before an improved property can be mortgaged, all the Houses and Hotels on all the properties of its color-group must be sold back to the Bank at half price. The mortgage value is printed on each Title Deed card. Once mortgaged, the deed card is turned face-down, until the mortgage is lifted.
No rent can be collected on mortgaged properties or utilities, but rent can be collected on unmortgaged properties in the same group.

Im not reffering sold as you gave it away to the bank, mortgaged properties were sold for 50% percent in this game and then bank gives you loan of that 50%. Plus later on when you're ready to pay it you will get 10% interest on it.

If you're not using the word sold to mean a transfer of ownership in exchange for consideration, stop using that word. Mortgaged properties are not sold! Monopoly Wiki is not the official rules; they are just as irrelevant as every other source or description you've used. Please, learn the correct definition of the words you are discussing, and learn the difference between the contexts that are involved here.

Well party is sold for loan and im technically right there. It is still sold for 50%.

And how can monopoly wiki is irrelevant? Now I'm sorry man but, it clear that it states facts on that page. So you're also saying details in pages there are irrelevant? Now that is quick judgment, have you even checked their pages? Monopoly wiki isn't a fan made or fiction. Its is based on rules of monopoly.

Update: that info that your calling irrelevant came from the OFFICIAL GAME RULES! check it here my friend:http://richard_wilding.tripod.com/monorules.htm#mortgages

Even look at mortgage's meaning.Mortgage - a legal agreement by which a bank or other creditor lends money at interest in exchange for taking title of the debtor's property, with the condition that the conveyance of title becomes void upon the payment of the debt.

@JerryTinCan When the rules (and the wiki) say "sold to the bank", they are talking about buildings on the properties, NOT the properties themselves: "Before an improved property can be mortgaged, all the buildings on all the properties of its colour-group must be sold back to the Bank at half price." Nothing about selling the property; only the buildings on the properties.

I didn't met properties that are literally sold but in order for mortgaged to work, 50% is given as loan and the property with deed will be sold half for 50% loan. Its like a collateral tbh, and mortgaging a property is 50% of price.

It has to be un-mortgaged.   Otherwise I would suggest that after you buy it mortgage it right away and get 1/2 your money back.

Why does it have to be unmortgaged? The one thing that's abundantly clear from the answers is that people aren't totally sure how to read the rules; adding an answer without justification doesn't really clear things up much.

With regards to your "Otherwise": If you can still get money from people being sent to your mortgaged utility by a Chance card, that doesn't mean than mortgaging it straight away is a wise choice. The vast majority of income on the utility is going to be rent from people landing on it normally - if mortgaged you'd be losing out on this money.

I thin you are right - and you think I am right. Maybe we should up=vote each other's answers.

No. You do not have to pay anything when landing on mortgaged properties whether you landed there or a card sent you there.

No; you do not pay.
From the Official Rules of Monopoly on the Hasbro web site under heading Mortgages (my emphasis):

No rent can be collected on mortgaged properties or utilities, but rent can be collected on unmortgaged properties in the same group.

To me this is unequivocal - no payment, whether or not denoted as rent, is ever collected on a property that is face down due to being mortgaged. Not carefully the wording "in the same group", and that it does not say
"in the same colour group"; thus clearly indicating an applicability to railroads as well as coloured properties.
While an omission from the rules may, depending on circumstance, be regarded as an oversight, I can think of no reason why an explicit inclusion in the rules should not always be taken at face value. Clearly there is an omission about whether or not rent includes payment for landing on a Utility. However the explicit exclusion of payment for landing on a mortgaged utility is clearly an intentional inclusion - so payment is not due under this circumstance.
As the rules never make any distinction on how one lands on a square, to suppose that there is intended to be one for advancing to a Utility in consequence to drawing a Chance or Community Chest card is completely unreasonable.
Update
The claim is being made in comments that
"Your answer seems to be based on an implicit assumption that the payment demanded by the card is rent, or that when that rule says "rent" it means "rent or other payments", but it doesn't say that and neither do the rules."
I submit as counter argument this quote, again from the Official Rules of Monopoly.

