text:
Coup: Do you lose your coins when trying to assassinate a Contessa?
In Coup if you claim to be an assassin and try to assassinate someone. If they claim to be a Contessa and you believe them you lose you three coins to the bank correct?
I had this argument with my friend, but to me it just makes sense it would be the same as if you try to take foreign aid and someone claims to be a Duke and blocks you. You can call them out and then if they were lying your action would go through. But if you don't the action is blocked so in this case the assassin would lose their coins and no one would be assassinated.

Yes, you do lose the coins.  While the rules are not available online, this  action flowchart has been verified by the game's creator as being correct.  I'll go and try and find out what I've done with my copy and try and get a direct quote from the rules for you, but hopefully this should suffice.
Edit: Joe's comment is correct - although this is from the Coup: Reformation rulebook, it is under the basic rules, not the expansion rules.  On the fourth page, under the Counteractions heading, the last line reads "If an action is successfully counteracted, the action fails but any coins paid as the cost of the action remain spent.

As a rule if an action is blocked by another player using a action the costs of the action are still paid. The only time the costs are not paid if the action is challenged and the challenge wins.

And of course, thematically: you pay the assassin to do a job, and then in the course of the mission, she doesn't succeed, too bad for you. Assassins don't do refunds.

Reibello, the link you provided does not work for people without an account on the site. Could you possibly post a static link?


text:
Does Gwent from Witcher 3 take inspiration from existing tabletop games?
I'm new to card games but I really enjoy the minigame called Gwent in the Witcher 3 video game.
Are the mechanics of this game represented closely in any existing physical board or card games?

I haven't actually played Gwent, but I read up on it a bit, and it seems there are a few broad mechanics it's implementing:

Card collection
Deck building
Tableau building

Probably your best option would be to go to boardgamegeek.com and search for games by those tags, but a few come to mind: Magic: the gathering, Android: Netrunner, Dominion, 7 Wonders, Race for the Galaxy.

I think this is placed off topic unreasonably, if the reason for that is the reason given here. It's a fair question about a card game and if there is a game like it, that's not a recommendation imo.

@Wouter Asking "is there a game that meets this criteria" is exactly what a recommendation is.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Passengers and Fugitives: can they be cashed in at a location, like goods?
Just as some Nav cards give you Cargo and Contraband, which you can sell to a contact for cash, some situations result in  you having extra Passengers or Fugitives.
I know they may be useful to keep in case they are needed for a later mission, but is there any way to cash in on them at a location, like you can with cargo and contraband?
Im playing currently with the vanilla Core set of Firefly the Board Game, but will accept answers related to the expansions, if its just not possible to "sell" fugitives or passengers in the core set.

Also see: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/a/15380/2246

There is no way in either the base game or any of the expansions to "sell" fugitive or passengers. The FAQ describes the only way to get rid of them:

You may drop Fugitives and Passengers off in any sector with a Planet (you can’t toss them out the air-lock in deep space). This does not use an Action and can be done during another Action, on your turn.

Thematically this makes sense. Goods left over from a failed job or found from salvage still have value to others aside from their intended recipient. People however want to get to a certain place and won't be willing to pay if they wound up somewhere else (would you pay if an airline dropped you off at the wrong city?).

In the Kalidasa expansion there are jobs from Fanty & Mingo where you Pick up a fixed amount of fugitives from one place, and drop off a variable amount at the destination. So you get paid per fugitive.

The base game also includes a job from Patience: "Ranch Hand Recruitment" which states "... Drop-Off: Deliver Passengers. Get paid $300 per Passenger."

You may trade with other players any time they are in the same sector as you. You can trade as much or little as you both agree, for as much or little compensation as you both agree.
And if the Reavers just wiped out all their passengers and fugitives one sector away from delivering them for a critical job, I bet you could negotiate a really good price for those extra passengers you keep stored in your stash—er... hold, or wherever you keep them.

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


text:
Problem with lifelines in "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire" board game
I have found an issue with playing the board game Who wants to be a millionaire 2nd edition, and the rules do not cater for the problematic scenario.
The rules can be downloaded from www.fgbradleys.com/game_rules.asp#w
(Click the "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire" link to download PDF.)
The problem
The problem is with the "Ask the Audience" lifeline.
In the TV show, the audience are not playing the game and do not need to answer the question themselves. So they simply vote on which ever answer they think is correct.
In the board game, the "audience votes" are the answers which players are going to choose for themselves. They pass their answer via a card (either A, B, C, or D) to the host who adds a card with the correct answer, and then passes them all to the player using the "Ask the audience" lifeline.
The problem comes when a player uses their "Ask the audience" but one (or more) of the other players do not yet have an answer, and possibly/likely were going to use a lifeline themselves.
This means the other player(s) don't have a legitimate answer to choose, and so cannot pass an "Ask the audience" card based on an answer they are choosing.
Solution we're using
As there's nothing in the rules to resolve this, we decided that any players needing to provide an "Ask the audience" card but do not yet have an answer, randomly selects a card to pass to the host.
This isn't always terrible, as the host always provides a card with the correct answer, and another player might have an answer.
But if no other players have an answer this lifeline becomes quite hit-and-miss.
The lifeline cards the player receive from other players without an actual answer of their own are now just randomly chosen, 1 out of 4 chance, and not based on knowledge of the other players in any way.
And the point is supposed to be getting what other players are answering themselves as they might know the answer (arguably it's more than "chance/random").
It also changes the potential outcome. As a card which a player passes at random might not end up being the answer that player chooses for themselves.
So if the card they passed is chosen by the receiving player (using the lifeline) and the answer is wrong, but the player who passed the card ends up with a different answer themselves which is correct, they go through to the next question.
Whereas if they pass the answer they were choosing themselves, if that answer is chosen by the receiving player and wrong they both go out, if it's correct they both stay in.
Which is how it's designed - to avoid passing a card which you know is the wrong answer, as on the TV show which the board game is based on, the audience have no reason to give any answer other than the one they believe to be correct.
I know there are other parameters at play there, but essentially I'm saying it causes a few issues and alters potential outcome.
Can anyone think of a better solution to manage this scenario?

Also, if someone could perhaps suggest/create a new tag, such as "millionarie-2nd-edition". I don't have enough rep.

Usually we don't create tags for different editions, even [axis-and-allies], which varies significantly. I've created a tag [who-wants-millionaire] since we have a 25 character limit (this one takes 21). If you or anyone else has a better tag name, feel free to change it.

The hit-and-miss nature of the Ask The Audience seems like it is right.  There is no mention in the rules that the answer that a player gives for Ask The Audience must match the answer they ultimately decide to go with.  If you look at the rules for Phone A Friend (which appears to work similarly) it states

this card does not have to match what the “Friend” may have answered
  on his/her own Console

Since in the real game show asking the audience is really just asking a bunch of random people what they think, I believe the "problem" you have encountered in many ways actually approximates how a real random audience would work.  You have some that know the answer (and are helpful people), some who aren't sure, some who are trolls and saboteurs (even the Phone A Friend lifeline could be used to mess somebody up on purpose, which is partially why I believe that sabotage is ok).
Also, just like in the game show, there is no guarantee that what the audience says is the right answer is really correct.  The contestant has to decide how much they really want to believe the audience and then make their decision.

I believe this behaviour in the game is not correct. (1) The rule for "Ask a friend" explicitly states the card does not have to match your answer, whereas the "Ask the audience" does not indicate this. (2) The "Ask the audience" rule reads like the card must match your answer: "All other players (or the one other player in a three player game) choose their answers (A, B, C or D) from their Ask the Audience / Phone a Friend cards" --- So you specifically "choose your answer" from the card, not "choose a card".

Also, asking the audience in the TV show is not purely random, as they are returning the answer they believe to be correct based on facts/knowledge/assumptions/gut feeling/etc. Whereas the problem I've outlined returns an entirely random choice.

@James When I read the phrase "choose their answer" I read it as "choose the answer they want to give to another player" not "choose the answer that they are going to commit to"

@James Also, I don't mean to imply that asking the audience is a way to receive random answers, but that the people are random strangers (to the asker).  You never know how much you can trust them.  For example, I have a friend I could ask about chemistry questions and could absolutely trust any answer he gave me.  Can I trust a group of audience members the same way? Probably not.

You're missing the point. It's not about how much you trust that person's answer or ability or knowledge etc. The ask Audience cards are supposed to be the answer you yourself are going to give, and if you do not have an answer (and possibly are going to use a lifeline yourself) then the answer you pass along is random, and the person recieving them can choose randomly themselves without needing others to do it for them. People will pass the wrong answer if they know the right answer, which makes the cards and lifeline pointless - it needs to at least be what other players think is the answer

The assumption that 'Ask the Audience' should give what the players/studio audience actually believe to be correct is unfounded. In some countries, (like Russia, as I heard it), some of the audience deliberately try to sabotage the contestant, adding another factor your strategy has to consider.


text:
Risk Legacy "Riots" event card is ambigious
The "Riots" card has three ambiguities:

Do the troops that get removed have to die in the "major city" territory or just from anywhere controlled by that player? Can the last troop in a territory get removed in this way?
If a player owns two major cities, do the troops on both major cities count towards the total, or just one of them, or each of them independently?
If a player owns two major cities and has an HQ on one of them, does the HQ get destroyed, or is it possible to consider the other major city as the "territory" in question?

The rules as written aren't completely unambiguous, but their meaning can be determined.

