text:
Anyone know more 'social' games like 'Werewolves"
I am looking for examples of good social games, the kind that can be played at parties where rather than using stuff like dice most of the play is done through social interaction
One example of the sort of thing I mean is "Werewolves" or "Villagers and Werewolves". In that game everyone assumes the roles within a village with some people being the werewolves. There are a number of rounds in which the group try to reason among themselves about who the werewolves are, the interest of course supplied by the fact that the werewolves are present trying to hijack the discussion. The game made excellent by of the nuances introduced by the roles and the restrained cooperative aspects.
Anyone know anything similar or a place where I can find games like this?

It depends on exactly what type of social interaction you're looking for. There is a very broad category of games known as "party games" which loosely meets your definition. Party games tend to favor social interaction over luck and strategy (in many cases, no equipment at all), tend to require less per-player equipment, and tend to be flexible in the number of players they support. Take a look at the linked Wikipedia article for more information, or you can browse the party games category or subdomain on BoardGameGeek. A somewhat older category, that has considerable overlap with party games, are parlour games, so you can look there too.
Within the broad category of party games, there are a few subcategories. The one you mention, Werewolf (also known as Mafia), is known as an "uninformed majority" game, in which some people have information that the rest of the players are trying to figure out, mostly through social means. There's another thread on games with uninformed majority mechanics, though many of them are more traditional board or card games. Other party games in this category include Are You the Traitor? and the How to Host a Murder series of games.
Other subcategories of party games include word games, creativity games, and icebreakers, with some overlap between them. Word games tend to involve someone having one or more secret words, and giving clues that other people use to guess the word or definition. Creativity games involve being given some sort of creative prompt (a pair of words, a picture, an object), and doing something creative with them, such as telling a story, drawing a picture, inventing a product, or the like. Icebreakers are games in which people reveal facts about themselves, in order to provide a structure to break the ice and allow people to get to know each other better.
In the word games category are games like Contact, in which one player has a word, gives the first letter, and players try and discover the word by giving clues that indicate their guesses, making the player who has the word try to figure out what word they're guessing or give up another letter if they can't. There's also Taboo, in which someone is given a word, and has to get their teammates to guess the word, but has a list of other words that they cannot say while describing it.
As both word games and creativity games, there are games like Balderdash or Fictionary in which you pick an obscure word, one person gets the real definition, and a few people make up definitions. The other players have to then figure out which definition is real. There's Charades and Pictionary, in which you get a word or phrase and must describe that to your teammate, in charades by acting it out, in Pictionary by drawing it. Apples to Apples is a very popular party game, which might be considered a word game, in which someone draws a card with an adjective, and everyone must play nouns that closely match that adjective, at least according to the person who is the current judge; due to the limited selection people have to choose from, you get some very amusing juxtapositions in the process.
Some other creativity games include The Big Idea from Cheapass Games, in which you get pairs of words such as "electric pants" and must describe that as an invention and get people to invest in it, Why Did The Chicken? by Kory Heath in which you must make up jokes, and Nanofictionary by Looney Labs in which you get cards for Characters, Problems, Settings, and Resolutions, and must combine those into the best tiny story.
Then there are the icebreakers. These are games like Two Truths and a Lie, in which each person in turn will tell two truths and one lie, and the other players have to guess which is the truth and which is the lie. There's Never Have I Ever, in which each person says something that they've never done, and everyone who has done it gets a point (or has to drink, as it's commonly played as a drinking game, however it's not necessary to play this way, you can simply keep score instead); if only one person has done the thing in question, they need to tell the story. There are many more such games.
A little further afield than what you're looking for, I think, but still involving more social interaction than traditional game mechanics, are negotiation and alliance type games like Diplomacy. I have a question open now looking for "lighter" versions of it, and there are few games that look promising.
Another somewhat further category of games, that can be more social interaction based, is roleplaying games; some creative one-shot roleplaying games can have a lot of the same elements of games like Werewolf, with intrigue, cooperation, and backstabbing. I recall one that a friend ran in which all but one of the players were minions of the dark trying to take over the world, but there were two dark lords, a Satanic type and a Cthulhoid monster, competing with each other, plus all of the minions were competing to be favored by their lord. So everyone had three sets of enemies; the Good, the other Evil team, and the other minions on their own Evil team. It was quite the treacherous game, involving lots of intrigue and social interaction; it turned out that Evil had too much infighting, and Good won. There's an entire other StackExchange for roleplaying games, so check in there if you want to learn more about them.
So yes, there are a lot of games that have more social interacting and less traditional board, card, and dice mechanics. I hope I've given a good overview; feel free to ask about a more specific category or game if you want more information.

La Resistance! This is a great Werewolf/Mafia game that runs without a moderator, and even works for 5 players! It's tense, tactical, emotionally draining, and best of all, everyone plays right up until the end of the game, no-one gets eliminated during play.
The one drawback is that is becomes a little luck-based as the number of players reaches 8 and beyond, so at that point, we tend to switch back to Werewolf.

I'd recommend adding this to the 'Games with features like Battlestar Galactica's “Traitor” Mechanic?' thread as well: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/92/games-with-features-like-battlestar-galacticas-traitor-mechanic

It sounds like you may be interested in Pervasive games.  If so the best place I know of is the Ludocity wiki page:
http://ludocity.org/wiki/Main_Page
Some of these are street games, but many can be played in a single room with a relatively low number of players.  As well as rules and printable resources, many of the games feature detailed game session reports giving advise on how to get the most out of each game.

Wow. This is indeed a great collection of games.

See also my related Pervasive Games Area 51 proposal: http://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/15091/pervasive-games

Apples to Apples is a great party game, and able to handle large crowds.  When I play with my friends, they're very vocal and do a lot of lobbying for the cards as they come up.  We also get some really good laughs out of the game.
Edit
The fun in Apples to Apples is in the totally random cards people play.  This is a game that encourages people to talk and socialize as a group.  Each round a new player is the judge, and the judge chooses a green card at random.  Let's say "Disturbing" is the green card for this example.  Then all the other players will submit one red card to see which is the most disturbing card.  Some of the cards are going to be a close match, and others won't be.  From a set or cards like "Whoopi Goldberg", "Chain Saws", and "The Midwest", one card has to be chosen as the winner.  It is this random, bizarre combination of cards that provides the laughs and enjoyment of playing apples to apples.
There are no right or wrong answers in Apples to Apples.  When I play with my friends, we usually comment and lobby for cards as they're read out loud.  The judge for a round is always the final arbiter though.
Disclaimer:  I by no means consider Whoopi Goldberg to be disturbing.  Although I did once win a game of Apples to Apples because she was Fuzzier then all the other cards submitted.

A friend bought it. She couldn't convince us that it was fun. I still don't understand why people play that. Maybe we played it wrong or weren't in the mood? Care to elaborate why to play that?

@eipipuz I've expanded my answer per your request.

Thanks. Maybe we had bad luck with the cards or poor imagination, but your example shows what our gameplay lacked, "drive to socialize"

Apples to Apples is my absolute first choice for a game to bring to parties. It works incredibly well with every group I've brought it to, frequently including many people who don't play board or card games normally. My classic illustrative example from real play is "Decide which is most Cuddly out of Whipped Cream, Spam, or The School Bus". It works with people of ages perhaps 16 up to easily 50 or 60. The person explaining the rules has to play up the fun bit - talking through the arguments for the different options - but as long as you do that it's the best party game I know.

There's a great book called Super Party Games that describes a bunch of games that can be played by groups of 10 or more. I generated a set of puzzles for one of the games described in the book. Each player is given a sheet of paper that they tie to their forehead where they can't see it. On each sheet of paper are three letters, and you have to arrange yourselves to spell out a secret quote without telling anybody what letters are on their heads. You can download the puzzles and print out one of the puzzles for your group size. There are currently puzzles from 4 to 95 people, although I've never tried it with a group larger than 13.
As an example, imagine that the secret quote is "I'll have what she's having." That has 21 letters in total, so it makes seven sheets with three letters each. In order, the seven sheets would be:

ILL
HAV
EWH
ATS
HES
HAV
ING

Of course, the sheets are shuffled, so you don't know what order they should go in. To help, you get a clue sheet that shows word lengths and punctuation, as well as card boundaries. It would look like this:
A'bc abca bcab cab'c abcabc.
Each card is represented as "abc", so you can see where the word boundaries land within each card. I really like playing it, but it's hard to coordinate the players.

Good suggestion, @ruffle. Added.

I'll recommend Say What!?!, which is designed to be played in any social situation involving a lot of personal interaction and conversation. I like playing it during a game of Werewolf, or during various interrogate-your-neighbors mystery games, or even just at a house party where no other games are taking place.

In the vein of Apples To Apples, I strongly endorse Time's Up!.  Why?  Because Time's Up! does a great job of binding old friends and new acquaintances together in the rapid creation of group-specific ideocultural language and in-jokes.
Being less esoteric: It's a great team game with no down-time for any player on any team.  This it true because you need to pay careful attention to what the other teams are doing on their turns because every team uses the same stack of cards as clue cards – the clues that one team uses on a card that they don't guess correctly may be just the clue you need to successfully recognize the same card later on in the game.
Note: Time's Up! has a heavy charades component to it, so if your group doesn't like charades, stay away from it.


text:
Do you need to buy a card when playing treasures in Dominion?
So I ran into a situation where I had a single treasure, the Loan card.  I wanted to play the Loan card but I did not want to buy any cards.
So can you play treasure cards and not buy anything?
I believe I read in the rules that you play treasures first, then buy cards.  So I believe that means I can play treasures and not buy any cards.
Thanks.
Edit
I just re-read my question and I failed to mention that I want to make sure I can use the "powers" of the treasure cards even if I don't buy anything.  So in the example above I want to use the powers of the Loan card, but not buy any cards.