Paying Rent:
When you land on property owned by another player, the owner collects rent in accordance with the list provided on the Title Deed Card.

Note the clear implication (at least), that the payments collected in consequence to landing on a property owned by another player are properly termed "rent".

Update - from the Official Tournament Guide for Monopoly, Page 7

Paying Rent on a Utility
  you throw the dice and land on Water Works or the Electric
  Company and another player owns them, don’t touch the dice. See what the total is.
  Multiply that number by 4 if your opponent only owns one utility, or by 10 if he/she owns
  both of them.
Paying Rent on a Fully Owned Property Group
  Suppose your opponent owns a complete color-group — for example, all three reds — with no buildings on any of them. If you land on one of the reds, you have to pay double its rent. But suppose one of the reds — e.g. Indiana Avenue — is mortgaged and you land on Illinois, it is unmortgaged. How much rent do you pay? Double, even though Indiana is mortgaged, your opponent still owns it.

Note that this Official guide explicitly refers to the amount paid for landing on a utility as rent. And the Rules otherwise clearly state that rent is not paid for landing on mortgaged property.

Your answer seems to be based on an implicit assumption that the payment demanded by the card is rent, or that when that rule says "rent" it means "rent or other payments", but it doesn't say that and neither do the rules.

@Jefromi: Again from the official rules linked to above: Paying Rent: When you land on property owned by another player, the owner collects rent in accordance with the list provided on the Title Deed Card.

Okay, but the chance card is pretty clearly directing you to do something which is not in accordance with the deed card. Why is it still rent?

@Jefromi, Re "Your answer seems to be based on an implicit assumption that the payment demanded by the card is rent", If you're right, you'd have to pay rent (when not mortgaged) in addition to that payment. That doesn't sound right to me.

@ikegami: To make your point a bit clearer - there is no basis or mention in the rules of "other payment for landing on property, NOT rent".

@Pieter Geerkens, That doesn't help. That relies on the presumption that you are paying for landing on the tile. It's circular reasoning.

Your updates do not reference the card that explicitly states nothing about paying rent but just pay.


text:
Is there any way to stop someone from sacrificing a Golden Urn?
My friend had a Golden Urn on the board with 10 counters on it.  If I destroy it and he sacs it in response to gain the life, is there anything that can be done about that?  Like, can I put another destroy artifact on the stack to resolve before his sac resolves?

This question is possibly a duplicate of: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/28058/can-i-sacrifice-an-enchantment-when-it-is-going-to-be-destroyed/28060#28060

That one asks if something can be sacrificed as a cost in response to a spell that would destroy it. This question asks if anything can be done to the thing that's being sacrificed in response to sacrificing it. I don't think it's a duplicate.

While not compatible with the scenario you've described, if the first destruction spell is Krosan Grip, it'll prevent your opponent from even having the option of sacrificing the Urn between when the Grip is cast and when it resolves.

Note that, as a matter of practical strategy, the only decks that really care about a bit of life gain likes this are RDW/burn decks; and they can just use cards like Skullcrack and Leyline of Punishment.

One practical way to defeat the urn is to tap it, forcing the opponent to decide whether to use it before they know if you'll destroy it with something else.

Golden Urn's ability is an Activated Ability. You would need an effect that counters activated abilities in order to prevent it. Stifle and Trickbind are the most common choices (In my own experience), though other similar cards do exist.
You could also cast a spell to prevent players from Gaining life (False Cure, SkullCrack, etc), or End the Turn before the effect resolves (Time Stop)
Golden Urn's ability cost includes sacrificing itself. Therefore, it is no longer on the field by the time you would have an opportunity to respond.

In addition to preventing life gain, replacement effects would work; Tainted Remedy.

Hmm. I had intended False Cure as an example of a Replacement effect, but after re-reading it, it doesn't actually replace the life gain.

False Cure still works as a deterrent against Gold Urn though.