Riots - Every player who controls a major city must roll a die, adding 1 to their roll for each troop and HQ in that territory. If your modified roll is lower than 6, remove troops equal to your natural die roll and DEMOLISH any HQs in that territory. DISCARD this card.

1) Yes, the Riots event only kills troops in Major Cities. Yes, it is possible to lose the last troop in a territory this way. (I.e. You have 2 troops + an HQ and roll a natural '2'.)
2) This is ambiguous. I would roll for each Major City independently, counting troops and HQs in each territory independently, but the rules as written state that players only roll once, and calculate their modified roll independently for each territory.
3) This is a good reason to only roll one die regardless of how many Major City territories you control and calculate individual modified rolls based upon the number of troops and HQs in independent territories. (I.e. You roll a natural '1' and have one Major City with 4 troops and an HQ in it and one Major City with 2 troops. Riots would remove the HQ and one troop from one territory and one troop from the other territory.)

In our game we rolled once and used that same rolled number to apply to each territory individually. There is no way to somehow avoid your HQ being destroyed by specifying a different territory instead.


text:
Why are the OCG and TCG banlists radically different?
From wiki:

As of September 2013, the OCG and TCG have had different banlists, with multiple cards in fact being Forbidden in one list but Unlimited in the other (in both directions).

Dumb question: How could banlists be so radically different?
Guess: This has something to do with some cards' being TCG-only xor OCG-only.

If so, then what specifically are some of these cards that may influence the radical banlist differences, and why?

For other reasons , what and why?

How could banlists be so radically different?

Well, TCG (Trading Card Game) and OCG (Official Card Game) are two separate and different games actually; you can't use cards from one on official games from the other. I am not Konami, but seems logical to me that such lists exist separately.
As you probably know, Yu-Gi-Oh! started first as a Manga, and then an Anime went out (and then translations). Only after some time later is that the OCG was created, and shortly after the TCG. We can see that since it's inception they were conceived differently and for different target audiences.
Another reason that justifies different lists is the fact that cards first come out on OCG, and some time later they appear (or not) on TCG in the latest Booster set available.
This means that for a period of time some cards actually don't exist on the TCG and are legally unable to be played on official events. This shows that OCG has different needs/situations, and at different moments, than TCG regarding the cards that need buffing, nerfing, or erratas.

'...some cards actually don't exist...' --> Thanks but again 'So like what are these cards, and what role, if any, do these have to play in the radical banlist differences?'

Well, what if one of those cards needs to be limited, banned, semi-limited or unrestricted? Every card must have one of those categories. It wouldn't make sense for people on TCG to have such card on "their list" if it actually doesn't exist for them. The key argument here is that OCG and TCG are actually different games, thus different rules, bans, etc.

Any specifics pretty please with sugar on top?

@BCLC well, a quick look on the OCG Banlist I found that Ancient Fairy Dragon is forbidden (to my surprise, actually). On TCG, this card is unrestricted, but the reason why this the ban on OCG only Konami knows (perhaps people were abusing it on the OCG but not on the TCG events, thus no need to ban it there also).

DarkCygnus, I meant to ask which OCG-only or which TCG-only cards influence the banlist differences and how. I'm guessing that's the only or at least main reason why the banlists are different. Thanks. Also, I edited for clarification.

This answer would be even better if you talk about World Tournaments. This is a case where you will have OCG and TCG cards playing against each other. My recollection is that if a card is banned on either the TCG or OCG ban list, you cannot use it in your deck during the World Tournaments.

@Thunderforge I think that World Tournament is different for OGC and TCG. The world tournament, IIRC, you can only use TCG banlist, and can't use OCG banlist.... Will check yo be sure though

According to the Yu-Gi-Oh! Wiki, “During World Championship tournaments, all cards are automatically set to their lowest allowed status in any region” (in addition to some other restrictions).

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


text:
Can Bunker's Grenade Launcher be used on the same target 3 times?
Bunker's Grenade Launcher power says "Deal 2 damage to a target, may deal 2 damage to another target, may deal 1 damage to another target." Does that imply that each target would have to be unique? Or could it hit the same target multiple times since it doesn't say a DIFFERENT target.
I always played it as 3 different targets, but I'm wondering if the card is intended to give the option to be like a card that reads "Deal 1 target 1 melee damage and 1 fire damage" OR you can split that damage up among multiple target.

No, you must select different targets for each set of damage.
In the Sentinels of the Multiverse app developed by Handelabra Studio in cooperation with Greater Than Games, playing Grenade Launcher asks you to select a target for each instance of dealing damage and does not give you the option for selecting the same target(s).
This matches the usual definition of "another". From dictionary.reference.com:

Another (adj):
  1.
  being one more or more of the same; further; additional:
  another piece of cake.
  2.
  different; distinct; of a different period, place, or kind:
  at another time; another man.
  3.
  very similar to; of the same kind or category as:
  What we need today is another Thomas Jefferson.

In general, Sentinels of the Multiverse cards are very literal in their instructions: if it were intended to have an OR, it would have an OR.

If it could do damage to the same target it would say do one target damage and then do one target damage. Argent Adept has a card like that and you can hit the same target twice on the mobile app.

The computerized version has shown me all kinds of cards I was doing wrong in meatspace.  It's been very handy for that.

If the same target was allowed, it would be written like Chrono-Ranger's Terrible Tech-Strike: "Chrono-Ranger deals 1 target 2 melee damage. Chrono-Ranger deals 1 target 1 projectile damage." Note how it repeats the phrase "Chrono-Ranger deals 1 target" rather than mentioning another target, meaning it can be the same target if desired.

"Deal 1 target 1 melee damage and 1 fire damage" OR you can split that damage up among multiple target.

For the record. I'm fairly certain a card with this reading would require one taget to recieve the melee and fire damage. You are not allowed to split it up into two targets.


text:
Strategies for Scattergories
I suck at Scattergories. I've played the game dozens of times, and as far as I can remember I have never gotten anything other than last place. Usually the gap between me and the next lowest score is large. I just finished a full 16-round game with a final score of 51. Only 24 words were crossed out due to others having them; 1 or 2 words tops were crossed out due to challenge. That's an average of just 4.7 words that I filled in per 12-word list. I believe that putting something down for each line is the most important aspect of the game, so clearly I'm doing something wrong.
Here are my strategies for filling up the slots on each list:

Think of any and all words starting with the letter and find a category that they might fit in, selecting the most obscure category to avoid overlapping with another player.
Think of any and all words associated with the category on the list, and see if any of them start with the letter. Usually this involves visualizing the category. For example, with “things in a junk drawer” I visualize my own junk drawer, name each item, and check the first letter for a match.
Read the list, the instructions, and any text in the room for words that start with the letter. Any that do, find a category for them if possible.
Sound out in my head the letter followed by a common next letter, waiting for my brain to fill in a word. For example, the letter is “S,” so in my head I say “sh...” and “se...” until words like “shout” and “seer” pop up. Then, find a category for that word.
Write the first letter to see if my brain will auto-complete a word simply by muscle memory.

You might be tempted to comment, “it's a party game, just have fun with it.” Since I'm not particularly competitive, that's basically what I have done in my dozens of attempts. However, at this point the pattern of suckage is hard to ignore, and I'm quite curious what key aspect of the game I must be missing.

Hope that "song titles" comes up with the letter D, and break out "De Do Do Do, De Da Da Da" by The Police. 8 points right there.

I think your techniques are sound if, first, you've read the categories so they are in the forefront of your subconscious when you consider the letters.
Scattergories is a bit similar to 'Boggle' (Parker Bros.) and 'dig-it!' (Cadaco), in that words one's opponents also use are not scored, but different from Scrabble (Hasbro) in that...well, everyone knows Scrabble.  But all these games primarily rely on vocabulary and imaginative thinking (neither of which is improved by your techniques).
Anecdote Alert: My Scrabble play dramatically improved once I got the Scrabble Player's Dictionary (SPD); which I read (past-tense) daily.  My other dictionaries didn't have many that are found in the SPD and I never would have known of them otherwise.  During gameplay, I let others use the SPD to find words and to challenge mine, I don't use it except for challenges.
I would suggest you do something to increase your Scattergory vocabulary.  Because of the aforementioned "duplicates don't count" mechanic the words/terms you'll want are those that don't normally come to mind.
People tend to be predictable in how they think and what they think about.  Your goal should be to think differently, outside the mainstream (but not so far you can't defend a challenge), and increasing your Scattergory vocabulary will help do that.
Each day, pick a category (the ones that are most difficult for you), search the internet for a "list of ____", print it out, and scan it 2-3+ times during that day.  Don't try to memorize it, just say the words aloud, imagine what it looks like, think about which ones others may not know so well, and you're done.  Keep your list nearby during game play in case you're challenged.
For some categories, "lists" may not be practical because they would be too long. (My game is in storage so I'm going to guess...)
IE. "Movie Stars"/"TV Stars", look up ie. "movie/TV stars of the 1940's";
"Boy's Name", look up "boys' names of [pick a country that uses the same/similar alphabet or translates well]...the Old Testament of the Bible works well if the other players are Christian (not Jewish), Greek and Gaelic names might work if one uses the English (not Greek/Gaelic) form, etc.
"Things in a kitchen", also break larger things down to their component parts but make sure those components aren't too ambiguous, ie. "pilot light", "heating coil", "drawer knob", "pot lid", "garbage bag", "dog dish", "sponge", "coffee filters".
If an item appears on a list you don't know, look it up, learn it, and not just for the game but for the sake of learning.
All I'll say about "having fun" and "being competitive" is that games are all about challenging oneself and enjoying the "striving to do better next time".  The other players are there for companionship, laughter, randomizing the game, and "fog of war" (FoW).


text:
Play all but one rule is into play. What if play one extra card rule is also in play?
In our last game, the "play all but one" rule was into play .
But also a rule (dutch fluxx) that said the one with the most keepers can play one more card.
Does this mean he can play all his cards, or should he still keep one left in his hands? (Translated into English the dutch card reads: Save one card in your hand and play all the rest.)