Upvoted because this is the first Dominion question in a while that made me go "Ooh, that's quite a good question", rather than "obviously the answer to that is written in plain English in the appropriate section of the rulebook, why didn't you just look there in the first place?" ;)

That's fine.  From the Dominion rules:
The cost of a card is in its lower left corner. The player may play some or all of the Treasure cards from his hand to his play area and add to their value the coins provided by Action cards played this turn. The player may then gain any card in the Supply of equal or lesser value. He takes the purchased card from its Supply pile and places it face-up on his Discard pile. He my not use the ability of the card when it is gained.
If the player has multiple Buys, he combines Treasure cards and any coins available from Action cards to pay for all of the purchases. For example, if Tyler has +1 Buy and 6 coins provided by two Gold cards, he can buy a Cellar costing 2, placing it face-up in his Discard pile. Then, he can buy a Smithy with the remaining 4 coins and place that face-up in his Discard pile. If he wants to use all 6 coins to buy one card, he can buy a Copper (for free) with his second Buy or not buy a second card. Players do not have to use any or all of their Buys.
(bolded for emphasis by me)
EDITED, to answer Chris' edit: Yes, it's fine to use Loan's "power" and then not buy anything.  As stated in the rules above, you play a Treasure card from your hand, in this case the Loan: at which point the Loan card's abilities kick in, and you carry out all the revealing, discarding and trashing.  Now you have (at least) 1 coin in your pool that you could spend on a Buy: but the rules make it clear that actually buying something is always optional, no matter how much cash or how many Buys you are entitled to!

No, you do not have to buy a card.  You are free to use the power of Loan or any other treasure played during your turn.  There is no obligation to buy anything just because you used the power of a treasure.
From the rulebook pg7, emphasis mine:

The player may play
  some or all of the Treasure cards from his hand to his play area
  and add to their value the coins provided by Action cards played
  this turn. The player may then gain any card in the Supply of equal
  or lesser value

and later on

Players do not have to
  use any or all of their Buys

Just to add something minor to the other two answers, you can also play treasure without buying anything to gain the benefits of other cards, e.g. Alchemist.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Blood Bowl 2nd edition: Star Players
Is there a list of Star Players for 2nd Edition of Blood Bowl somewhere? Obviously the ones from Star Players Handbook and Companion Rulebook is simple enough but the ones printed in White Dwarf etc?

Games Workshop is incredibly protective about their IP, so it can be hard to find stuff like this.
That said, I found a thread here that tries to collate the list of star players.
Here's the list they've compiled:
Star Players

Axebreaker Jones
Asperon Thorn
Barik Farblast
Dieter Hammerlash
Dirty Dan
Duke Luthor Von Hawkfire
Eldril Sidewinder
Ernald Spirtburner
Frank N. Stein
Garbage Throttlesnot
Granite Rivalblade
Greaser Geargrinder
Griff Oberwald
Grimwold Grimbreath
Hak Demoncutter
Harg Vainkill
Hawthorn Tullaris
Highelm Lyrpadre
Hoshi Komi
Hubris Rakarth
Ibrahim Golddawn
Jacob Von Altdorf
Krug Painspear
Moravis Curfew
Morg'th N'hthrog
Odium Khan
'Pick' Seamsunder
Pierrot Rainforest
Puggy Baconbreath
Ramtut III
Rasta Tailspike
Rip Sorepain
Ritter Von Baum
Slarga Fourstrike
Soaren Hightower
Split Tendoncutter
Stuka Schmidtt
'Surehanded' Gregor Meissen
Tuern Redvenom
Urfrik Skillhack
Valen Swift
Varag Ghoul-chewer
Warmglow Vindaloo
Wilhelm Chaney
Withergrasp Doubledrool
Wormhowl Greyscar
Ziggi Abschuss
Zug

Companion

Bardin Ironglove
Bellow Thunderslam
'Big' Gunn Schonn
Bilerot Vomitflesh
Borg'th N'hthrog
Dolfar Longstride
Dorjak Sureclaw
Eoarn Harkon
Flint Churnblade
Galmen Goreblade
Gorflem Rot-breath
Grak'ng'grak Gorthag
Grograt Crunchskull
Jordell Freshbreeze
Kolath Head-ripper
Lewdgrip Whiparm
Luarn Proudbow
M'gorg'gn'throg
Petro D'Arvill
Siggi 'The Boot' Schuster
Spiky Norman
Ugroth 'Ripper' Bolgrot

They sure printed a lot -- hope that helps.

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


text:
Does anyone know the official rules for Destruct 3?
We've got our hands on an old Destruct 3 game that came without any rules.  We contacted the makers (Uncle Skunkle), but oddly enough, they wouldn't send us the rules without documentation of where we got the game. We've made up some rules of our own, but they're not entirely satisfying.  Anyone know the real rules, or where we can get them without any paperwork?

Looks like a pretty cool game!  I'd love to hear how it works, if you do find out.

why do they care where you got it from?

This might help. Although it's only a review, it does explain a lot about the scoring and building rules. There obviously are a few rules that are missing (ie. how the dice work).
I assume you do not have any kind of shop receipt for the game. You could suggest to them that you could send them a picture of the game to prove you actually have it. They could describe a specific setup for you to replicate so you can't just pick a picture off the web.

Thanks!  We gave them the serial number on the game and they sent us the rules.  It's pretty much what we'd guessed, but the scoring is more complicated.  But the kids love getting the chance to destroy things, so I think we'll be playing it for awhile!


text:
Bloodbowl - throw a rock, roll for injury or casualty?
We use the 5.0 living rulebook. The exact wording for the event is the following:

Throw a Rock: An enraged fan hurls a large rock at
  one of the players on the opposing team. Each
  coach rolls a D6 and adds their FAME (see page
  18) to the roll. The fans of the team that rolls higher
  are the ones that threw the rock. In the case of a tie
  a rock is thrown at each team! Decide randomly
  which player in the other team was hit (only players
  on the pitch are eligible) and roll for the effects of
  the injury straight away. No Armour roll is required.

I was under the impression this meant I had to roll on the injury table first, with the possibility to get a casualty table follow-up, for two reasons:

The rule clearly states the armour role should be skipped, but does not mention the same for the injury roll.
It is clear that there should be a roll, even in a one-off (no campaign or tournament) match. Those matches don't use the casualty table.

My opponent was under the impression I needed to roll casualty straight away, because the rule states to roll for injury effect, not for injury. The only spectator agreed, so I agreed to do it that way, but I would like to know if that was correct.

Always roll for injury first.
Roll against casualty table if injury roll result is 10-12.
This is similar what you do when a player gets pushed or knocked off the pitch and gets beat up by the fans.
My rule interpretation:
The rule would most likely also say "No Armour roll is required and No Injury Roll is required" if the intent was to go directly to the casualty table.

I'm only familiar with the computer version of Bloodbowl, but it seems like this must be the logic it uses. It's very rare for a model to be taken off of the pitch on account of this, but I have seen it.

That's what I thought... Thanks! Do you know of any official clarifications or errata that mention it, by any chance? I wasn't able to find any.

No reference that I can find, but like Discord said, the CPU game is using injury rolls first.  I've also seen the CPU game "stun" players which means there was not a casualty roll.  I'll see if I can create a log of the event from a game if possible.

Bit late, but the interpretation above is correct. I play the game on Fumbbl and on tabletop and in both environments we treat a rock in the same way as for instance a block that broke armour (without damage modifiers)

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


text:
Saving throws against Destroyer weapons
If your opponent hits one of your models with a D strength weapon, rolls on the table and gets a 'Seriously Wounded' result, then rolls 3 for the number of wounds. How many saving throws do I roll? Is it 1 save for the 1 hit or 3 saves for each of the 3 wounds?

You roll one save against the D hit. That one hit does D3 wounds - it doesn't do D3 hits.

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


text:
Vast: The Crystal Caverns Strategies
My friends and I have recently gotten very interested in this game, and have been playing it more and more frequently. However, the group has noticed that some roles seem to have it much easier than others.
For example:
When we were just starting out, it seemed as though the thief had a very easy role, then as we played more we found out ways to counter it. We also felt like the cave had an easy role until we realized that everyone playing the dragon was revealing too many spaces.
My question to you is this, what strategies do you have for each role (early, mid, and late game)? How do you play that role aggressively and defensively? What are some key movements you can't ignore or forget in the early phases?


text:
Mushroom Armor In decline?
Can you still generate more Mushroom Armor while in decline? What about the turn you go into decline? There is a little disagreement about how to interpret the rules.

For each Mushroom Forest Region you occupy at the end of your Conquest phase, take 1 Mushroom Armor from the tray in your hand. Deploy these Mushroom Armors in any of your Region(s), during your Troop Redeployment phase. Each Armor placed in a Region augments that Region's defense by 1, even when In Decline. These markers do not count as Race tokens (for instance a single Race token with 1 or more Shields in a Region could still be Vampirized). You can stack multiple Mushroom Armor in the same Region. Remove the Armor and discard them back in the tray when you abandon the Region or an enemy conquers it. Otherwise keep it in play as long as your Shield troops are on the board.

Edited for full rules.

No, you don't generate more Mushroom Armor in decline.  From the rules on entering in Decline:

To do so, the player flips his current Race banner upside down, so
  that the duotone In Decline side becomes visible to all, and discards
  the Special Power badge that was associated with it as that Special
  Power badge is no longer in effect, unless dictated otherwise (e.g.
  Muddy, Reborn, Royal, etc…).

As for the turn you go into Decline, the rules for Shield state "For each Mushroom Forest Region you occupy at the end of your Conquest phase".  Back to the rules for Decline: "The player can make no conquests during the turn his race goes into decline; his turn ends immediately after scoring!"
Basically you don't even get a Conquest phase on the turn you go into Decline, much less any new Mushroom Armor...

There is some confusion in our play group, I think mainly due to the wording on the "cheat sheet", which has the first few sentences concatenated into a single sentence. It was argued that the "...even when in decline" applied to everything.

@aslum If it's the sentence ending "...augments that Region's defense by 1, even when in Decline", it feels clear that that's specifically about the defensive powers of the Armor, not every aspect of the Shield Special Power.  Though I do say where your playgroup is coming from.


text:
What is a good way to make Water Effects in Terrain?
I am working on some Terrain for Warmachine, and I am interested in making some water effects.  What is a good way to go about doing that?
I am planning on using Foam Core as the base of a lake, and some high-density insulation foam as the banks.  What is a good thing to use for the water portion?  I have heard that Woodland Scenics makes a product, but that is hardens as a Gel, and can be easily scarred from models.  Are there other resins that are easy to work with?