You cannot do anything to the Urn to stop the ability once they activate it. In an activated ability, the cost is the part before the colon. Since they sacrifice the Urn as part of the activation cost, it's already in the graveyard by the time you have a chance to resolve.
More specifically, starting with your destruction spell (or ability), here's what happens:

You cast a spell that would destroy their Urn (Naturalize, for example).
Your opponent gets a chance to respond, and they decide to activate the Urn's second ability. To do that, they tap the Urn and sacrifice it. Now, the Urn is in the graveyard and its ability is on the stack on top of your spell.
You now have a chance to respond. You can't cast anything targeting the Urn, because it's not on the battlefield.
Their ability resolves and they gain 10 life.
Your artifact destruction spell does nothing to the Urn.

Note that while you can't do anything to the Urn to stop the ability, you can stop the ability itself. Stifle, for example, would allow you to counter the ability directly once they activate it.

Your third sentence holds true in spite of the ruling on Urn, "As Golden Urn's last ability resolves, its last existence on the battlefield is checked to determine how many charge counters were on it." So even if someone tried to use something like Vampire Hexmage to remove its counters, the Urn is gone by the time could even target it, even if you responded to the activation.

Responding to the activation of Golden Urn's ability with another destroy effect will not work, since you cannot respond to the cost being paid (which is sacrificing the Urn in this case). Other answers explained it better, I just wanted to offer another solution: Krosan Grip.
Due to Split Second, your opponent will not have a chance to activate the Golden Urn in response, causing it to be destroyed without an opportunity to activate it. Note that Split Second does not prohibit abilities to trigger, in case that should matter.


text:
I'd like to get into Wings of War / Glory but am confused where to start
I became aware of Wings of War / Glory when someone mentioned it as an inspiration for the Xwing Miniatures game. I'm late to the party and would like to understand the differences between Wings of War and Wings of Glory, other than branding.
Basically, how do I get started with this game?
A good answer would include details like:

Can you combine both games or are the rules / materials different?
Can you combine WWI and WWII versions of the game?
Is there an ideal box to start with?
Are all the new products with miniatures or is there an option to play with just cards?


text:
Cauldron of Souls and Wickerbough Elder
How many counters does Wickerbough Elder get when returned to battlefield with Cauldron of Souls? Assume that it died with no counters on it and was targeted by Cauldron of Souls. I can't tell if gets two -1/-1 counters or one when returned to battlefield.
Wickerbough Elder:

Wickerbough Elder enters the battlefield with a -1/-1 counter on it.

Cauldron of Souls:

Choose any number of target creatures. Each of those creatures gains
persist until end of turn. (When it dies, if it had no -1/-1 counters
on it, return it to the battlefield under its owner's control with a
-1/-1 counter on it.)

Hi, Josh, and welcome to the site!

It enters with 2 -1/-1 counters.

Wickerbough Elder enters the battlefield with a -1/-1 counter on it.

is equivalent to

As Wickerbough Elder enters the battlefield, place a -1/-1 counter on it.

Similarly, Persist is also an ability that redefines entering the battlefield (ETB) to add the placement of a counter on the card.
Both are replacement effects that modify the same ETB event, so you apply them in the order of your choice.
For the card in question, the first replacement effect applied redefines ETB to add the placement of a -1/-1 counter. The second replacement effect applied then further redefines ETB to add the placement of a -1/-1 counter. Two counters are now placed as it enters the battlefield.

As far as the obscure difference, I believe that the second would count as a triggered ability, and as such could be prevented with things like Torpor Orb.

@Sconibulus, No, it's not a triggered ability. As != when. See 603.1 and 614.1c.

@Sconibulus, You speak as if the wording isn't defined ("would count as"), but it's already in use. See Ancient Amphitheater. A triggered ability wasn't used because you could tap the land in response to a triggered ability, making the ability mostly moot. Another example is Aquamorph Entity. A triggered ability wasn't used because that would leave the Entity at 0/0 long enough that it wouldn't survive without help.