Since the dutch fluxx card says "the one with the most keepers can play one more card" (as opposed to must play one more card) then it would be that player's choice if they want to play the last card or not.
The key is in the compulsion, since "can" is not compulsory. It is possible that the wording in dutch has different compulsory connotations, but based on the English translation, I can only conclude that it is not required.

Welcome to B&CG!

Sounds like you have your own answer ready. The rules for Fluxx tend to stack. You're absolutely right, that one person has to play all of his/her cards.
If the player in question has 6 cards on hand and 'play 5' is on the table, as well as the Jet-Set Bonus, does he get to play all his cards? This question is not really different from yours.

If the card says can play then you don't need to do that play.


text:
Stalingrad Pocket 2nd ed Air Power Barrage Shift
According to rule 1.10g Divisional Integrity Artillery Bonus: "Artillery which does not have a friendly unit adjacent to the intended target ... will receive a (leftward) shift on the Barrage Table..."
Does this shift apply to air units attacking without a spotter? Does it apply if air units are barraging with artillery units without a spotter?

Yes.
Yes.
The modifier is listed on the barrage table and applies to barrage combat regardless of source. It does not draw distinction between air or artillery.


text:
Are newer editions of Carcasonne compatible with older expansions?
If I have the new edition of Carcasonne with the river and abbot mini expansion, are all the old expansions still going to be compatible?
Mostly I'm looking for a compatible expansion that will add a 6th player and am wondering if Carcassonne Expansion 1 - Inns & Cathedrals  will satisfy that. Surely this doesn't come with a 6th abbot piece for example (and I'm assuming different tile art as well?)
Looking at the New Edition FAQ I would guess that there is no sixth player abbot piece nor expansions with the new artwork.

The are now expansions that fit the artwork of the new edition and the first expansion does come with a 6th abbot piece. Here is an image of the back of the box showing the 6th abbot piece

Here is a link the the Inns and Cathedrals expansion and the Traders and Builders expansion with the new artwork. It looks like it is only these two expansion so far.

According to the FAQ you linked, the tile backs are compatible. If you want to restrict yourself to the new art style just to make it look pretty, you certainly can, but you'll be limited to any expansions that get (re)printed with the new style in the future. So if you want expansions now, you pretty much have to ignore the art difference.
Among the older expansions, Inns & Cathedrals is the expansion that actually adds the sixth player's basic meeples, so it's the only expansion that will really satisfy that need. True, it doesn't come with an abbot piece, but you can find a placeholder. (You could also omit the abbots entirely when playing with six players; people have been playing just fine without them for a long time!)
Some other expansions are then compatible with Inns & Cathedrals. For example Traders & Builders adds builder tokens and pigs, and they come in all six colors. Plenty of other expansions don't add anything player-specific at all, so they'll be fine as well. (I won't try to list them all right now; you can look at a list.)

All that said, Carcassonne isn't exactly the best six-player game. You can end up with a lot of downtime between your turns unless everyone plays quickly. Each player also doesn't get to play very many tiles, which means they don't place very many meeples, they don't score very many times, and can't be very efficient.
The base game including the river is 84 tiles; if you get say Inns & Cathedrals (18 tiles) and Traders & Builders (24 tiles) you're up to 126, giving each player 21 tiles to play. Even if you play a meeple on every single tile the game will be 1/3 over before you get them all down. If you want to complete your cities, you'll probably be stuck making a lot of small ones. And it feels pretty random; with five other players taking a turn before you get to go again, you have very little control over the things you start to build. Rare tile shapes are basically impossible to get. (Good luck with the four-sided city tiles!)
If you really want to play Carcassonne with six players and still have a serious game, I'd suggest playing with people who are familiar with the game and can play pretty quickly, and buying a lot more extra tiles. That might mean multiple copies of one of the large expansions or even the base game; you'd be buying them for the tiles, not for the extra mechanics.

I just bought inns and cathedrals today and the new set of needles does include an abbot piece.

This does not provide an answer to the question. Once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post; instead, provide answers that don't require clarification from the asker. - From Review

does the artwork match the new set as well?

@ToonKrijthe - This provides an direct answer to the 2nd paragraph in the querent's question.

Carcassonne is very mutable.  But yes the new game is compatible with all the old expansions.  Including adding in a 6th or even a 7th or 8th player.  Of course the more players you add the more difficult it becomes to keep people focused on the game and have everyone enjoy it.  You can buy the extra pieces you need cover the 'missing' ones for extra players.
Most expansions come with the pieces for all six players, I don't know why on this latest version they went back to 5, unless they really feel 6 is becoming to awkward without at least several expansions to help increase the number of pieces everyone gets to use.
The artwork on the new set is different but it still matches up with all the older expansions.  But chances are you will need to buy they extra missing meeple separately. (or create your own tokens)


text:
Where do I insert the exit tile in a 1-2 player game
In Escape: The Curse of the Temple, the rules say if you are playing 1-2 players to

insert the exit tile in the middle of the draw pile

With the base game (I'm assuming expansions maybe add to this pile), there are 15 tiles left at this point after putting 2 of them next to the entrance. Where does the exit tile go, above the 8th tile or below it?

From the Rulebook

Setup

You will need the 6 main chambers and the 13 basic chambers (that is, all the chambers without the purple mask and/or treasure icon). Set aside the starting chamber and exit. Mix the remaining chamber tiles face down, then stack them as a draw pile. Place the starting chamber in the center of the playing area, then place 2 randomly drawn chamber tiles next to it, as shown in the illustration below. Finally, take the top 4 tiles of the draw pile, shuffle them together with the exit tile, then place them on the bottom of the draw pile.

Exception: If you are playing alone or with a second player, insert the exit tile in the middle of the draw pile.

Considering the rather loose and light nature of the game. I don't expect that the instruction was meant to be literal. But if you need a ruling I would remove half the pile. Place the Exit Tile and then call that done. So with 15 tile. Remove 8 tiles (7.5 rounded up) place the exit tile and then now you have two piles. 8 regular and 8 including the exit.


text:
In Arkham Horror, what card is shown on the bottom right of the board display of the rulebook?
The rulebook here shows a board layout on page 4.  At the right side are the various investigator items (common and unique items, skills, spells, allies, etc). There are 11 cards stacked there. What is the bottom one that stands alone (not in a neat row of 5)?

It vaguely looks like the bank loan card but the title and word spacing implies to me that it isn't.

The only thing I can come up with is that it's supposed to be a discarded bank loan.

The paragraphs aren't 100% the same, but they're close. Pretty much the only substantial difference is the title, and putting the whole title on one line seems like an obvious thing to do. Seems likely they just didn't go update the image in the rules.
I say discarded because it's face up, and because the bank loans are the third card in the right column there. You can see the Bank of Arkham image on the back. That's also consistent with it being set apart from the others. (Of course, discarded cards are supposed to be discarded back to the bottom of the deck they came from, but maybe they weren't careful about making that image.)
It's a bit of a reach to make that inference, but there aren't really other good options. It's definitely the only small card in the base game that looks like that, and even the expansions I have don't include anything else similar. Bottom line, if that's not a bank loan, it's not anything that matters. There's not something else that looks almost exactly like a bank loan that you're missing.

For what it's worth, unless you're lucky enough to have a really huge table, I wouldn't bother splitting up all the odd investigator-related cards (Retainer, Deputy cards, etc) like they do in that picture. They're the kind of thing that you'll use at most a few times in the entire game, and most often just one or none, so you can just keep them all in a pile and go fish one out when you need it. Spreading out the location cards and giving each investigator some space seems much more important.

are bank loans discarded like that? I haven't played the game but since they all seem the same, I wouldn't expect there to ever be a need for a discard pile for such a card. I had guessed they're just taken and kept with the player cards and then returned when done with.

@Joey They are sometimes discarded (see the text), as are many other investigator-related items. I imagine the setup there was just envisioning a single discard pile for all of them. It's true that it'd be much easier to discard back to the deck it came from. (And I wouldn't feel the need to follow any of the suggested layout that doesn't make sense.)

My understanding was that "discard" in AH was used to mean place it at the bottom of the deck and that there are no 'face up' style discard piles. Is this correct? I'm not able to find a reference to it at the moment. I do know that when you find a specific item you reshuffle, and when you search a particular type you do not (but discard to the bottom as you go).

@Joey Yes, the rules do say to discard to the bottom. I'm just saying that a discard pile is the only thing that really makes sense to me for the image. I went through all my small cards and didn't see anything else anywhere near as similar to that as a bank loan. Maybe there's something I missed somehow, though.

Perhaps the card was simply called "Loan" at one point? That would explain why the title appears shorter in the picture while otherwise appearing exactly like the bank loan cards.