I would have liked to have added a terrain, wargaming and modeling tag to this question, but I do not have enough rep yet.  Can someone do that for me please?  Thanks!

@aperkins, I added the modeling tag for you.  I think terrain and wargaming are a little too broad to accurately describe what this question is about.

I'm checking with the other moderators, but I'm moving to close this question. While we allow questions about wargames, I feel that questions on terrain-building are outside the scope of the site. The answer in meta here: http://meta.boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/9/is-this-site-also-good-for-miniature-wargames-questions/13#13 sums up my feelings.

Apologies - I was not aware this was outside the scope of the site.

As noted in a comment on the question you linked, has this been added to the FAQ?  I do not remember seeing it, but my memory has been very faulty recently.

I just checked the FAQ, and did not see anything about this not being allowed, hence my confusion.  Again, apologies in my posting of this.  Please feel free to close if this violates the requirements of the site.

@aperkins - no worries, you didn't do anything wrong.  We're in beta, not everything is defined and I feel we definitely need to stretch to find our boundaries.  In that aspect, this is a very good question!

@aperkins: Thanks for asking the question; I think it does help us define the boundaries.  And it's making me reconsider my views.  This question seems useful and objective; it feels like it should be allowed... which opens the whole painting question again.  (Also, @Kristo: While I feel you're right that 'wargaming' is too broad, this seems like exactly the question for a 'terrain' tag.  I've added it.  Does anyone else have a view on this?)

@Tynam - tag early, tag often.  The system will purge one use tags eventually.  When we have more high rep users we will probably revisit tagging.

@Little, if this question is off-topic here, then where is it on-topic?  AFAIK, there is no such place.  Personally, I think this is a very good question.

Mischief Managed.

Paint the base blue/green etc for the base, and then use a two part epoxy resin like  what is used for bar tops. If you want waves, let it dry for a little bit, and then tease up waves w/ a paintbrush w/ a little thinned white paint on it..

what usually works for me is this recipe -
2 parts PVA glue
2 parts gloss varnish (I use the stuff you would varnish, say, a bench with, rather than the one that Games Workshop makes)
1 part distilled water (it is important to use distilled water because you don't get the minerals from the tap into the water effects).
This is thin enough so it will apply nicely to a base, but thick enough so that it doesn't flood over the edge (not a problem if you are uiong a Warmachine base!)
If you are using pre-thinned PVA glue, don't bother with the distilled water - it will be too runny!
If you want to make waves -
2 parts PVA glue
2 parts gloss Varnish
1 part white gloss house paint.
This recipe is a bit thicker and you can tease it up to make waves. If you wanted to, you could add some fine sand to get that foamy texture. Never tried this, but hey, you could always experiment.
For tinting, either paint the surface that you want to be tinted, then coat it with water effects, or use ENAMEL paint. Don't try to mix anything for the wave Water Effects, and don't mix acrylic paint with the Standard stuff.

The easiest way (and often the best looking) is to use Water Effects. Woodland Scenics makes it: link as does Games Workshop itself. You create the terrain piece, and paint the areas that will eventually be under the effect with an appropriate color (often, blue is not appropriate for small pools of water...try brown or dark green) and the you simply pour in the Water Effect and wait for it to dry.

Paint a surface blue, and then use Cling-Wrap, slightly crinkled in a regular pattern, glued over the top.  Very fast/cheap, but there are more quality methods available.

At Bell of Lost Souls, this article about water bases looks really awesome. Might be what you are searching for?


text:
Mystery cards in Magic 2015 card list
If you look at the full card list for Magic 2015, at Gatherer or elsewhere, you'll see a bunch of cards listed with collectors number 270-284. What are these cards, and why are they listed as being part of Magic 2015? I played enough M15 Limited to be pretty sure that they aren't actually present in packs, and they're listed after the basic lands, which is very unusual. Is there some secret, bonus release of M15 that had these extra cards?

I'm nearly positive I've seen at least one of those cards in M15 limited. And they were definitely in the M15 spoiler. Also, both of your links go to the same URL.

@murgatroid99 Thanks, I fixed that URL. But I've never seen any of those in M15 limited, though Inspired Charge is very similar to Sanctified Charge.

You are correct, these cards are not in booster packs. For the past few years, Wizards has put out 30 card sample decks to introduce new players into the game. This year they decided to put into these packs a number of reprinted cards not actually present in M15: see here for decklists. Like the article mentions, the Deck Builder's Toolkit for M15 also has the extra cards.
Since putting two of these sample decks together gives a basic 60 card, two-color deck, Wizards expects a number of people to do just that to build their first standard deck. They made those extra cards explicitly standard legal to allow people that option; most people would assume by default that such a deck is playable.

These are cards which you can get in the M15 learn to play packs. You can get these at your local (WPN) game store, but are mostly given to players which are new to the game.

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


text:
Using the Baron
Last night I finished my first ever game of Dominion: Intrigue, and I'm feeling conflicted about my evaluation of some of the cards on the board. In particular, I cannot decide of the Baron is junk or should be highly valued.
Pros: it gives you something to do with the Estates in your hand.
Cons: it requires you to actually have an Estate in your hand, and will actually stuff you with more Estates if you have to use the "gain an Estate" ability.
On balance, I'm inclined to view the card as junk, but OTOH I could envision a Baron-heavy strategy that involves taking tons of Estates, and discarding them all for cash whenever they show up in your hand. But could such a strategy actually work?
(I didn't attempt to use the Baron strategy in last night's game. Instead, I stockpiled the Great Hall and won by 4 points over my nearest competitor.)

Because you said "discarding them all for cash" I have to ask...are you confusing discarding with trashing? Also, you can only do this with one Estate per Baron.

@Ryan, I was speaking imprecisely. I know that the Baron discards rather than trashing,

Baron is good because it gives a lot of $$$ very early in the game. Few cards will give you a good chance of getting a gold on the second run-through of your deck.
Say you open with Baron and Silver. You have an 83% chance of drawing the Baron on turn 3 or 4, and in this case you can get a gold into your deck for your first reshuffle unless you get no estates with it. This means you have a better than 64% chance of getting gold on turn 3 or 4 and into your deck for your first reshuffle, and the alternative 4-5 split for those turns from the silver isn't bad either.
Getting that many high-cost cards into your deck that quickly is a MASSIVE advantage that few cards can provide. Once you get that first gold, you can start pounding on the high cost cards that will take take on the road to provinces and victory. AND you still can use the Baron later whenever you happen to draw an estate with it to get more cash, towards the end of the game to get more VPs from the gained estates. Top that off with an extra buy every time you use it and you've got a pretty great card.
Baron isn't a strategy in itself, but it does a darn good job of speeding up whatever other strategy you might be using. :D

Baron will rarely be a strategy unto itself, but it's a decent accelerator for your early game. The strength is that it gives a lot of money early in the game (assuming you don't have an awful shuffle), but it does take up space later in the game. It's late-game use is primarily the +Buy, with the ability to also gain an Estate at the last minute.
You don't want to buy Estates in order to fuel your Baron unless you're in a weird situation (three-pile race is on, you can consistently draw your deck and have an extra action to spend on discarding the Estate for money, etc.)—that will slow your deck down overall.
In terms of $4 openings, I would rate it below Moneylender and Militia but above Bureaucrat and Remodel.

Blindly stockpiling Barons and casting them as fast as you can is probably a very bad strategy. But Baron is a very good card overall because:

It gives you a very good chance of getting a big money boost early in the game. After buying a Baron you are highly likely to have a 6 to 8 gold turn in your next shuffle, and 6 is a magic number in Dominion. Buying a Gold on turn 3 or 4 will only serve to boost the massive (for early game standards) money boost, and then you can easily start laying into the good stuff.
It gives you +1 buy along with the money, which is significant. There are many card pools that reward having multiple buys when you have a big money turn, and the Baron guarantees this. Also, if there is no other +buy card in the pool it's even more important to have one or two Barons in your deck (I 'm leaving the relatively small percentage of pools where buys don't really matter out of the equation).
It can allow you to combo insanely under favorable circumstances. If the pool favors explosive combo turns, and especially if there is a card like Library or Watchtower along with the +actions to utilize it, Baron allows you to get all the benefits with none of the drawbacks. You will be able to cast it and also discard the Estate, then continue comboing with Library. If you have also used trashing on your deck, you can even leave a single Estate and discard/redraw it multiple times!

All in all, IMHO Baron is one of the better 4-cost cards. Will not always be a first or second turn pick with 4$, but it does have a good chance of making it.

I'm by no means a Dominion expert (as I don't have any set other than Intrigue and the Base set and I mostly play Dominion 2-player) but I had a recent game with the Baron and found it very helpful in the following situations:

As an early game accelerator - I bought a Province in one of my first turns as a result of getting Baron, Estate, Copper, Copper, Silver with my third hand. Clearly that was a lucky shuffle but I used the Baron profitably plenty of other times in that game.
For the extra Buy later in the game which also proved decisive. We were playing with Gardens in this particular game so the extra Estates + the extra buy was pretty valuable in that specific case.

In a game where I was employing a trashing strategy then yes, the Baron might be less useful - but with the Gardens it was an exceptionally valuable early game purchase.

One reason you wouldn't want to load up on Barons and Estates: for each Baron/Estate pair, you could have bought 2 silvers. They'd guarantee you $4 each time, and are much more consistent (vs when you draw Estates with no Barons or Barons with no Estates).


text:
What is the fastest MTG Mill deck that can be made?
I have been working on putting together a Mill deck and it occurred to me that there are likely much faster Milling decks out there. So, what is the fastest Milling win condition that can be achieved?
Deck limitations: Standard 4-card limit, and all cards except those from the Un-sets (Unglued and Unhinged) are legal.
Goal: Fastest win by Milling
Other considerations: You have perfect luck (you always draw the cards you need), your opponent won't be doing anything to disrupt you, your opponent has a 60-card deck that is susseptible to milling (ie. doesn't have any of the "shuffle your graveyard into your library" cards)
Also, if this sort of question isn't appropriate for this site, please let me know.