Wickerbough Elder will re-enter the battlefield with two -1/-1 counters in this situation. When it dies, it has two relevant abilities, it's own and the persist ability granted by Cauldron of Souls. Each of those abilities creates a replacement effect that causes it to enter the battlefield with a -1/-1 counter. Those abilities stack, so it enters with two -1/-1 counters.


text:
How can I play against enchantments while playing an all black deck?
I just need to know any and all black Magic cards that destroy enchantments. I already searched Gatherer and didn't find anything.
It's casual play with family, so any card is fair game.

Which format? Standard? Modern? Casual where all cards ever printed are fair game? etc. Also, have you tried searching Gatherer?

I already searched gatherer, and every card is fair game, it's only casual with family.

Well then... what do you hope to find here that you couldn't get from Gatherer?

I couldn't get the Gatherer's search to work right, so I didn't get much from it.

In that case, you might want to ask a separate question about how to use Gatherer's search. Teaching a man to fish, and all that.

@Jufo I took the liberty of merging some of your comment answers into the question itself. It might be helpful for you to also mention the specific enchantments you've having a problem with. People might be able to suggest cards that can solve your problem in unexpected ways.

Strategies for mono-black against enchantments
Targeted discard
The best black cards against enchantments are targeted discard spells.

Targeted discard lets you deal with practically any card before it hits the battlefield. Getting the most out of them may require some finesse (here is THE guide on that subject.), but these cards are powerful tools that you can use to deny your opponent access to their most critical cards.
Targeted discard shines in a traditional duel environment (one-on-one, best-of-three play), where you can focus on taking apart a single deck's gameplan. It's much harder — though not impossible — to wield effectively in casual multiplayer.
The "just deal with it" strategy
Another common solution is to just play through. Pacifism on your guy? Just write him off as dead (until you need a sacrificial creature or something). Moat preventing you from attacking? Stall until you can dig out your direct damage or your big flying Demon. Nevermore preventing you from playing your commander? Rely on your other cards to kill your opponent. Did your opponent put a Furnace of Rath on the field? Start racing for damage.
It's tough and you're often at a disadvantage, but often if you focus on what you can do instead of what you can't, you can find some tactical way to "play around" the problematic enchantment. Often the best insurance against "prison" strategies, besides raw speed, is to build in a variety of win conditions.
Specific hosers for specific cards
Another thing you can do if a specific card is causing you problems is find cards that don't remove it, but negate its effect. For example, Everlasting Torment can make Circle of Protection: Black sit there uselessly in play, while Spirit of the Labyrinth effectively blanks a number of "draw a lot of cards" decks. Generally these work best as sideboard cards, unless they're cards that fit into your deck's general gameplan anyway (e.g. you really want to use Everlasting Torment's -1/-1 counters as part of your own strategy).
Cards that actually remove enchantments
A true "all-black" deck has very few options
Enchantment removal isn't in black's part of the "color pie." Meaning it's not something black is supposed to do.
Which doesn't mean it's impossible to find cards that do, because cards to sometimes break the color pie — especially older cards. Let's try some Gatherer searches.

Black only + "destroy" + "enchantment": Hmm... all that really gives you is Quagmire Druid, which requires green mana. Might as well play a better green card.

Well, okay, but there are other ways to remove enchantments. "Exile," for instance...

Black only + "exile" + "enchantment": Nope. (You get Parallax Nexus, just because of its reminder text.)

Let's also try "permanent" instead of "enchantment."

Black only + "destroy" + "permanent": Only the Unglued card Zzzyxas's Abyss.

Black only + "exile" + "permanent": Well, Descent into Madness can exile enchantments. Eventually. But it's a build-around-me card and won't remove anything quickly.

False positives from reminder text give us a few cards with phrases like "target player sacrifices a permanent." So let's chase that down...