@Thunderforge Maybe! I'd thought there were two lines of text there, but now that I think about it, more likely the bottom part of the frame was more ornate.


text:
What elements of Arkham Horror balance the difficulty across the number of players?
I know the number of open gates that triggers the awakening of the Ancient One reduces as the number of players increase, and the number of roaming monsters in Arkham increases as well, so there is the crowdedness factor that seems more perilous. Also, there are two monsters per gate opening when there are 5+ investigators. Are there other factors? These factors don't seem as significant or maybe as linearly ramped as the balancing factors in Eldritch Horror where clues, gates, surges, and mystery requirements scale with every 2 added investigators.

The extra monsters are a pretty big deal when going from four to five players, which is a pretty common real life scenario.

Ha, I initially read this as having to deal with monsters in real life as being a real life scenario. So this sounds like 4 may be a potentially optimum number of investigators.

It's certainly a lot easier than 5. (Playing with a lot of players also just makes the game incredibly long and inefficient, unless you have enough disciplined players. I've been dragged into an 8 player game where people whose turn was a ways off completely stopped paying attention to the game, and the only thing that kept it going was me saying, hey, it's your turn.)

The 'limits' that change with more players are:

Maximum number of monsters on the board before they go into outskirts
Maximum number of monsters in the outskirts before the terror track is moved
Maximum number of gates that can be open at any time
Maximum number of monsters that trigger the awakening of the Great Old One once the terror level has reached 10

Do you mean the terror track for item 2? Also while this does seem a value that's tweaked for balance, it's probably clearer to simply say that there is only ever 11 monsters allowed in the game board and the truly game-affecting aspect here is how many get returned when that 11 monster game limit is reached.

@Joey I suppose you can think of it that way, but sure seems to me like the truly game-affecting thing is the presence of additional monsters on the board.


text:
Are any special rules added if you are playing with more than one expansion?
Are there rules governing playing more than one expansion? Arkham Horror has a couple rules when there is more than one side board attached, but I haven't seen any documentation on modifications to Eldritch Horror rules.
For an example of what I'm wondering, here is an excerpt from the Innsmouth Horror expansion for Arkham Horror, page 6:

The rules are unchanged when using more than one expansion city, except that the number of players should be counted as being one less for each expansion board in play beyond the first. So, if six players are playing a game using both Dunwich and Innsmouth (for a total of two expansion cities), they are counted as having one less player, for a total of five players. This modified number of players is used for such things as the monster limit and the maximum number of gates that can be open at once, and it reduces the level of difficulty for the players since they have so much more ground to cover.

I believe there is a rule (don't have the quoted text on hand) where each extra sideboard added allows the max number of roaming monsters to increase by one before terror level increases.

I added a documentation reference to the main question.

Short answer: No. There are no special rules for playing with more expansion.
Additional info: However, there were some special rules for playing with specific expansions.
On January 12 2016, FFG had posted an update which featured new Reference cards with a following description:

Due to the introduction of new mechanics in its expansions, the balance of Eldritch Horror has shifted. To remedy this, revised
  Reference cards have been created for use when playing with any of the following expansions: Mountains of Madness, Strange
  Remnants, Under the Pyramids. Below are the revised Reference cards.

This update only lasted a week. On January 19 another update renamed this cards to "variant" not "revised" reference cards.

With the introduction of new mechanics in Eldritch Horror expansions, some player groups may wish for a more difficult or more
  relaxed experience with certain player counts. The variant Reference cards shown below can be used to increase or decrease the
  game’s difficulty.

I think that the revised reference cards are what you are asking about.
Arkham Horror was becoming harder with each expansion added and needed a special rules to fix that.
Eldritch Horror was becoming a bit easier with each expansion added (other than "Forsaken Lore") and these cards have returned the difficulty back where it was in the core game.
That's my experience, at least.
You may find these new reference cards at the end of the official FAQ.

Expansions consist of a variety of components which may or may not be used according to the current scenario.
We include all standard components from each expansion in every game. This means all of the following:

Non-sideboard locations
Mythos cards
Playable characters
Preludes
Expeditions
Assets
Unique Assets
Artifacts
Spells
Conditions
Great Old Ones
Monsters
Epic monsters
Focus/Clue/Health tokens etc.
Gates

Regarding clue tokens or gates that are for a side-board not in play, we leave them in the game and if one is drawn, simply draw another. I find that is easier than sorting them out but do as you wish in that regard. If you do wish to remove a specific expansion, the cards have a small indicator on the front side of which expansion they are from.
Sideboards come into play in one of two ways:

When a GOO is chosen that requires the use of that board, or
When a prelude is chosen that requires the use of that board.

Mysterious Ruins are the same as sideboards. The are present when playing against the Syzygy GOO, or when drawing/choosing the Cosmic Alignment prelude.
This means that generally you will only have one of the sideboard/ruins used during a given game, and then you will include cards specific to the locations on that board, or the mystic ruins deck (from now on, when I say sideboards, include the mystic ruins deck as it is bought in to play in the same manner)
It also means however that multiple sideboards may be used when playing against a GOO that requires one sideboard, and starting with a prelude that requires the other sideboard. For instance one could choose to combat The Elder Things from the Mountains of Madness expansion, while drawing the Museum Heist prelude from Under the Pyramids. There is no official statement regarding extra rules here as far as I am aware. I have not tried it but I suspect for small player counts you would find it difficult to cover all the ground. If you want to make it easier than you could use the variant reference cards mentioned here.
There is no official way to play with both sideboards and ruins, however you could do so by allowing two preludes concurrently, eg: GOO = Nephren-Ka, Prelude1 = Antarctica, Prelude2 = Cosmic Alignment.


text:
Is prompting players with alternate moves poor etiquette?
Recently we have had a number of 'explosive' games of Catan and Risk, where the game has become very heated because use of 'prompting' or 'suggesting' of moves to other players. I see this as a valid strategy, however one of my rival players sees it very much the other way and thinks it is unsportsmanlike.
To give a better illustration of the issue here is a scenario for Catan:

It is a 4 player game, around half way through
I am Player 1 and am currently not leading the game
Player 2 is currently in the lead as I see it, and they are a good player
Players 3 and 4 are in similar positions to me, and look unlikely to win.

At this stage I feel like if the game plays out then Player 2 has a high chance of winning, they are unlikely to make any major mistakes and it would take a sequence of bad luck to unseat them from the victory.
It comes up to Player 3's turn, and they have several moves they can make. They initially choose to attack me. At this point I speak up and prompt another move that attacks Player 2, and illustrate that they are currently winning the game, and that they need to be stopped, implying a loose alliance. This play is beneficial to both me and to Player 3 by keeping us in the game, but damaging to Player 2.
At this stage Player 2 'explodes'. I am berated for making such a suggestion, called a bad sport, and are accused of being of weak moral fibre.
Unfortunately Player 2 has been a better political opponent as well as player, and has the backing of some of the other members of the group, as this is not the first occurrence. They have been building support for their 'anti-prompting' cause for a number of weeks/months.
I back down, and stay quiet, and watch a number of games go by that were largely uninteresting because of a lack of any team play to slow down the winner. Part of this issue is with the way the game operates, in this case Catan:

You can see the progress of each player to within a 1-2 victory points in most cases, as well as how they trending
The game seems to be decided quite early in many cases due to strong starting positions and early moves
It has a large chance factor for starting positions and early resource gains
By having only one winner it can be very cut-throat and does not explicitly lend itself to cooperation

The end result of these properties is that I feel many games are decided early, and the remaining 45-30 minutes is spent going through the motions. Ideally I would not be in this position, as the other players should see the primary threat and that we should work together toward a common goal of taking out the leader and then one of us may have a chance of the win. Unfortunately this is not often the case, and I'm not allowed to make any mention of this, or I get berated again.
Ultimately this comes down to trust also, if I suggest poor moves then no one will listen. The issue is that, as a strong player, my suggestions are often strong and insightful too, negating a major play or situation that has gone unnoticed. This is clearly aggravating for the player I'm doing this against (Player 2), but my only other option is to sit there and let them win.
Do you allow prompting in your games? Is it an issue? Do you think it is unsportsmanlike? Should I back down and keep quiet? How should I bring this up as a valid and accepted part of the game if I choose to try an get this included as an allowed behaviour in future games?

If your group hates Diplomacy and its entire legacy, as being "unsportsmanlike", then it seems like you're asking the wrong question. It's irrelevant what the norm is for Catan, what matters is how to make that aspect of play enjoyable to this group. If all you do is demonstrate that it's a valid part of the game, they just won't want to play with you.

Isn't diplomacy a core gameplay element of Risk?

@CodesInChaos Actually, I've been told that teaming is detrimental to the playing of Risk, because allied players are too overpowered, and a powerful attacking country can still lose completely to a defending country with a population as small as two.

@wizzwizz4 Allied players are overpowered - and that's exactly why everyone should try to do it. Risk without diplomacy is just... rolling dice for 3 hours.

I am generally the Player 2 type player in my group. If I am the well established leader in the game I would fully expect the other players to work together to slow me down. However, I have also had people gang up on me from the very beginning of a game because I "always win" and that is something I am not a fan of.

This is only poor etiquette when I am in the one in the lead.

If you're playing with people who don't understand that you should automatically gang up on anyone who takes a lead in this sort of game then you probably want some new playing buddies.

@Brad R When you are playing, what is the trading philosophy of your group? I have found that many players do not understand the ramifications of their trade with other players. When one player is in the lead, does the rest of your group still trade with them and treat them as they do any other player? I tend to think that free trade is highly overrated. In Catan, trades should be made that benefit you the most and benefit your opponents the least possible amount. This rule should hold true for any action in almost any game, and should automatically help to prevent Snowballing.