Poke. Cdeszaq, you've now seen multiple takes on a turn-1 combo kill. I think it's time to accept an answer. ;)

Heh, sry. my bad :) fixed.

Opening hand:

Leyline of the Void
Helm of Obedience
2 Dark Rituals
1 Swamp

Turn 1:
Start with Leyline of the Void on the battlefield. Play a Swamp, then a Dark Ritual. Use one black mana to play another Dark Ritual. You will now have BBBBB in your pool. Play the Helm of Obedience and activate it for 1 mana. Your opponent's entire deck will be milled out because none of the cards ever goes to the graveyard.
Had someone use this against me in MTGO once and it took me a minute to work out how it had happened. Takes some serious luck to get this going on Turn 1, but if you can pull it off, it's definitely fun.

That is so beautifully wrong and evil.

Activating the Grindstone when you have a Painter's Servant in play will mill an opponent's entire library in a single shot. The scarecrow turns all cards that aren't in play a single shared color; the Grindstone mills two cards from your opponent — and if those cards share at least one color, it recurs.

My first thought too.

That's disgusting.

This answer would be more complete if you offer one or many ways to get 3 mana on turn one.

@Sparr Three is not enough, you would need another three to activate the Grindstone's ability. So, two Black Loti FTW!

To cite a famous example, this is actually how the Tolarian Academy decks of Urza-block standard and extended worked. Here's a sample decklist, played by Tommi Hovi to win PT Rome (the first major tournament at which this sort of deck was legal):

4  Ancient Tomb
3  City of Brass
4  Tolarian Academy
4  Tundra
4  Volcanic Island
3  Abeyance
3  Intuition
4  Lotus Petal
4  Mana Vault
3  Mind over Matter
4  Mox Diamond
3  Power Sink
2  Scroll Rack
4  Stroke of Genius
4  Time Spiral
3  Voltaic Key
4  Windfall

This deck can easily put together a first-turn win, and all it needs is an above-average number of Lotus Petals and Mox Diamonds, which while unlikely, did happen often enough to get about a quarter of this deck banned. Here's a (hopefully somewhat realistic) example turn:

Opening hand:
Tolarian Academy,
2x Lotus Petal,
Mox Diamond,
Voltaic Key,
Tundra,
Windfall
Play Lotus Petal #1 and Lotus Petal #2
Play Mox Diamond, discarding Tundra
Play Tolarian Academy
Tap Mox Diamond to play Voltaic Key
Tap Tolarian Academy to play Windfall. ({U} floating) Draw 7 cards:
Lotus Petal,
Power Sink,
Mana Vault,
Intuition,
Voltaic Key,
Volcanic Island,
Stroke of Genius
Play Lotus Petal #3 ({U} floating)
Play Mana Vault
Tap Mana Vault for 3 colorless mana ({C}{C}{C} floating)
Use Voltaic Key to untap Mana Vault ({C}{C} floating)
Tap Mana Vault again for 3 more colorless mana ({C}{C}{C}{C}{C} floating)
Play Voltaic Key #2 ({C}{C}{C}{C} floating)
Use Voltaic Key #2 to untap Mana Vault ({C}{C}{C} floating)
Tap Mana Vault again for 3 more colorless mana ({C}{C}{C}{C}{C}{C} floating)
Sacrifice Lotus Petal #1 to play Stroke of Genius (X=4). Draw 4 cards:
Windfall,
Mox Diamond,
Mana Vault,
Scroll Rack
Play Mox Diamond #2, discarding Volcanic Island
Tap Mox Diamond #2 to play Mana Vault #2
Tap Mana Vault #2 and sacrifice Lotus Petal #2 to play Windfall. (C floating) Draw 7 cards:
Abeyance,
Mind over Matter,
City of Brass,
Mox Diamond,
Time Spiral,
Mana Vault,
Voltaic Key
Play Mana Vault #3
Play Mox Diamond #3, discarding City of Brass
Tap Mana Vault #3 to play Voltaic Key #3 ({C}{C} floating)
Use Voltaic Key #3 to untap Mana Vault #3 ({C} floating)
Tap Mox Diamond #3 and Mana Vault #3, and sacrifice Lotus Petal #3, to play Time Spiral. Draw 7 cards:
Abeyance,
Intuition,
Tundra,
Time Spiral,
Windfall,
Tolarian Academy,
City of Brass
Untap Tolarian Academy.
Tap Tolarian Academy to play Intuition. ({U}{U}{U}{U}{U}{U} floating) Search for Mind Over Matter.
Play Mind Over Matter.
Use Mind Over Matter, discarding City of Brass, to untap Tolarian Academy.
Tap Tolarian Academy for 9 blue mana. ({U}{U}{U}{U}{U}{U}{U}{U}{U} floating)
Repeat the last two steps four more times, discarding Abeyance, Tundra, Tolarian Academy, and Time Spiral. (45x{U} floating)
Play Windfall. (42x{U} floating) Draw 7 cards:
Ancient Tomb,
Lotus Petal,
Power Sink,
Scroll Rack,
Stroke of Genius,
2x Volcanic Island
Repeat steps 26-27 six times, discarding everything but Stroke of Genius (96x{U} floating)
Play Stroke of Genius (X=93) on your opponent, making him/her draw 93 cards.

Mana symbols should render as images using this userscript.

I like that you use the most expensive lands in existence purely as discard fodder. I realize it's a competitive deck without perfect luck, but in the stacked deck case it's pretty funny.

'Most expensive lands in existence'?  I suppose in their Beta versions, but I can get my hands on a Tundra much more cheaply than I can a Mishra's Workshop, Bazaar of Baghdad, or even Tabernacle at Pendrell Vale, and Karakas (an uncommon!) is getting close...

With perfect draws, you can win on the first upkeep of each game. Basically take any first-turn-kill deck, add Leyline of Anticipation to allow you to play everything at instant speed, add a card that will force your opponent to draw on the spot, and use non-lands for your mana.
Let's go with the Helm plan since it's a two-card combo and blanks cards like Emrakul.
Here's an example that can kill your opponent before they even get a single draw step, taking advantage of the entire MTG card pool (Vintage-legal):
Starting hand: Leyline of Anticipation, Leyline of the Void, Black Lotus, Dark Ritual, Helm of Obedience, Ancestral Recall, Mox Sapphire.
Before the first turn:

Put both your Leylines into play (5 cards in hand).

On the first upkeep (either player's turn):

Cast Black Lotus, sac it for black mana (4 cards in hand, BBB in your mana pool).
Cast Dark Ritual (3 cards in hand, BBBBB in your mana pool).
Cast Helm of Obedience (2 cards in hand, B in your mana pool).
Activate the Helm with X=1, which will exile your opponent's entire library (2 card in hand).
Cast and activate Mox Sapphire (1 card in hand, U in your mana pool).
Cast Ancestral Recall to force your opponent to draw cards, which will win you the game (0 cards in hand).

If you can play any Vintage-legal card and have perfect control over your draws, you can always execute a turn-1 storm combo win off of Brain Freeze.
90% of the deck would be the same cards that make up Vintage Tendrils combo decks.
Without the "perfect draw" assumption, storm combo's probably the strongest first-turn kill deck just because most of the cards are nearly interchangeable. You can get unlucky with too much "draw a card" and not enough "make some mana" or vice versa, but it's more consistent than trying to assemble a classic multi-part combo.

This is probably the way to go if you want the most effective deck.

Play Ghost Quarter. Opponent plays a land. Tap Ghost quarter to destroy the land they just played. They search for a land and put it into play. You drop 4 Archive Traps on them for 52 cards.  If they are running 60 cards, that would be their entire deck.

If you did this once in a tournament then every future opponent would know not to search for a land after you used Ghost Quarter on them. So, a one turn win, but only once, so not nearly as good as other answers.

@Sparr is having ghost quarter play as strip mine (in modern no less) really that bad? this concept of deck is reasonably viable in modern, i suggested it in an answer to a similar question

@Rawrgramming oh, it's surely only slightly less viable due to my objection, but we are already talking about unbelievable odds (you need 5 specific cards in your opening hand for this one), so the difference is notable.

@Sparr true enough, in terms of turn 1 mill this isnt the avenue to take. in terms of actual viable mill deck for playing in tournaments (at least, in modern), ghost quarter/archive trap is giving your opponent a choice between 2 effects that are very bad for them. A real deck doesnt just play a combo and lands, and this fits in well with a deck that has a mill kill and a general controlling playstyle.

Mindcrank, Duskmantle Guildmage and any card that will force opponent to mill at least one card will start an infinite combo loop. They will mill cards and lose life until they run out of cards or lives.

Is it cheating to use three-turn infinite mana combo?
Opening hand:

+ One of these:

Turn 1: Play Forest, Paradise Mantle, Elvish Pioneer, Island
Turn 2: Draw another land, Play land, Pili-Pala, Equip Paradise Mantle
Turn 3: Draw something. Play Heartstone, tap Pili-Pala for [U], Pay [U] to Untap it for [U], repeat (target player's library size + 4) times, (make sure to add a black mana in the cycle if you use Psychic Drain.) Play Psychic Drain, Blue Sun's Zenith, Braingeyser, Stroke of Genius, or whatever other spell that does the trick. Boom.

It's not cheating, since the "rules" didn't specify against it. However, non-infinite-mana combos are what I was hoping to get. I do like the solution, however, and infinite mana combos are always fun to use.

I'd take out green entirely, along with the Heartstone and Paradise Mantle, and just use Grand Architect.

Pili-Pala doesn't have haste either, so this mill deck would require 2 turns to pull off.