Black only + "player" + "sacrifice" + "permanent", black only + "opponent" + "sacrifice" + "permanent": Several options emerge:

Curse of the Cabal, Undercity Plague, and Greater Harvester all have the potential to grind through an opponent's permanents, but the ability to sacrifice lands to protect your other stuff makes them rather ineffective solutions.
Dystopia is a classic card that actually saw some serious play once, a long time ago. It's a reasonable answer to controlling white decks hiding behind cards like Ghostly Prison and Circle of Protection.
Liliana of the Veil's -6 ability can take care of any permanent, including enchantments. Your opponent gets a choice, but that's where skillful play comes in — if your opponent is willing to sacrifice everything to keep some enchantment in play, then, well, maybe you should just let them.

In this case, we've basically struck out. You have a few cards that you might be able to use to remove enchantments — almost as an afterthought, — but nothing nearly as direct as a simple Oblivion Ring or Naturalize. I wouldn't include any of these cards in a deck just to deal with enchantments (I'd play Liliana for, well, general awesomeness, though).
Colorless cards for your mono-black deck
Generally, whenever you need a mono-color deck to do something that its color can't really do, try this: use artifacts and other colorless cards to do stuff your color can't (try searches like colorless + "destroy" + "permanent").

Targeted destruction: Spine of Ish Sah, Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre, Chaos Orb (weird and fun), Eye of Doom (symmetrical effect for multiplayer).
Repeatable destruction: Karn Liberated, Steel Hellkite, Argentum Armor, Lux Cannon (slow), various Eldrazi cards with annihilator (might take a while to hit the right card). (Also Spine of Ish Sah if you have a sac outlet.)
Wipes: Nevinyrral's Disk, Oblivion Stone, All Is Dust.
Precise wipes: Ratchet Bomb (can be slow).

Some of these are pretty mana-intensive, making them better fits for multiplayer decks than dueling decks.
Splashing colors
If you want more cost-effective removal, add more colors instead. Most of the gold standards for multi-faceted removal are multi-color cards featuring black as one of their colors: cards like Abrupt Decay, Vindicate, and Pernicious Deed.

+1 for colorless options. (Not mentioned: Karn Liberated) They're an excellent choice for mono-B EDH decks, which don't have the option of splashing a color. For a casual deck, Priest of Yawgmoth could be a fun sac outlet for Spine of Ish Sah, too.

@BrianS I can't believe I forgot Karn!!! :O

This is a very comprehensive list. I agree that multicolor options are the best bet, green and white tend to have the most enchantment destruction, and would be the probably best colors to pair with to combat enchantment strategies. Merciless Eviction and Pernicious Deed can both deal with all enchantments without collateral damage.

Colorless is the best option unless you want to get pretty heavy into discard. My personal solution in my mono black commander is Argentum Armor, but it's in commander where time and mana are not issues.


text:
Is it possible to have more than one active artifact in Redemption?
I have tried to look on the official Redemption REGEX and site, and have googled but can't seem to find a clarification to this question.
My brother and I got into Redemption recently. There aren't as many player groups around in our area anymore so it becomes difficult to ask rules questions.
What I am curious about is if it is possible (and legal) to have more than one active artifact in play?
Here are the specific scenarios I am curious about:
The Solomon's Temple fortress (and its equivalents like Zerubbabel's Temple, The Tabernacle, etc.). Since the artifact moves from your pile to your fortress, does this mean you can turn up a second artifact (not on the same turn though)? So there is one active in the Temple and one active on the artifact pile?
And what about the Priestly Breastpiece? Since that can be attached to a high priest, does that mean that another artifact can be activated? (For that matter is it possible to have three artifacts, one on the artifact pile, one in a Temple, and one assigned to a Priest?)
Just wondering what the ruling is out there and if there is clear documentation on this.

Yes, you may have two Artifacts active.
Solomon's Temple's rules text seems pretty clear on the matter:

Holder may activate a second Artifact from Artifact pile or hand on this Fortress if that Artifact was found in Solomon's Temple. Artifact takes immediate effect.

The rules for Artifact Activation only prevent one artifact from being active on the artifact pile.

Artifact Activation: Only one artifact in the artifact pile may be active at a time. Once per turn, you may select one artifact to be activated and flip it face up on your artifact pile.