@Warlord099 It is frustrating when other players start a game off by ganging up on you. However, I like to think of it as they have only just started to treat you with the respect you deserve. If they gang up on you from the beginning, they increase their likelihood of winning, which is the objective of the game. Plus, it adds a little challenge to the game while the other players gain experience.

@Dent7777 Trading strategies do vary quite a bit between players, although there is a common guideline that once one or more players is clearly on the home stretch then trading with them is halted. This guideline is often enacted quite late in the game though, when it is clear that the game is nearly up.

@BradR If the players start to wind down their trading with "winning" players near the end of the game, then what is it they are failing to do to prevent the "winning" player from succeeding? What moves and suggestions are you prompting?

When I played Risk with my friends in college we would team up against one player if he refused to get beers from the kitchen or other in and out-of-game things we might like or not. We called this 'emotion Risk' and it was all part of the game.

Strange, until now I thought Catan was designed for starting arguments. The comments here make me think it's used for entertainment or something.

reminds me of a life lesson I'm constantly learning, that being right about something isn't always good enough.

">The end result of these properties is that I feel many games are decided early, and the remaining 45-30 minutes is spent going through the motions. "
I think this demonstrates what's wrong with Catan.

This isn't really an ethics question, it's more that you and Player 2 haven't agreed on which game you're playing.
You want to play a game that involves loose alliances and table talk.
Player 2 wants to play a game with strict solo play and no talk.
There's not much you can do here apart from agree, in advance, which version of the game you're playing.  If you want to play the game differently, you'll need to play with different people or put up with agreeing to something you don't like.  Careful phrasing of this can get you away from this being a right/wrong thing.
What you can do is bring games where open alliances are part of the game.  That could well loosen up player 2 to come round to your way of thinking.  Diplomacy, Cosmic Encounter or Avalon would be a good start.
All this is separate from the issue of people outside the game giving advice.  Personally I find that to be bad form.

Good points, and I particularly like how you phrase it as 'solo play', this is a great way to illustrate the problem to my group. Also thanks for the advice about other games that use this mechanic to operate.

This is an excellent summary of the problem. Also worth noting that Catan is slightly peculiar in that it can be fun played either way. Most games push players very firmly down one path or the other, which makes me wonder if you are, perhaps, playing the wrong game for your collective enjoyment.

If a player 'explodes' in Catan, I wouldn't recommend trying Diplomacy with him :)

@Deo: throwing your toys out of the pram and stomping off, leaving your country in anarchy, is at least part of Diplomacy gameplay though, for all that it's annoying when it happens ;-)

"All this is separate from the issue of people outside the game giving advice. Personally I find that to be bad form". Fully agree. Very annoying when a plan fails because an outsider pointed to the weakness you wanted to use.

There's always Munchkins :) While not technically a boardgame it certainly expects you to meta-game (it pretty much says so in the rules)

There can't be definitive answer to this question, as ethics generally doesn't provide hard guidelines. But I can suggest several points to consider:

Think about Player 3 first in isolation from "you vs Player 2" shenanigans. Was suggested move directly helpful to them? Haven't you tried to play the game for them? It's about whole group, not just you and Player 2.
Try to evaluate "Player 3 is missing a move" situation, and act same way. Say, they forgot they have a port and traded some resource with highter rate. Would you tell them? Would they be grateful or annoyed if you tell them?
Would you be okay on Player 2's place? If you are in the lead and other players gang up on you, how would you feel? Because if this practice will be accepted by your group, this will happen eventually.
Where is your group on competitive/casual scale? I would forbid such "prompting" in tournament play, but I wouldn't have any problems with it in casual beer-and-pretzels play. Looks like at least you and Player 2 have competitive mentality.
Catan is a game of negotiation, so I would expect highter allowance for such meta-gaming than in other games. Also, the decision is for Player 3 to make, if they're not ok with this play, they can just don't do it.

Ultimately, meta-gaming can fix the game as well as ruin it. And it doesn't end with "gang up on leader", there are a lot more possibilities like "I don't care about my own score as long as I don't let Bob win" or "Me and Sam will ally and help each other so one of us has better chance of winning than everyone else", etc. In other words, I don't recommend to open this Pandora's box unless you are sure.
[Update]
There are other things to consider aside from ethics, and one of the most important in games is fun. Right now you don't seem to have much fun with this game, so let's focus on this problem instead and analize some solutions.
The problem as it stands: there is runaway leader and all other player's chances to win are miniscule.
First point I want to add: If all players have about the same skill level the issue disappears without any need for prompting. Changing a group is an option, but rarely a good one. Then again, if you continue playing with same group, less skilled player should pick up strategies and get better, so eventually you'll have equally skill leveled group. Probably won't happen soon though.
Next, the problem is runaway leader. The means to mitigate it is not prompting itself, but "gang up on leader" strategy. Prompting is used to try to convince other players it's time to apply this strategy. This is the point I would try to explain to the group: playing with no chance to win isn't fun for everyone, so keeping leader in check makes game better. It's not about prompting, it's about general strategy.
If this point get's accepted, there might be no need for prompting, since players would try to apply this strategy on their own.
Then again, this shouldn't be all-time applied practice, because constantly ganging up on any leading player will just prolong the game and equalize scores. It should be applied cautiously to leave possibility for victory for other players when one of them is getting too far away. Although this is self-regulating behaviour, because ganging up on leader is not directly beneficial and unless there are no other viable options, players would chose more directly profitable moves.

Yes, at this stage I agree that there may not be a definitive answer. I do like the points you raise though, and yes we do play pretty friendly, pointing out missed resources or ports. Ganging up on the leader is feature in some games anyway, just not in this form, particularly with trading late in the game, and personally I like the idea even if I am in the lead. That said I was the victim of a "don't let Bob win" after destroying a player in a previous game, and the following games were extremely frustrating, as the game was handed to the 3rd player a couple of times.

I don't think equal skill levels fixes this problem. There will always be interesting, important decisions to make in any game. As long as those decisions could affect me, I have a vested interest in "convincing" the active player to make the move that's in my best interest. A higher-skilled player may see more of the complexities of the board state, but it doesn't eliminate cases where there are two good options for Player 3, one bad for Player 1 and one bad for Player 2.

@Matt The question was about suggestions to other players. If my skill level is higher, I can point to consequences other player might have missed and thus have them re-evaluate and possibly change decision. If they have same level of skill, they have alrady assessed situation as deeply as me, so what I point won't influence their decision. Also, with less skill difference people will be much less willing to accept your advices as perception of it changes from "help" to "intrusion".

You're asking the wrong question here. It doesn't matter whether a bunch of people on the internet think that suggesting moves is good or bad etiquette - the problem is that player 2 'explodes'.
The real issue here has nothing to do with gaming etiquette, and everything to do with dealing with interpersonal conflict.
The solution is, to have a calm discussion about whether suggesting moves is acceptable. If you find that you can't agree, then simply don't play with that player. Frankly, someone getting that upset about a game is not someone that I would want to be playing with anyway.
At the end of the day, you are playing the game to have fun. If you are not going to have fun, don't play the game. If the ending is determined half way through, then stop there. If the other player is trying to insist that you keep playing, but according to their rules, then simply concede - it's not worth the hassle of fighting them on it.
Note that you should only do this if the other player is really being a problem; if you're just getting bored in the game but the other players are having fun, you should stick it out - after all, you wouldn't want them to drop out when you were in the lead, would you?
If every time they start yelling at people about sportsmanship, then very quickly either they will learn not to do that, or other people will stop being willing to play with them.
On the other hand, if it's only you that has an issue with this, and the other players are fine with it, then you may instead find that they are no longer willing to play with you. In that case, you clearly have some fundamentally different ideas about what makes a game fun, and you should try a different game or a different gaming group. If the problem really is with you, then taking the above advice (about conceding when they start acting up) will just make you come across as a passive-aggressive a**, so do try the conversational approach first.
TL;DR
Your problem is with the player, not the game, so talk to the player. Make an agreement before you start on what rules you will play by. If you can't come to an agreement, then don't play the game.
This question really has nothing to do with boardgames - I suggest you try posting it somewhere else (e.g. quora.com - they're good for questions like this).

I'm not sure I agree that it has nothing to do with board games, while this is a social phenomena, it is specific to one or two games, and would rarely come up in other real life situations. Also your suggestions of not playing or playing another game are general solutions, but they are also ones I have already considered - our group has spent a lot of time and money learning and buying multiple copies of the game, I'm seeking a solution that could work for all parties. I agree about making an agreement though, although I was asking more for specifics about how I should go about that.

"If you are not going to have fun, don't play the game. If the ending is determined half way through, then stop there." I would not do that. I would consider that very bad etiquette and being a sore looser. play the game til the end, the best you can. But clearly articulate afterwards that you did not have the fun you expected, and will not do participate in another match under those circumstances.

@BradR It can come up in other situations, admittedly only ones involving games, as that's the only place where this is something that could happen. But you can get the same situation in a multiplayer computer game, in some sports, and of course in pen and paper RPGs - where it is actually so common, a tool has been invented specifically to address it (The Same Page Tool). In fact, rpg.stackexchange might be a good place to post this...