Here's the best I can find (based around the Halimar Excavator Ally):
Turn 1:

Island
Mothdust Changeling
Running mill total: 0

Turn 2:

Island
Halimar Excavator (mill 2)
Running mill total: 2

Turn 3:

Island
Halimar Excavator (mill 6)
Mothdust Changeling (mill 8)
Running mill total: 16

Turn 4:

Island
Halimar Excavator (mill 15)
Halimar Excavator (mill 24)
Running mill total: 55 (win)

No infinite combos, (mostly) red deck, almost 600 cards milled on first turn. But I took you at your word and allowed myself 4 copies of Power 5 cards.
Deck List:

4 Relentless Assault
1 Through The Breach
1 Enrage
4 Wheel of Fortune
1 Szadek, Lord of Secrets
4 Black Lotus
4 Lotus Petal
4 Mox Ruby
4 Mox Diamond
1 Tolarian Academy
4 Mountain

Opening hand: 3 Mox Ruby, 1 Mox Diamond (discard Mountain), Black Lotus, Wheel of Fortune. Play all, tapping 3 Moxes.
Mill count: 7
Draw 7: Mox Ruby, 2 Mox Diamond (discard 2 Mountains), Black Lotus, Wheel of Fortune, play all, tapping 3 Moxes.
Mill count: 14
Draw 7: 1 Mox Diamond (discard Mountain), 2 x Black Lotus, 2 x Lotus Petal, Wheel of Fortune, play all tap last 2 Moxes and sac 1 Lotus Petal.
Mill count: 21
Draw 7: 3x Lotus Petal, Tolarian Academy, tap out, Through the Breach -> Szadek, Wheel of Fortune.
Mill count: 28, 15U, 15R floating
Draw 7: Enrage -> Szadek +13/+0 = 18/5. Attack!
Mill count: 46, 2U 14R floating, Szadek 36/5
Relentless Assault (1) Attack! MC 82, Szadek 72/5
Relentless Assault (2) Attack! MC 154, Szadek 144/5
Relentlass Assault (3) Attack! MC 298, Szadek 288/5
Relentless Assault (4) Attack! MC 586, Szadek 576/5

I've always done four Mind Sculpts plus four Archaeomancers, plus four Curse of the Bloody Tome. So every upkeep they'd mill 8, and then if you play all the Archaeomancers and Mind Sculpts, that's mill 56.

What always works for me in my mill deck is having cards like Tome Scour, Mirko Vosk, Mind Drinker or traumatize to mill a pretty good amount of their deck. In the meantime I have my fog banks and Kraken Hatchling doing a little blocking while I am searching my library for Consuming Aberration using Diabolic Tutor. I then use either Dying Wish or Rite of Consumption to sacrifice consuming aberration alowing to do damage equal to its toughness to the opponent.
Dead.


text:
Axis and Allies with TWO boards!!!
So, I have been developing a way to play A&A with two boards. You have the Axis on one and the Allies on the other.
Now, before you start saying that this is ridiculous and stupid and would prolong the gameplay 10 fold, let me explain...
On your board, you have your troops and you can see territories you don't own. Then, on your turn, you can choose to attack somewhere or you can do reconnaissance and send a bomber over an enemy area to see what is in it. Since bombers are a big part of attacking the enemy, this would be a free move. But, the more bombers you have, the more recon you can do. A bomber cannot do more than one territory per turn.
So, you recon or decide where to attack and write it down. Then, a mediator takes your paper into the other room where the enemy board is and they tell you what you're fighting or what you've spied.
So this is my VERY BASIC plan. I want ideas to help develop this a bit more.
Any ideas??? (<-- there is my question)

Sounds interesting.  I have no further constructive comments, sadly.

If you want to have a moderator (setting aside Adam Wuerl's good answer), I have a simple suggestion:  The moderator should use a phone to take a picture of the position of the enemy player.  Then, when you need to recon the moderator can just look at his phone and tell you what you see.  This will save you a lot of time and avoids errors.

My suggestion is very similar to Scott's, but with subtle variations to make it less burdensome to play in person.

This isn't a rule, just a suggestion: Play with someone you trust. There's going to be hidden information, and if you think the other player is going to cheat you're going to be paranoid about looking for malfeasance and not have fun. Two honest players can make this work without a moderator, which I think is important.

Two boards, one for the axis and one for the allies. If multiple players  represent each side then they see their side's board; this models the sharing of intelligence amongst friends and reduces the need for more than two boards. The boards should be set up in full view of both players and then a divider put up between then. After setup, the army trays and money are set to the side in view of both players so that it's clear what's going into and coming out of the trays (doveryai, no proveryai). Having the players in two rooms would be a logistical nightmare; this is simpler.

Each player can see units in enemy-controlled adjacent land territories. The friendly territory only has to be controlled, not occupied. This models the ability to generally know what the enemy has on the front lines and eliminates the need to add a new surveillance mechanic to the game. (The bomber idea sounds cool but would be tedious and error-prone in practice. Imagine the time spend reading off all the locations you wanted to spy on and then adjusting the board--at the start of every turn).

You cannot see adjacent naval territories. This models the largeness of the sea and difficulty of conducting naval reconnaissance with WWII-era ships. The only way you know what is in a sea territory is if you try and move into it. This would require only a minor change to the current rules: all naval movements are combat movements, unless ships were moving into friendly-occupied sea zones.

Fighters and bombers can only conduct "reconnaissance" of sea zones if they attack. If aircraft attack an occupied sea zone then combat commences as normal; if it is empty then their movement is consumed, but nothing else happens. Overflying a sea zone reveals nothing; you must commit to attack it. This models that searching the sea for ships is harder than overflying territory on your way somewhere else.
I like that this is similar to the original idea of using planes for spying but with less overhead. I also like that this enables submarines to become a more effective naval unit because they can "hide" in plain sight. An enemy has to use a fighter's attack to even see if they are there. I get excited thinking if Germany could use this rule to build a North Atlantic navy under the UK's nose.

Purchases are public knowledge; placement is not. Players must show their money and what they're buying. Purchases are placed in view of both players while the rest of the turn is conducted. This models the ability of nation to get a general idea of their enemies industrial capacity and capabilities. This also has the added benefit of reducing the opportunity to cheat because both players are verifying the amount of money being turned in and the units being purchased. (Also, honest math mistakes in purchasing are common.) Units are placed in secret, except for those placed on the front lines.

With these changes I think it would be possible to play with only two boards, in a single room, without a moderator. If anyone can think of any holes let me know.

Wow! That's all I have to say thus far...
You're answer is by far the best one (Scott, your answer was the best until this one came along, though it's still good).
This makes the game so much more historical than I had imagined it could be. This literally models the exactness of the way that WWII was fought and won. I love your answer!
As I develop this more and more, I am finding new and better ways to incorporate true history into it, as well as a little gaming twist. Thanks again for your answer!

@RPRATHER3: thx, cool question

Wouldn't the naval movement be kind of difficult?  If I move into a space without knowing if enemies are present, I'm forced to announce to them that 'something' is moving into the area, and they get that intel for free, while only answering me that there is "no conflict" in that square?

@GWLlosa You're right, naval movement would give away last known locations and routes of movement if playing without a moderator. This is historically inaccurate (for example, a significant Japanese fleet managed to make it all the way to Hawaii without anyone knowing), but I can't think of a good way to solve this problem.

Sounds like an interesting variant that would be much more fun to play online rather than in person, since in person necessitates the need of a mediator and requires the two players to be physically separated so as not to see the other's board.
Although I have a slight suggestion - rather than having all enemy territories as unknowns, each side should see (in full) the strength of the enemy in territories that boarder friendly territories. For example, as long an Axis power held Manchuria both Germany and Japan could see troop levels in:

Soviet Far East
Yakut
Mongolia
China
Kwangtung

Likewise, a player could see enemy units in sea zones bordering their territories or sea zones where their side has naval units.
So what would be kept secret?

Enemy units in territories not adjacent to friendly territories
What units were purchased by the enemy at the start of an enemy's turn
Where purchased units were placed at the end of a turn

Also, moving into a "dark" territory that contains enemy units would require a battle, even if the movement happened in the non-combat phase.

I like your idea. The idea that I had was to keep it more dependent on gut feeling or on intelligence gathering (with the bombers as spy planes). Thank you for your suggestion!

As well make the next step and play Civilization instead... :P

These changes give the game a flavor of "Kriegspiel" a "blind" variation of chess.

How could someone "move into a 'dark' territory contain[ing] enemy units" during non-combat? All territories are either owned by you or the enemy and all territories that you can move into you can see the contents of. By definition, you cannot move into a territory you do not control during non-combat. The only possible exception is naval movement, which I agree is an issue. I think I resolve it in my answer, which assumes that all naval movement is combat unless it's into a friendly-occupied sea zone.

I'd suggest taking a look at Block Games, like Columbia Games' "Pacific Victory" for ideas, or GMT's "Asia Engulfed", or "Europe Engulfed". They allow you to have a very good fog of war, but play on the same map.
I've tried to do hidden-movement/moderated two-board stuff since the old days in 1984, when Axis & Allies was cardboard pieces on a plastic map.  I always thought due to the large scale of move squares, and fluffiness of the dice-per-figure mechanic/defender chooses hits, it's not worth the extra effort involved.

Typically, this is done as a 3-board or more mode, not two, for the moderator's sanity.

Board: Moderator.
Board: Player A
Board: Player B
Board: Player C
etc.

With the complexity involved in A&A, and the need for spotting rules to be able to play effectively, it will be a very different game that just happens to share a lot of mechanics with A&A...
And it sounds utterly dreadful to me, as do almost all such double-blind games... mostly due to the propensity for human error in presenting the data. (On the other hand, I've enjoyed multiplayer Sid Meyer's Civ computer games, and those are double blind.)

The Axis would have their own board, so Germany and Japan would see each others units. If Germany were to spy on someone, somewhere, Japan would see it as well. The same is true for the Allies. They have their own board in which they share it with the rest of their allies. The mediator could have their own board, but that would mean even more pieces and even more time. So I suggest the mediator just have a VERY LARGE notebook... Thanks for your comment!


text:
New Cylon Leader Objectives
When playing with a cylon leader, a benign "humans win" objective generally unbalances the game. Also, the limited number of objectives makes it fairly easy to guess which the leader has.
As a result, my group has started inventing our own objectives. Each objective card has two options, one "humans win" and one "cylons win". Generally, the "humans win" objective is slightly harder. However, both force the leader to keep the game close. Finally, each objective appears on two different cards, to better hide the info.
Sample objectives include "humans win and at least 3 people have been sent to the brig / executed" or "cylons win and resources total 19+".
Any suggestions for other objectives?

The problem with Cylon Leaders is that in general they're going to unbalance the game or have no effect, since a cylon wins in a six player game is impossible at times(especially with the CFB) The notion of each card having both a human and cylon win condition is interesting, but it could just leave you where you started by unbalancing the game if they have a choice in who wins. However creating custom agendas is not a bad idea and it is something that should be pursued. Also something to keep in mind is that you could create agendas where the CL is trying to do something and it does not matter if humans or cylons win.

Leaders can also balance the game, by having objectives which explicitly force the game to be close. We've actually found this dual-objective approach to be good at this.
Regarding agendas that don't care who wins: that is certainly an option. Do you have any specific suggestions for a good objective of this type?

Unfortunately no, since this was an idea of a friend who had some ideas but I have no way of getting in touch with him. You might be onto something, but in a 6 or 4 player game I'd pursue the cylon win and in a 5 and 7 I'd pursue a human win since that's the best odds of me winning, unless something in the game swings heavily towards completing my other objective.


text:
What are good games to play during a one-hour lunch break?
On any given day we can have any number of players, up to ten, so that's not a limitation. Keep in mind that setup, play and packing up needs to be done in the hour. My coworkers are all experienced board gamers, so complexity is not an issue.

I'm not sure if this falls in the realm of answering your own question too quickly or seeding questions/answers (see  meta discussion here:  http://meta.boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/270/asking-a-question-you-already-know-the-answer-to-or-padding-out-the-site-with-q/272#272).  Also, where's the fun in answering when you've already submitted three answers yourself?

I don't think it falls under the thread mentioned. I think that was referring to answering questions that could have a definitive answer.
Maybe this should be marked CW. I'd be OK with that, though admittedly I've lost track of what is and isn't considered CW anymore.
Would it have been better if I had said in my question: we already play Pandemic, Dominion and Bang!? That's what people normally do, but I've never liked that because it discourages people from posting those answers. Those are viable answers which should get voted on.

It's not every day I see "this is ok because the question has no right answer" used in defense of a question

@LittleBobbyTables Not trying to be argumentative, but is it any less fun than answering the question after three other people have answered? I've never quite understood the concern over people answering their own questions, but if it's an issue I'll happily delete them.

@Michael Well, if opinion type questions are allowed (which we have many of) then I think it's a perfectly good defense. If they are not allowed then that's another issue. :)

@Michael Technically though, it wasn't used in defense of the question, it was used in defense of the answers. ;)

Answers have been removed since there's some disagreement. I still consider this an open issue though. I'll bring it up on Meta.

Dominion is a great game for lunch. It's  the only strategy game I can think of with a playtime under a half hour. We can often get through two rounds during lunch at my office.

I should note you are limited to four players without the Intrigue expansion, and six with it.  Also note that playing with four or more players, the game may take a little longer, usually around 45 minutes.  But with the expansion or a couple copies of the game, it's easy to play multiple side-by-side games.

Fluxx
This is another card game that's really simple to set up.  I find that I play better when I'm not fully paying attention - always a consideration when food is involved.  It theoretically supports as many people as you want (the wiki page says 2-6, but I've played many games with more).  You should be able to complete somewhere between 0 and 12 games in a one-hour lunch.

I find Fluxx irritating to play because it's so chaotic.

@Don, that's why I like it so much.  It's fun to watch everyone's heads explode trying to make sense of all the rules.

@Don Its just a dynamic game, that's one of the coolest things about it, it doesn't stay the same for more than a few turns. :)

So where i work we are between 5 and 8 depending on the days to play every lunchtime for around 1h. For now my impression are (Roughly sorted from best to worse but including only the good ones) :
Citadels
It's one of the first game we played and still a hit in our group. There is a good level of strategy, medium amount of chance and great level of interaction between players.
One of the problem we had was the total time of the game that could vary a lot if you have players taking a long time to choose a character (There is a lot of strategy in this choice as if you are too greedy and so predictible you will either end dead or without any gold). We solved it by imposing a fixed 45s time to select a character.
The game need at least 5 players to begin being really fun.
The Werewolves of Miller's Hollow
Always a big hit, it's easy to play, need nearly nothing (The cards could be contained in a pocket) each round is fast and being dead is as fun as being alive as you could see how good liars the others are... There is a big amount of strategy, small amound of randomness and very hight amount of interaction between players.
The only problem of this game is that the number of players required for it to be fun is 8 and it require a non playing game master so our group is not often big enough to play it.
Kaker Laken Poker
We play it nearly every day after another game when we have time. It's a pure bluff, small amount of randomness, small amount of strategy, good amount of player interaction game.
It could be played in 10-15min without problems even with 7 players (Even if the box say 6 max)
The rule that there is one losser and all the others win make it really interesting as every one try to attack the player that is losing, making him lose more xD
Bang!
One of the game we play the most even with it's problems as all players in our group like it and it became the default solution when game choice is too complex (due to one or two players refusing to play some other games this day)
The game is fun with lot of interaction between players, lot of randomness, and a moderate amount of strategy.
The big problem of bang is it's randomness making some games very fast (Sherif with 4 life points near billy the kid with 4 bangs in hand being against him) and others very long. Also one player could die really fast and watch the other continue to play for a long time, witch is not fun at all.
Regarding the time to play on lunchtime you absolutely must get one of the extensions adding the one special rule per turn cards (Fistfull of cards or High Noon). As the number of extension cards is selected at start and the last one is fatal really fast for everyone it put an upper value to the number of turns possible. 8 cards for a 45min game with 6 players is a good bet for example. (6 players being one of the configuration that work the best)
The link to boardgamegeek.com on the title point to the bullet that contain everything you may need.
We currently played with only one green card authorized as otherwise it allow someone to protect himself too much and remove claus the saint from the game as it take too much time to play.
Dixit
Except for one of our player that doesn't have any immagination this game is really great and a lot of fun especially if you know the players you play with as you will tailor what you say for some of them to get the hint and others to miss it. Sometimes it work and sometimes you discover that everyone read the news yesterday and go your hint or that they all know the nearly unknow actor that you named...
The game is fast enough to play on lunchtime (The number of points or number of turns to win could be chosen depending on available play time), the maximum number of players is 6 (Playing with 3 or 4 players could be done but it is really less interesting, it should be limited to 5 or 6 players).
There is a small amount of randomness, moderate amount of reflection and no direct interaction between players outside of the narator/non-narator separation.
The box is uselessly big but could be discarded as a simple paper or a white-board is better to count points anyway.
Saboteur
Fun, easy to play, pretty fast (as the array of cards is fixed, the time don't really depends on the number of player and stay around 20 minutes) playeable up to 10 players. It's a great game for lunchtime.
The game have a high amount of randomness and player interaction and small amount of strategy for miners / great amount of strategy for saboteurs.
We always play without a random amount of saboteurs as getting only one nearly assure that he will lose.
Munchkin
If the number of player is limited to 4 or 5 it could be played in 1h (more and it's too long) and the game is really fun with lot of interaction between players (Playing a +10 levels to a monster the other player used all it's bonus to be able to kill is allways so much fun) a good amount of randomness and a little bit of strategy.
Some of our players don't like this game as the rules are not really well defined sometimes and lot of cards change them. It's also the only game where some editions explain that cheating is authorized (There is a rule for what happens to you if someone notice) and that if there is a debate the player owning the box decide the outcome :D
Ivanhoe / Camelot
The game is simple but there is finally a good amount of strategy as well as randomness and there are a moderate amount of player interactions. It's pretty fast so it could be played multiple times in one hour. The game is great at 4 players.
Linq
Good game of bluff and guess-who-i-am with a small amount of randomness, big amount of strategy and moderate amount of interaction between players. It could be played up to 8 players according to the box but more is ok. The rounds are very fast to play and you could do as many as you want.

Games for two players follow we don't play them as often so i separate them. It's good to have them to be able to split the group.
Gosu
Basically an alternative to magic. Very strategic and interesting but should be limited to 2 players for lunchtime games as more players is too long, getting well over 1h.
Mr. Jack Pocket
Really great nearly pure reflection game for two players. The game is small to transport and could be played in 30min without problem (The time depends a lot on the reflection time of each player, as with chess a time limit for reflection is sometime usefull)

Great answer.  I love the mini-reviews with each one!

I like this answer a lot, but I'd prefer if it were actually many smaller answers so I could upvote the games individually.

How can you possibly play a game of werewolf in a half hour? We usually need at least 3 hours for a game of mafia (which is actually nearly the same).

Magic: The Gathering
My co-workers and I regularly play Magic over our lunch break. Setup time is minimal, and the game scales well from 2-6 players.
With 4-6 players, we often have time for two games; with 2-3 players, three or four games.
Having 10 people play at once might make the game run too long, though. In that case, I'd recommend splitting everyone up into two groups of 5.

Upvoted because I don't really understand why people go so crazy for Dominion and not for Magic (except for the fact that Magic is perceived as a huge money sink, of course).  Magic has a much quicker setup time than Dominion - if you've got some preconstructed decks with you, of course - and as such feels like a better lunch-hour game to me!

@thesunneversets Magic is really good for experienced players, but not so much for new players, just because there's so many cards. Beginners at magic get a deck of cards shoved at them and often have to battle an experienced player's carefully pruned arsenal. Granted lack of skill is going to be a disadvantage at any game, but in other games all the strategy happens during the play, not in building a deck beforehand. Still love Magic to death though. Its by far the best trading card game.

@CrazyJugglerDrummer Anyone who introduces a new player to Magic by handing them a terrible deck and then proceeding to crush them with  a finely-tuned Type I monstrosity is a cad and a scoundrel!  I agree though that it's hard for an enthusiastic new player with $30 worth of cards total to go up against a semi-pro, but this goes for Chess, Scrabble... most games really!

Race For The Galaxy
This is the default game for our group when under time constraints.  It's very complex for it's play time (20-45) minutes, often making you feel like you've played a game twice its actual length.  As such, it's also very rewarding.  Plus, there are multiple expansions if you wish to explore the game further, and they still keep the play time to under an hour.  The expansions also let the expand the number of players from 4 to eventually 6.  Because of the simultaneous turn mechanic, the game time is not usually lengthened by adding more players.  Just be warned that the first (learning) game will take much longer.  Our first game almost 2 hours, the very next game was 20 minutes.