@Polygnome You're right, and I agree with you. Stopping half way through is basically the nuclear option, and you should only do that if there is a problem with the players, rather than the game. If you are just not enjoying the game, then you should keep playing so as not to spoil it for others - you committed to play, so you need to follow through. But if the problem is that another player is behaving badly, then it is reasonable to put the game aside until you can sort out your differences. It's a fine line to walk.

@Benubird Yeah I agree its the nuclear option. It is indeed a very fine line to walk, and I would really only use it when there is something drastically wrong. Playing a game you are not having fun with, you lose an hour or two of fun time. But if you leave the game, the people you play with might have strong reservations against ever playing with you again - how can they trust that you are actually commited to the game when you have withdrawn before? On the other hand, I have walked away fom the board once before, because the situation was simply toxic, and the others needed a wake-up call.

They initially choose to attack me. At this point I speak up

Separately from whether alliance-forming should be part of the game, I think it's also worth considering whether negotiating with someone after they've declared their move, in an attempt to talk them down and make them withdraw that move and replace it with another, should be part of the game. This goes beyond just suggesting a temporary alliance, or discussing possible moves with your allies: you're telling your opponents that the choice they've just made isn't good enough for you.
Catan has no formal planning phase of the turn (unlike, say, Diplomacy, which more or less demands that you play by suggesting moves to other players and mutually discussing the options). So there has to be some flexibility about when moves are discussed, if they're going to be discussed at all. But you're persuading them at the most frustrating time. Quite aside from the fact that Player 2 doesn't want any plotting against him at all, you're not presenting the concept of teamwork to anyone in the best way by (as it probably seems to them) demanding that another player delay their turn until they've heard your arguments as to what they should do.
Having an idea who's in the lead and what a given player can do to obstruct them is part of the game, true, and players 3 and 4 apparently aren't doing this very well. Maybe they don't think about it at all, or maybe they disagree with the moves you'd prefer them to make for reasons that make sense to them even though with your superior strategy you know they're being fools to themselves. But the biggest problem is that they're playing badly, and this makes the game dull. Not that they refuse to let you argue their moves.
Therefore I recommend that you approach this by talking to players 3 and 4 (in particular, but 2 as well because excluding him would be a poor move both politically and in terms of friendship). Not initially about team play as such, but about the importance within the game of preventing the leader doing too well. Any teaming up is a means to that end, but it's perfectly possible for each player to come to their own individual conclusion who's ahead and what they can do about it. If you can persuade 3 and 4 before the game starts that their best chance of winning is to inconvenience you when you're in the lead, and 2 when 2 is in the lead, you won't have to interrupt their turns with your protests. If you can't convince them of that before the game, then telling them in-game which moves they should make in order to achieve a goal that they've chosen not to try to achieve (a close game in which they have a shot of sneaking the win), is just rude.
Now, you might still face complaints about team-building when you say, "hmm, player 2 seems to me to be pulling away, I think we should all block him where we can". But at least you can't be accused of prompting/suggesting specific moves as alternatives to a player's announced move, because you won't be doing that any more. Focus on changing one thing at a time: you see prompting at the point of declaring a move as being the only way (or the best way) to change how players 3 and 4 react to player 2 taking a lead, but it shouldn't be the only way and they clearly don't like it.

This is purely based on your group and the people you play with.
This form of "prompting" is often als called meta-gaming. You game outside the game. With the people I frequently play with, this is abundant. It adds a new layer of depth to the game. You get shifting alliances, backstabbing, and politics during the game.
Another observation is that this levels the playing field (games are often decided within a few points), but also significantly prolongs the game. Most matches my group play go over two or three hours, instead of being over after one ore 1.5 hours.
On the other hand, when disallowing meta-gaming, the game usually has one clear winner, and ends more quickly, allowing for more matches.
However, there is a distinction between meta-gaming and out-right "playing the game for others". For example, if I only had a few points, and was attacked by another players, instead of him attacking a player with much more points, I would say something like "Are you sure you want to do this? I not a threat anyways". Or I would simply let him attack me, while pointing out that this decision wasn't -- in my opinion -- the best tactical one. I would never suggest a concrete move to another player, e.g. "use your knight at that crossing to get the robber away").
This can lead to some funny situations, like everyone at the table shouting and fighting and cursing (in a freindly, game-ish manner).

The problem is that you and Player 2 disagree on whether meta-gaming is allowed or not. He clearly does not want to allow it, you seem to want it.
This can not be solved by looking at the rules.
I would suggest an honest conversation about it with your friends. This might involve you explaining that the game is not fun for you without some politics at the table. Explain hat you hate to see one runaway winner and not being allowed to do any intrigue against it. Try to explain how you think it enhances gameplay. One key point I would focus on is that a game with one runaway leade is fun for one person, a close game where each one can pull off a win is fun and engaging for four players. I have often experienced games that lasted for 3h and were decided within one round, with the winner gaining the last point just before the next player could make his move and also win. This kind of close games happen much more often when meta-gaming is allowed. Also, winning is so much more sweet if you had to battle three people constantly (because you were in the lead the most time), and is also much more gratifying when you can get the victoy in an unexpected coup. When the stakes are higher, there is more fun (imho).
Also, try to gauge what the other players think, but also try to gauge what fors of meta-gaming they think are acceptable. it might be that Player 2 actually isn't against meta-gaming, but just has a problem with you telling others what to do. be open to step back and use more indirect forms of meta-gaming, if that is what it takes to each consensus.
So talk. But be prepared to be told "no". Your group might just enjoy playing differently then you.
but, tl;dr:

Is prompting players with alternate moves poor etiquette?

Depends on the group. In my group, if the "prompt" is subtle and not to concrete, its more or less actively encouraged! You'd be seen as a whimp when not doing it. But you can also be frowned upon if its not wanted within your group.

Great points about the concept of meta-gaming, and the clear explanation. I actually had not considered the time issue too much, and that is a pertinent point in my group. Player 2 has made it clear he prefers quick simple games, as we are usually in a social situation. He has actually on a number of occasions brought out timers and made jokes about the 'longest turn' card being added to the game.

Well, in my group we enjoy long games. With the Cities and Knights expansion (Don#t know if thats the actual title in english, I translated it from my native language), we even experienced 4h matches (there was some pretty bad dice luck involved, too, but it can happen, especially when you have to constantly rebuild cities).

Have you considered playing better other games? Catan and Risk are pretty much designed to be explosive in exactly the way you mention. Communication itself isn't the problem, so much as ease of manipulating an other player's strategy into your own.
For fully cooperative games there's Pandemic, Forbidden Island/Desert, and many others.
There's competitive strategy games where your immediate paths cross a bit less than they do in Catan. Think Puerto Rico, and Agricola (PR's been heated for me too though -- Agricola not so much).
Anyway, shop around. A lot of people feel a big sigh of relief when they find games as challenging and fun as Catan but without the constant clash and manipulation against each other.

I have made some suggestions previously about other games, there are a couple of issues though. Firstly everyone in the group has taken the time to learn the game to a reasonable level, and most people own a copy. Secondly it's not so much my choice to make, I have already bought some other games but they didn't seem to go down very well as everyone needs to start again and the old rivalries need to be reestablished. I do appreciate the suggestions and that there may be light at the end of the tunnel if I keep pursuing other game options!

In my opinion, the question if prompting moves to other players is welcome or not depends on the intention of the helping player. I think it's always nice to help players, e.g. to avoid bad mistakes, especially if they are new to a game and as long as this does not directly help or harm any other players.
If you prompt alternate moves because they would fit better into your own strategy, it's disputable.
If you deliberately utilize weaker players by prompting them better moves, so you increase your own chances to win against the strongest player at the table, it's disputable as well.
But in the described case, you have a runaway-winner at the table and all other players have the same weak chances to turn around the game. In this situation, I actually would expect most gamers to team up automatically, without even discussing or suggesting it.
What would happen if you would openly suggest an alliance against Player 2? Would he accept this as long as you don't suggest concrete moves or are alliances completely forbidden?

You illustrate some important points. By changing either scenario or the way the players perceive the game it alters how 'ethical' it is, which is a major issue. What if Player 2 is in the lead, I'm an outside chance to win, with the others further behind. In that case it may be considered questionable, as I'm really only helping myself in the long run. I may help their position - they may not lose as badly, but ultimately they won't win. Another issue is they may read the situation differently, other players may think I have some VP or just interpret it differently, leading to animosity.

"depends on the intention of the helping player." Expect that intentions can not easily be seen without mind-reading. So imho its best to either forbid it completely or accept meta-gaming and hidden agendas as types of gameplay. Furthermore, if you meta-game from the start, its unlikely one player gets such a clear advantage in the first place.

Fascinating.  I think on some level your friend player 2 and yourself are, as has been stated, playing a different meta game.
I gathered some opinions about this from my current gaming group (my wife and 12 yo) to see how this bounces off them.  We all agreed that “ganging up” on the lead player is all part of the game, and should be encouraged.  However, we all very much dislike the idea of telling other people exactly what they should be doing.
Couple things,

You stated that after player 3 declared their move, to attack you, you decided to point out how wrong this move was and they should attack someone else.  While I would not accuse you of “weak moral fiber” (ha) I would say that this is kind of over the line.  You might grumble a bit, and hope that player 4 does not also capitalize on your weakness, and address player 2, but player 3 already said what they were doing, so be quiet.  That said, pointing out who is in the lead, and what a favorable position they have is perfectly fine between declarations, in fact encouraged at our table.  Keep everyone in the loop, but maybe not suggest every move.
If I was player 2, and had played my game carefully and through a stroke of luck, player 3 decided to not press me, I might be a bit put off by your request that they attack me after declaring their moves.
Consider that Player 3 might have thought that attacking you (in Catan?) was more helpful to them, than focusing on the current leader.

Lastly, perhaps while you consider yourself “a strong player” in your words, the rest of the table is actually not impressed with your suggestions.  Consider that maybe Player 2 is the only one who is vocal about it.  Being a bit oppositional-defiant myself, I do not actually appreciate someone telling me what the “best” move is throughout any game, and maybe Player 3 is sick of your … attitude.  Raising kids, I find that I have to back off and let them make mistakes so that they can see and experience the consequences of a less than ideal choice.  When a person is not a strong player either because they are new, or just don’t want to spend the effort to become one, they might find much enjoyment out of just seeing what strategy A can do vs strategy B.  When new, we might actually enjoy losing, because we were just trying to gather maximum wheat…. just because.
I do not want that last paragraph to sound harsh.  I hope it didn’t.
I find that this gets MUCH WORSE with cooperative games like pandemic, where mostly, the group decides the best course of action, and there isn’t really much room for individuals to make any decisions.  I’d suggest your group stay away from that one.
TL;DR  Yes.  After they’ve declared their intentions, it should be avoided.  Nothing wrong with sweeping generalizations about the state of the leader, however.

My group sounds very similar to yours. We do broad comments after declarations in an attempt to shed light on a potentially bigger threat. But, as we say, "A card laid is a card played". Once the decision is made, a prompt to undo that decision results in some arguments amongst us. If player 3 moves the robber to a hex with players 1 and 2, and says that he is picking one of player 1's cards, then that is the decision. Player 1 may comment something like, "oh sure, pick my card when player 2 is in the lead" while at the same time holding out his fanned cards to have one selected.

At this stage Player 2 'explodes'. I am berated for making such a suggestion, called a bad sport, and are accused of being of weak moral fibre.
Unfortunately Player 2 has been a better political opponent as well as player,

Fascinating. So Player 2 not only disapproves of you doing "politics" during the game, but also is heavily "politic'ing" outside the game. Did you consider that his "explosion" is actually metagaming? Why can he tell you what to do when you are not allowed to tell Player 3 what to do?
In our Catan games, the boardgame itself is usually just a shallow backdrop to the real game, which is the political stage. Everything goes, and people are rocking their best, and worst, in these games. Every kind of emotion is faked as necessary, all kinds of arguments are used. As long as the physical movements on the board are according to game rules (what is placed where etc.), it's perfectly fine!
If that is not the case in your group, I don't see what would help you, really, except picking another game. Catan in itself (without the political aspect) seems quite dull to me after a few rounds, because as soon as one pulls ahead, it's over, unless the others band together.

Great observation on Player 2, I totally agree with you. Sounds like OP and Player 2 are good players and 3 and 4 are "sheep" ;)

This is  similar to "kingmaking" in board gaming, which is a loose term to describe players who are in a unwinnable situation deciding on actions in order to ensure the player of their choice wins the game rather than the currently leading player. This can also be in the form of a collusion of players that cannot win themselves in order to help another player win rather than the currently leading player. This behaviour is very often (generally?) considered unsportsmanlike, as the kingmakers don't actually improve their game position and the player who earned (by luck or by skill) his current top position is de-throned, often (not always) out of spite.
Your situation is different, though, in that the colluding players actually gain from the collusion and can still win the game. In my play group, this is usually considered acceptable and only frowned upon if either
i) actual kingmaking is involved
ii) it get's excessive, where an all-vs-all game becomes a huge gangup and a player is targeted by a group of other players repeatedly to the point where the game only resolves around stopping that particular player, and the eventual winner is a coin toss among the rest

Great points here about kingmaking, and it does complicate matters. For example if I propose a move the does not immediately or obviously benefit me, or Player 3 ends up winning, then I could be seen as kingmaking, even if that was not my primary intention.

For Catan specifically...
Ganging up on the leader is part of the game. Attacking someone other than the leader for a personal gain is part of the game. Making mistakes is part of the game. Knowing other player's positions by meticulously keeping track of the details is part of the game (I tend to keep track of exactly which resources everyone has in their hands, and playing IRL I'll even watch exactly where each card is if I really need to pull an Ore from someone... they really don't like that ;) ). Not knowing players' positions because you are distracted is part of the game.
In my opinion, any information which is unhidden by the rules, like what resources a player has picked up recently, is fair game and I don't think it's poor sportsmanship for it to be discussed freely. Speculation, like if you think a player has a VP point card, can be tricky and really misleading to a newer player, but again, just in my opinion, it's fair game for discussion.
So to provide a suggestion for resolving this issue in your group, I would just explain to them that talking about the score and prompting someone about moves is all just part of the game. But you all have to remember that it's not necessary to listen to the suggestions. And you have to remember that the other players are free to play how they like, and that making suggestions to them might rub them the wrong way and ultimately come back to bite you, and that's your problem. Being attacked by Player 3 when Player 2 is leading is your problem, and you have to deal with it. Prompting them to attack Player 2 instead is one way to deal with it, but it sounds like it's not very effective, so you need to figure out a better way to avoid that situation. Because remember, getting screwed over is part of the game.
I think it's fine for you to prompt, it's fine for the other players to get annoyed, and it's fine for Player 2 to call you out. To me, that's all fair game. Getting frustrated is part of the game.
If your tone is: "You should attack Player 2 because they are going to win soon if you don't" that might be effective, but if your message is "You need to attack Player 2 otherwise you are an idiot and ruining the game", that's probably not going to get anyone to listen to you. So think about that.
Here's a tip:
A strategy I use online, not so much in real life, is as someone starts pulling ahead, I'll sprinkle in comments to suggest that player is dominating the game, and it can often get the other players to attack that player:

"Wow, White's city on the ore is really paying off..."
"Red has the best board setup..."
"Blue can buy anything they need..."

And comments about how bad I'm doing (especially if I am doing well...):

"Man, I should have built there instead..."
"I can't get anything I need..."
"I'm getting such bad luck..."

Playing online is different because you can't see what move a player is about to make, and there's no undo, so berating someone for a bad move after the fact usually gets you nowhere. Try slowly influencing the other players throughout the game, instead of suddenly saying "DUDE YOU GOTTA ATTACK HIM".
So even if you are totally right that Player 3 should attack Player 2 for the benefit of everyone, you have to find a better way to get into his head. You have to read the other players better and find a better way to manipulate them.
And you should suggest to Player 2 that he only thinks it's unsportsmanlike because he's not confident in his ability, because if he was good he would win anyways... they will be pissed at you at first but I bet they would change their attitude.
TL;DR; No it's not bad etiquette for casual play, but you can't expect everyone to listen to you and you have to understand there might be negative consequences for you for doing it.
Updated TLDR
Catan was designed for these kind of conflicts and questions over "morals" and "etiquette" to arise. It's intentionally ambiguous.

"playing IRL I'll even watch exactly where each card is if I really need to pull an Ore from someone"... Assuming you are talking about stealing a card when moving the robber; then this seems strange, because it should always be common practice that before someone has a card stolen from them, they randomize the cards in their hand to eliminate this sort of possibility.

@GendoIkari yes exactly, so if they forget to shuffle, it's their loss. My point is that in my opinion, since it's fair for them to shuffle their cards, it's equally fair for me to watch the cards. People understandably get angry at this but I just explain that it's on them to shuffle their cards. What I forgot to explain is that sometimes I'll attack a non-leader, because I'm reasonably certain I will pull a card I need... but if it doesn't work out for me then I get blamed for screwing up the game. But in the end, I think it's all fair.

There are no rules saying you can't give helpful points to less experienced players. As a matter of fact I consider it my duty to point out poor playing choices to others.  Even to my detriment.  My goal is for everyone to have fun, and for me that is having good competition.  Often I am the 'person in the lead' and if I just tromp the other players each time it certainly isn't any fun for them and for me it's like beating a 5 yo at chess.
Now if all players are close in ability then the prompting should be pulled back, but still, we use it to help reign in the leader.  Generally we all do it to each other, and none of us 'expect' to just win.    I actually find it even more satisfying to win against a group that are trying to foil my plans.
Personally, unless there is something in the rules saying otherwise it seems to me to be a poor sport who can't handle a little competition.  Is it fun having a major plan foiled?  no. but it's part of the game.
Of course it can be taken too far.  I know someone (T) who played a game with a friend. The friend believed (T) was some mastermind on the game and played the entire game 'preventing' (T) from winning. He thought it was a great strategy. He didn't try to win, just stopped (T) from having any chance.  THAT is not fun, I would also refuse to play with that type of individual myself.  Even if I wasn't the target.
Ultimately, most of the time I consider that kind of table talk/prompting to be mentoring players to become better at the games.  A teaching experience if you will.  If all 3 of the other players at the board want you to shut up, then do so.  However, anyone not willing to take advice deserves their fate.  I would also seriously consider avoiding play with player #2.


text:
Where can I find the rules for Game of Life 1991 UK version?
I have the Game of Life board game and lost the instructions. I found the 1977 & 1991 instructions online but they are not the same as my version.
On the box there is that mine is of 1992 but still the 1991 instructions version are completely different. My version has mostly yellow tiles, few orange and some red tiles. No blue or white or green or Life tiles at all. Nor Pay Day tiles.
I have some tiles stating Casino tiles, take X amount of money or risk it. But how can you risk it? My version is you have to pay $20 K to go to university. Other versions say $40 K and above.
Life insurance cost $25 K. I have no Automobile or Homeowners Insurance Policies.
The cards I have are: Bank Loans, Salary, Career & Status Symbol. (No House Deeds & Stock Cards)
Where can I find the rules for this version?