IMHO Race for the galaxy don't contain enough interaction between players to be really fun it's mostly a race for victory points.

That's a valid concern.  That was the case when our group first started playing.  However now the group tries to anticipate what phase each player will pick in order to take advantage of phases you don't call.  Also, this nature of game allows much more table talk in terms of strategy without tipping your hand.  We enjoy that aspect of it a lot, as it's missing from many of our other games.

7 Wonders
Though there's a bit of setup it's still reasonably quick, and you get a lot of meaty gameplay in 30-45 minutes. It's designed for 3-7 players and has a very solid 2-player variant included (2-player takes longer than 3-7, be forewarned).

Euchre
It's dead simple to set up and easy to learn.  I worked in a office where we regularly had two games going every day.  Anyone was welcome to play, just sit down and deal.  We usually could play two full games (to 10 points) in a one-hour lunch break.
As a bonus (having just now skimmed the wikipedia page), there are apparently variations for 6 or 8 players if you need to support more people.

We would play this every day during lunch while I was in High School

We have started playing Carcassonne during our lunch breaks. Generally lasts about 40-50 minutes including set up and tear down.

My coworkers and I would get great mileage off our Cribbage set during lunch breaks. An average game would last us 35 minutes or so.

Khet
It's for two players only, but most games only take 30 mins or so and the rules can easily be picked up in 5 minutes.

We've played a lot of Wizard, the card game. A full game (one card up to ten, then back down again) is sometimes a little too long, but its easy to shorten.

If we go with the 'lunch' theme, although it only scales to 8 people with the expansion pack is the card game Lunch Money.

Lunch Money is fun, but i don't know if it is the version we have but nothing is written on the cards and you need to either learn all the (pretty complex) rules or get a paper version of it for everyone.

I got beaten to recommending 7 Wonders, which certainly fits your needs (7 players, ~40 minutes), so consider this a +1.
If you like Dominion, consider AEG's Thunderstone.  Deck-building, with a dungeon-delving theme.
Steve Jackson Games' Zombie Dice and Cthulhu Dice are decent for large groups.  Of the two, I prefer Zombie Dice, as it has a bit more decision-making and agency.
...while we're on dice games, there's Roll Through The Ages  It's only up to 4 players, but it plays in an hour or less and conveys an enjoyable civ-building experience.
If you're okay with print-and play games, I made two that might fit the bill: Office Gossip ( http://www.invisible-city.com/play/435/office-politics ) is a Werewolf-style game that doesn't need a player to sit out and be the narrator – everyone gets to play.  Uncontrolled Squid ( http://www.invisible-city.com/play/211/uncontrolled-squid ) is a team-based contested bidding game – all you need are standard Poker decks (1 per four players).
Edit: One more suggestion – Prolix from Z-Man Games is a word game for 1 to 5 players that plays quickly, is very portable, and is quite fun.  The premise: Think of a word that uses as many of the (ten?) letters on the scoring board.

Blokus is an outstanding game that's also very easy to track down, as it's available in most big-box stores. Each player gets an assortment of Tetris-like pieces in a single color, and must place one per turn if they can. Each piece placed must touch at least one piece of that color - but only at the corners. That's pretty much it for the rules, but this is a tense experience with quite a bit of depth and no randomness.
The biggest downside is that it's very clearly designed to be a 4 player game (though I'm told that there are a couple of 2-player variants that are worthwhile). I haven't played it, but I've been told that Blokus Trigon works well for 3 players.

Adding multiple answers to one question is strongly discouraged.  Please condense your answers.  We prefer to vote on answers, not individual items or games.  Thanks!

Sure, I'll take care of that. I thought one answer per game was what people were looking for here based on one of the comments above, on the answer that starts with Citadels.

It might be too simple for an experienced group, but Apples to Apples is great for lunch breaks, particularly as you can add / remove people as needed.
It's dead simple, so it's easy to get new people involved, and the only real requirement is to have ~4 people.  I've played it with groups as large as 9 before ... 10 shouldn't be a problem.
The only problem I've run into with the games is that at my current place of work, there's a fair number of people who didn't grow up in the U.S. and aren't native english speakers, so some of the cultural references (mostly people) are difficult for them.

Apples to Apples is really friendly for beginners, but if the players are more experienced and want a strategical challenge instead of a 95% luck-fest, it's not the best choice.

@CrazyJugglerDrummer: there's a little strategy to Apples to Apples, but it's all about figuring out the personalities of the people you're playing with, and not necessarily learning complex rules and how to exploit them.

I used to enjoy The Queen's Necklace BGG. It provides an interesting and variable play experience in about 45 minutes. You can play it online to try it out, too. Check the Days of Wonder site. I think there's a link from the BGG page.

Finding opponents in the online play is often quite a test of patience, since the online version ONLY plays 3-player. The game is best, IMO, at 4p, as well.

Quarriors is coming out this wednesday and it's a short "deck" building game, except dice are used.
It's very portable which is an added bonus.

For Sale
Just played for the first time last week. If you have experienced board gamers, it probably wouldn't be something you play every day, but a game only takes about 15 minutes, and as soon as it's over, players are usually eager to play another.
It's an auction game that is themed on buying and selling real estate. Players start with money that's used to bid on houses of varying values (with art ranging from doghouses to mansions). After the houses have been purchased, players then enter a second round of bidding for more money, and bid with their purchased houses from the first round.
We had mix of experienced gamers and newbies, and it was just as well received by both. 3-6 players.

Can you give us an idea of the theme of the game?

How about Are You the Traitor?  No setup to speak of, socially dynamic, and the play is rapid paced and doesn't require careful tracking of past events/actions/state (a plus when people are distracted by food).

We've played Bang, Citadels, and Race for the Galaxy during our lunch break. Bang has the plus/minus of having people get removed from the game before the game ends.

You might want to add some information on why each of these makes a good lunchtime game. You might also

For two players, we have played Dominion - with and without an expansion.  We have also played some of the Gipf project games, although they are only two player and both people will need to stay focused to finish the game.  Short setup time and quick teardown mean most of the time can be spent playing.
Other options are more "traditional" games - I saw Euchre recommended.  Shanghai/Hollywood rummy (or any of the rummies) can be played usually in under an hour, and because they have "hands", you can play over a few days if necessary.  Also, since it is just shuffling to setup, it is a quick setup.  :)

Treehouse - quick, pretty much as many players as you want, setup is easy, take down is easy. Not presently available from the manufacturer (Looney Labs) because they are changing their packaging, but you can probably still find sets in local game stores, or wait a bit for their new packaging.

We usually did settlers of catan at the last place I worked at, although our group was limited up to six people. Always good for quickly killing off an hour.

I'll join Josh in recommending Magic the Gathering, and I did used to play that over lunch.
Also, while only for 2 players, a 13x13 Go game is normally well under a half hour if everyone maintains a decent play rate.

If you've ever got just one other player or split into a group of 2, Memoir '44 is a great game. It's a WWII-themed game that's scenario-based, with 16 coming in the box and more available on the publisher's website (you can also create your own, if you're feeling ambitious). Not all of the scenarios are balanced between the Axis and the Allies, but the publisher's site has win/loss percentages for each scenario based on logged plays, so I've been using that data as a handicap to balance the matches when my experience doesn't match my opponents.
Setup looks intimidating, but I played my first game, including setup and rules explanation, in about 45 minutes. There are also rules to play on two teams with up to 8 people if you've got expansions and/or two copies of the base game; I haven't tried this, but I've read that it takes more than an hour, so that might not work for a lunch thing.

Coloretto is probably the best short game I've ever played - most games should take no more than 15 minutes to play. It's a card game in which you're trying to collect cards in different color groups. The more cards you have in any given color, the more points that group is worth at the end of the game - but only 3 colors (chosen at the end) count as positive points, and any other groups count as negative points. It's very simple to play and is the only game I've played I'd recommend without hesitation to anyone who has never played a "hobby" board game before.
The same designer later released Zooloretto, which is a board game adaptation that adds a little bit of complexity and playing time (though still straightforward and would still be appropriate for lunchtime board games) that I think is equally good. I'd probably always recommend Coloretto first, since it's cheaper, faster to play and more portable, but if you like Coloretto and/or want something with a little bit more depth to it, Zooloretto is also worth checking out.

Starfire
Starfire, played as a tactical game, is fast and pretty good for multiple players. Some prep needs be done outside play, namely ship sheets, but with experienced players, a fleet battle can be played in under an hour with a dozen ships on a side or more.
I've played a roughly 30-ship per side battle in 35 minutes before, tho' both I and the other player had counters bagged before hand, and fleets done up and printed out before hand.
Man To Man and The Fantasy Trip's Melee and Wizard
The GURPS combat system was released as a board game, entitled Man to Man. It's pretty fast playing, and very tactical.
Likewise, SJ's prior RPG, the Fantasy Trip, was released as two board games and a roleplaying expansion. The board games, entitled Melee and Wizard, sold quite well. Both are extremely tactical, and some copies keep surfacing in new or like new condition regularly. A later revision, Dragons of Underearth, was a board game with full RPG-style character generation, but limited skill and spell selections.
It's very possible with either to play out a multiplayer game in 30-45 minutes.
Full Thrust
With 1 ship per player, Full Thrust plays VERY quickly. It's a miniatures game of space combat. The Babylon 5 version used 12-sided counters; there is no reason one can't make similar ones for the canon FT races. I've played multi-sided battles with novice players in 30-45 minutes, to conclusion.
Note that the rules are available in PDF for free from the GZG website; the link is to the downloads page.
If you can find the Chameleon Eclectic Babylon Project EarthForce Source Book, it includes a Babylon-5 themed version of the rules.

There's a new game from a new company that might fit the bill, except it's only for 4 players. The game is called Launch Pad, and the company Stratus Games.
Launch pad is a simple quick strategy game that involves building rockets, and preventing others from building them. It's a lot of fun.
As for a game that would involve so many people, well, Bang is probably your best bet, and that's a really quick game. It works best with a lot of people, although it does have the disadvantage of having some people sit around with nothing to do for some time, as there are players eliminated early on in the game.


text:
When does discard happen if player goes over limit after passing?
The rules state:

When a player passes, they must discard cards down to their Card Limit if necessary.

also:

Only when a player passes will they have to discard down to their Card Limit, which is determined by their Politics score.