I haven't been able to find them online anywhere, but I believe I can narrow your search.
This particular box was marketed exclusively to Great Britain, which makes them less popular than most English versions which were aimed at US buyers. Thus it's likely no one ever bothered to upload a pdf version of the game. Although the copyright is 1992, it's called the 1991 UK edition.
You can verify that it is the Great Britain marketed version by checking the bottom left corner (assuming you're looking at it with University going left and Career going right, as you do in your photo) and seeing the characters 4560GB written vertically. It's quite small, but is just next to the Hurricane tile.
You can ask Hasbro themselves for the rules to this edition at their customer service website at https://hasbro-new.custhelp.com/app/utils/login_form/redirect/ask (note, a login is required) or you can write them at

Hasbro UK Ltd
  PO BOX 43
  Newport
  Gwent
  NP19 4YH

I hope this helps focus your efforts on finding the rulebook appropriate for your game!

Thanks so much! Yes exactly the version I have is the one you mentioned. Correct regarding the 4560GB written vertically.

I tried to to get in touch with North america chat of Hasbro before I submitted the question here but regretfully they do not have instructions for this particularly version.
Actually after trying everything without success, I tried to search on ebay and there were about 4 or 5 selling that same version. To be frankly I didn't want to buy the game as I already have, I just wanted the instructions. I sent a msg to each seller and explained to them what I needed and if it's possible to just send me instructions.

Thankfully I found a good hearted seller and they took a pic of each page of the instruction and sent them to me. Bless their heart! ....
Tho I have still followed your suggestion and logged into the UK site and sent them a msg explaining what I need....  Now awaiting their reply..... I can now enjoy playing the game which was so dear to me in my childhood. Thanks again from the bottom of my heart! ... Merry Christmas!

@ElinorVella can you upload those pictures somewhere so we can use them as a reference for future visitors to our site? It would be great if others with your problem can find the solution here.

Yes sure, with pleasure! ... Let me tell you what I'm gonna do ... I will type all the instructions myself in word documents since I don't want to copyright other people photos as we all know that is illegal, then I'll get back to you to let you know what should I do to post them. I will do them when I have a chance.

Excellent, that was going to be my next suggestion. I was surfing EBay trying to find a good version to do just that, but it was like 4am my time so I had to get to bed. :)

I have the exact same version, (4560GB), and also lost the instructions from the box! Most of the instructions for the game online were all for a different version, referring to life tiles, payday and different coloured spaces, car insurance and things like that, all which didn't make sense.
After much searching I finally found instructions that make sense for this version:

N.B. My version obviously does not have them printed on the box like in this photo (would have been useful!), so it is presumably from a very slightly different print run. But, everything here from these ones makes sense for the 4560GB edition of the game (and states this version in the bottom right of the lid), and was how I remember it playing from when I was younger.
Hope this helps someone else wanting to experience a bit of nostalgia!

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


text:
Does the Medic need to wait until their next turn to remove cubes when another player researches a cure?
Say Medic got to Paris with 3 blue cubes but didn't have enough action to remove cubes, and a next player cures blue. Do we get to remove those blue cubes from Paris right away or do we wait till Medic's next turn?

Possible duplicate of Pandemic: The Medic and cured diseases

@SQB I don't think they are duplicates. This is about when a medic's ability kicks in after another player researches a cure, whereas the other question is about how the medic's ability works during the medic's turn.  I've modified the question titles of both to better clarify what they were asking.

The blue cubes in Paris are removed immediately:
From the Rules (Classic Pandemic p.5), emphasis mine:

The Medic removes all cubes, not 1, of the same color when doing the Treat Disease action. If a disease has been cured, he automatically removes all cubes of that color from a city, simply by entering it or being there. This does not take an action.
  The Medic also prevents placing disease cubes (and outbreaks) of cured
  diseases in his location. The Medic's automatic removal of cubes also
  happens during other players' turns.

As @beewee said, you should accept this answer if it helped. I know it helped me, I wasn't aware that this was even in the rules. Nice answer.

I didn't realize I needed to do that till now. Thanks again beewee, and to you as well John!

Thanks for that! In fact, that's one of the core princips of the site ;-) Take the Quick tour: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/tour you'll even get a badge for that ;-)


text:
How many plays of Pandemic Legacy until it is complete?
I've seen and read a few spoiler-free reviews of Pandemic Legacy, and it looks great. As such I have a question I've not seen covered yet. I was wondering how many times the game is played until it is complete? I think I read somewhere that it's two plays per month - is that correct? So the game will be complete after 24 plays?

The Pandemic Legacy campaign runs over a single year. You play a game for each month, but if you lose then you play that month one more time before moving to the next one. So if you win every game, you will have 12 games, but if you lose each month then you will have 24. Before you use any of the Legacy components, you can also play an unlimited number of games of "standard" Pandemic (or something very close to it), but once you start opening packets and putting on stickers you're in for those 12-24 games.

(Just to be clear, "if you lose the first game of each month..." - that's how you get the most games out of the campaign.)

You are extremely unlikely to play either 12 (the game is too brutal) or 24 (its not that brutal) or anywhere near them - a typical range would be 16-21 games.


text:
Does the psychic abomination rule apply to an unmoving unit already within the effect radius?
The Culexus Assassin and Sisters of Silence's psychic abomination rule states that blessings and maledictions are nullified as soon as the target unit moves within 12" of the model. Does it means that one can still target a model that is already within 12" of a Sisters' unit or of an assassin with a malediction like treason of Tzeench and have it work as long as the target model doesn't move?

No, Psychic Abomination basically creates a "null magic" zone where any psychic powers fail to manifest.

So say my friend has a farseer 20 inches away from my Culexus and I have a tactical squad 6 inches from my Culexus. The farseer gets to manifest his power because he is not inside the Psychic Abomination but he can't target my tactical squad because the marines are within it?


text:
In The Grizzled, can you help your teammate decide which Trial to use a good luck charm on?
We were on the final mission. One player wants to use her good luck charm. She has to choose between two Snow Trial cards. Our other teammate asked her to please remove the Snow trial with the Shells. He didn't give an explanation. Just that it would be nice if that card Trial card were removed. Is valid or is that considered cheating?

To me, that sort of help is against the rules. The rules say:

Some information in The Grizzled can’t be shared among players. The contents of the cards in each player’s hand cannot be re- vealed.

In your situation, the help that was given was based on knowledge threat the player had of their own hand, knowledge which cannot be shared. Although they didn't specifically say what card was in their hand, the information given strongly implied information about their hand.
But discussing the options based only on what's visible to all players should be fine. For example, pointing out that there's already 2 rain cards, but only 1 night card, so it's less important to get rid of the night card. The rules don't address this sort of thing directly, so it would fall into the same category as allowing any sort of strategy discussion while playing. Some groups may choose to not allow any discussion at all; but rulebooks don't generally cover the scope of general discussion like that.

Added more details to the question. I hope that helps.

Updated based on the edit

Got it! Thanks for the clarification! Guess we'll have to win the game properly next time :-)
@TheThirdMan I already accepted the answer before you downvoted me and commented. I was using the Android app and I accidentally posted it as an answer instead of a comment. The Android app is rather confusing.


text:
Can black win in this Go situation?

Can black win here with or without this move? Or is in every way dead?

Where is the edge of the board?

What do you mean by "win"? Escape? Live? Kill? Any of the above?

The edge is in the left and by win I mean kill the White group on the center. Can black live by Killing white?

The move in the picture does not work. White will push down, then atari three times, and then white either captures a stone or connects.

The only conceivable move for black would be to extend his 5 stones downwards (nobi). If white hane, then black hane, and if white cuts, then black closes white in to try and create a seki - but white can make that fail by creating an eye. And even without that, white has numerous ways to resist this, so it is not at all certain if black can survive. In any case, the white group is alive, while the black group is struggling and 99% dead.

This is what I was looking for. I was trying to find a way for black to live, but except seki black is dead. Thank you :)

Is this the upper left of a full board, or an entire 13x13 board?

@pava there is no seki here. Black might be able to escape (it's hard to tell as you are not showing the whole board) but then white will capture the other two stones and dominate the board.

That is a good try for Black, because it is a "net" play. But it doesn't quite work.
White descends, one spot right of the "marked stone. Black "fills" below. White cuts to the southeast, atariing two Black stones, Black escapes. White cuts again south of the marked stone, atariing one Black stone, Black escapes.
White's next move to the left is an atari on the marked stone, and the following move connects to the White stones to the left, while trapping five Black stones.

After White's hane response to the marked stone, what happens if Black plays two below the lone White in the lower right, instead of counter-hane-ing? Then Tiger mouth and Black has initiative to move elsewhere This seems a slightly better sequence for Black.

And without the marked stone can black live not in seki?

If it is white to play then he pushes through and cuts and this will probably result in both groups living. White will capture the two stones on the right and Black will escape out the bottom.
If it is black to play then he can capture the white stones by playing at the point above the marked stone. It is easy to see that in that situation Black has four external liberties, but White has only three internal and external liberties combined and therefore it is not a seki, Black will win.