Take the following scenario:
Black is at their card limit. During an Action Phase, Black passes. Later that same Action Phase another player completes a Shipping Track which awards a Governor card to Black. Black now has too many cards.
When does Black discard? Immediately, at end of turn, or not until they pass in the next Action Phase?
The above rule quotes pretty clearly indicate that Black would not need to discard until they pass in the next Action Phase. But, what if there isn't another Action Phase? For example, what if the phase in question is the last Action Phase of the game? Does this mean a player could score more cards than their card limit allows?
However, the following quote seems to imply that the card limit is lifted only during the Action Phase (because it's not mentioned anywhere else):

When drawing cards during the Action Phase there is no restriction on how many cards a player may hold...

This could indicate that the card limit is enforced continuously after a player passes (because they are no longer able to draw cards), but it's not worded very well because what about the rest of the Action Phase when not drawing cards?

Apparently even the two designers are not completely in agreement over this issue. It has come up on BGG more than once. This thread references two other threads where each designer gives an opinion on whether or not you should discard at the end of turn.
Jarret Gray says:

Discard is part of pass. The cards are
  supposed to return immediately to
  their respective piles. This can
  create some interesting timing
  effects, like blocking an opponent
  from drawing a good card. The downside
  is that when a player discards you
  have to wait for them. If the cards go
  back at the end of the turn then you
  can carry on the game while they
  number crunch. The game is intended to
  be played the first way.

Carl de Visser says:

You should still meet the card limit
  at the end of the turn. Checking the
  rules, this is only implied in the End
  of the Round section with "Once
  discards are complete". Basically
  there should be another check at the
  end of the turn.

de Visser was specifically responding to the question of acquiring a governor card after passing, Gray was not. He was only answering the general question of whether discarding occurs after passing or at the end of the turn. So he probably wasn't considering the odd circumstance of getting another card after passing. Had that case been brought up he might have said both, as did de Visser, but all we have to go on is what they did say and Gray clearly says you don't discard at the end of the turn.
The rules-as-written are pretty explicit that discarding only occurs immediately after passing. That is also supported by the comment of one designer, but explicitly contradicted by the other. So there is certainly evidence to back up either ruling, but no definitive answer.
Personally, I don't like the idea of exceeding the card limit for a full turn, and really don't like the idea of getting to score cards that exceed the limit. So I'll probably go with discarding after passing and also at the end of the turn. I may even consider immediate discard as that makes the most sense to me, and there is some slight justification for that in the rules.

The rules do not specifically deal with this scenario, but the rules state as follows

Each player has a Card Limit, which is determined by their Politics score. A player’s
  Card Limit determines how many Asset Cards the player is permitted to keep after
  passing. The absolute maximum will be 5 cards, one card per normal card slot.

I have highlighted the important phrase here. So, once you have passed, you must discard down to your Card Limit. If your Card Limit changes as a result (due to losing a politic score etc), then you must keep discarding.
If you are awarded a card after you have discarded, then you keep them. After passing, your round is effectively over, so you are starting the next round at that point.
I agree that this feels a little odd, in fact we always played that when we checked our status tracks we normally discard our cards at that point. However, re-reviewing the rules seems to be clear on when the discard happens, and therefore the side effects as you have stated are implied.
The rules can be found here.

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


text:
What happens to Infiltrating Cylons on New Caprica when Galactica jumps away?
If a Cylon leader is infiltrating and still on New Caprica when Galactica jumps away, do they count as a "human character left on New Caprica", thus triggering their execution? This could be relevant for the agenda cards: Join the Colonials and Show Their True Nature.

Pegasus rulebook, pg 7:

A Cylon Leader is considered a “human
  player” when he is Infiltrating and a
  “Cylon player” when he is not
  Infiltrating.

I don't see an exception for infiltrating cylons on pg 17:

Once the Admiral has ordered Galactica
  to leave and ended the game, destroy
  all civilian ships still on New
  Caprica, and execute any human players
  still on a New Caprica location. If
  after resolving those losses, no
  resource has been reduced to 0 or
  lower, the humans win the game!

Therefore, infiltrating cylons are humans and would be executed.

I agree. This is also supported by the Unofficial FAQ: http://tinyurl.com/32j7e2m


text:
If Calamity Janet has a Barrel, can she use it to avoid Indians?
If Calamity Janet has a Barrel, can she use it to generate a Missed! and then use her special ability to turn the Missed! into a Bang! in order to avoid Indians?

In order to counter Indians, you must discard a Bang! card.
Calamity Janet can use Missed! cards as Bang! cards.
Barrel, however, does not give you a Missed! card when it works successfully - it just causes a Missed! effect that can be used to cancel a Bang!.
Since you don't have a Missed! card to discard, Calamity Janet can't use Barrel to avoid Indians in this way.


text:
How does Engine Room work with Roslin’s Religious Visions ability?
If the Engine Room is used during Roslin's turn, would either Crisis Card she chooses automatically have a jump icon, or just the first one drawn?

I submitted this question to Fantasy Flight support. Here's the response:

For the purposes of using the Engine Room during Roslin's turn, whichever card Roslin chooses to resolve is treated as "the next Crisis Card drawn." Hope that clears things up.

Just from looking at the rules and cards...
Engine Room specifically refers to the next card drawn, not played.
Thus Roslin choose between two cards, but the first one drawn would now have a jump icon on it.
I can't find an errata/ruling about that particular interaction.

The problem with that ruling is that now the person playing Roslin has to be trusted to keep track of which one gets the jump icon (since no one else gets to see the cards), or some ceremony needs to be enforced like: keep the first card drawn in your right hand and the second card drawn in your left, look at them both and then put one on the bottom and play the other. Not saying it's the wrong ruling, it just complicates things.

@Todd - if the complexity is a problem, house rule it away.  Its kind of like the "rule 0" of boardgames.


text:
In Shadow Hunters, can only Hunters benefit from the Spear of Longinus?
Spear of Longinus text:

If you're a Hunter and your attack is successful, you may reveal your identity. If you do, or if you are already revealed, you give 2 points of extra damage.

If a revealed, non-Hunter has the spear do they inflict the extra damage?
I think the intent of the card was probably to only benefit Hunters, but it could be read as any revealed character using the spear gives the extra damage. But, only Hunters would get the ability to reveal their identity on a successful attack.

The way I read it, "If you're a Hunter" applies to the entire rules paragraph.  Therefore, you could re-read it as:

If you're a Hunter and your attack is successful, you may reveal your identity.  If you're a Hunter and you do, or if you are already revealed, you give 2 points of extra damage."

I could certainly see the argument, though, that two sentences are two completely separate, and so that any revealed non-Hunter could do 2 points of extra damage as well.  I believe the intent is for Hunters only, but it isn't very clear.


text:
In Lords of Waterdeep on iOS, why does placing a corruption token on The Palace of Waterdeep indicate you won't get to take the Ambassador?
This question is prompted by the iOS implementation of the game by Playdek, so it may just be a flaw in the game, but I'm just checking to make sure there isn't some rule that I'm not aware of.
Here's the scenario: "Delver's Folly" and "The Palace of Waterdeep" are in play. I already have an agent on The Palace from a previous turn. (The Palace allows you to place the Ambassador at the start of the next turn.) It's my turn and I place an agent on Delver's Folly, which then allows me to place a corruption token on any action space. I want to place the token on The Palace, but when I do so, the game pops up a message that says "You will not receive the Ambassador. Are you sure you want to take this action?" It sounds like this will negate my previous play of putting an agent on The Palace, but that doesn't make any sense to me. Is there some reason this should be the case, or is this likely a flaw in the iOS version of the game?

Did you try saying "yes" and seeing what happened? My guess is that it's just a reminder that what you're doing to the location is different from placing an Agent there.

I'm in the middle of an online game, so I'd rather not do it if it's going to mess up my previous move. I also thought it might be what you said, but it doesn't seem to give a message like that for any other action space. Plus, it's quite specific about the Ambassador. It sure seems deliberate, just not sure why.

I posted the question to Playdek support. They said it is a bug in the UI. The message is intended for when an agent is assigned to The Place after someone else has already taken the Ambassador, but before they've had a chance to use it. In that case, the player assigning the new agent does not get to take the Ambassador (see page 22). It is incorrectly being displayed when placing a corruption token (probably any cube) on The Palace. They said selecting "yes" would have worked correctly, i.e. it would not have canceled the earlier play (I had already made an alternate move, so I couldn't confirm), and that it should be fixed in a future release.

I'm not sure I understand the situation they're trying to cover, either. As far as I understand it, no matter how you get an agent onto the Palace, you take the Ambassador -- even if it means stealing it from someone who already took it this turn.

No, that's not the case. See page 22 of the rulebook: "If another player assigns an Agent to the Palace of Waterdeep after you have taken the Ambassador but before you have had a chance to assign it, he or she gains no benefit from that action." If the Ambassador is placed first, then assigning a new agent to The Palace does allow you to pick it up. I'll update my answer.

Ah OK, I guess I was wrong about that; never came up for me before.


text:
Does Unknown's special ability still work after revealing?
Unknown's special ability is

Deceit: When given a Hermit Card, you may lie about your identity to trigger the card or to say "nothing happens". You do not have to reveal your identity to use this Special Ability.

After Unknown has revealed, can he still lie about the effect of a Hermit Card?

In our group I must admit we never thought of giving Hermit Cards to revealed characters. We took the description in the rules too seriously I suppose:

Hermit Cards help you to identify the characters belonging to the other players.

This being said, a quick check confirms that the rules don't mention you must give it to an unrevealed character. So the revealed Unknown can be given a Hermit Card and he can lie to choose the effect he wants...
Note that only the player who gives the Unknown the Hermit Card will actually know that the Unknown lied as the rules also say:

The player who drew a Hermit Card and the player who was given the Hermit Card are not allowed to tell the other players what was written on the card.

Yeah, nothing in the rules says that you can only give Hermit Cards to revealed players. I tend to agree with you, though our group ruled it the other way at the time, i.e. Unknown could not lie once revealed.