text:
What Betrayal at House on the Hill scenarios can work with just two players
Are any of the scenarios in Betrayal at House on the Hill suitable for just two players?
I'm asking as I'd  like to play just with my wife at times,  but the instructions say it requires three people minimum.

I'd suggest playing with 2 characters each.
When the haunt starts, the player who controls the traitor hands their non-traitor character over to the other player to control.

This would work - you just skip any haunts that have a hidden traitor or similar.

I don't think any would work well by default, but there are a handful that begin the haunt with removing the betrayer's character.
Those can be modified slightly in that the player isn't, then, the betrayer (and isn't removed). Play the traitor's turn as a sort of 'this is what the board does', and keep both players on the board. The game then turns into a players-vs-game game (like Pandemic, etc).
It wouldn't have the same 'feel' as the main game since there isn't a 'someone will betray us' vibe. Instead it's a 'the house will attack us' game.
I played something similar once (the player who ended up being the traitor really didn't want to be, so we improvised) and it worked out.

According to the Haunt Chart, scenarios 9, 12, 31, and 50 have no traitor, just heroes, so they could likely serve your needs.  (However scenario 9 says "None (at first)" and 31 and 50 both say "None (see Secrets of Survival)", so scenario 12 is the only scenario that has an unequivocal lack of traitor for the scenario.

None really work with just two players, and you don't actually make the decision on what scenario you play, the game makes that choice for you part way through. The book has a table in it which matches up omen cards with rooms they can be found in, you look up the scenario based on which open was in which room when a player loses the haunt roll. Though you could theoretically play a game like this, the haunts tend to be stacked in the traitor's favor, since the game expects it to be a many on one game at that point.


text:
Is Brasilia a weak starting investment in Imperial 2030?
The other day I was playing said game, and I draw Brasilia as my starting investment. While I don't feel I played particularly well, I did find it harder than the others to expand my empire. Further more, they told me that the last time someone had had Brasilia they also suffered.
Is this common in games? And if so how can I turn Brasilia's weaknesses into my strengths?

According to link below, some people think that Brazil is a good place to start investments (in a poll with 26 votes titled "And where do you put your money in the future?", 50% people choose Brazil). Joe Wyka user thinks Brazil is well positoned on board...
Rpggeek - Berkeley board gamers games played tuesday june 7 2011 - Imperial 2030
Rpggeek - Best new boardgames - Imperial 2030
A quote from there:

[...]This was a weird game. I don't quite remember how things started out,
  but Adam was trying for a US/Brazil combo, and the rest of us were
  kinda spread around. For the first half of the game things went pretty
  slowly, but we all had a decent cash flow - countries weren't taxing
  for very much, but just enough that we were able to reinvest, and the
  countries were fairly balanced. India was looking good but fragile for
  a while, everyone was in Brazil, which was doing well (as usual) [...]
  Eventually though after a series
  of close Investor actions everyone except me had a big wad of cash,
  most of which ended up in Brazil. India and Brazil started moving up
  the power track fairly quickly (due to cross investments by Charles
  and Garrett, their owners), while China harassed the US (which was
  unable to slow Brazil) and Europe and Russia fought. Charles and
  Garrett had huge investments, Charles in India/Brazil, and Garrett in
  Russia/India/Brazil. I had a decent spread across all countries except
  China, and Adam was mostly in Brazil/US/Europe. The game ended
  semi-unexpectedly when Brazil jumped to tax to just make it to 25.
  Final scores:
Brazil 5x India 4x US 2x China 2x Russia 2x Europe 2x
Garrett 205 Charles 186 Deniz 144 Adam 129
If Charles hadn't ended it right then, Europe and Russia would have
  each jumped up to 4x, which would have put me in a better position but
  would also have put Garrett even further into the lead. I was hoping
  all the countries would level out at about 4x, given how slowly it was
  going (I had about ~7 interest in non-Chinese countries), but those
  who were big in India and Brazil only (Charles and Garrett) won out.

This is probably the best answer I'm going to get on this.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How is the board game version of Words With Friends different from Scrabble?
I like to play a game called Words With Friends, which is a freenium version of Scrabble. I thought it was however functionally the same. However, I've just seen that Zynga, the creators of the game, have released a boardgame version.
Here is a picture:

How does this compare to Scrabble? What are the differences?

The board layout - the positioning of the bonus squares is different.
Words With Friends:

Scrabble:

Also, the distribution and points scored for the letters in Words With Friends is slightly different to Scrabble. For example, B and C score 3 points in Scrabble, but 4 points in Words With Friends.

One also wonders if WWF-the-board-game is to be played with the online version's somewhat aggressive naughty-words filter, or if the full dictionary is in effect :)

Also, the values of some of the letters are more with WWF than of Scrabble.

This is also a very interesting article which helps explain why the boards differ and how Words With Friends avoids a copyright infringement lawsuit from Hasbro. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2008/07/scrabulous-sc-1.html

Also the name doesn't evoke the Scrabble trademark, which was an issue for Scrabulous

The tile distribution is different, as are the tile values.
        Scrabble     WWF
Letter  (#, Value)  (#,Value)
A       (9,1)       (9,1)
B       (2,3)       (2,4)
C       (2,3)       (2,4)
D       (4,2)       (5,2)
E       (12,1)      (13,1)
F       (2,4)       (2,4)
G       (3,2)       (3,3)
H       (2,4)       (4,3)
I       (9,1)       (8,1)
J       (1,8)       (1,10)
K       (1,5)       (1,5)
L       (4,1)       (4,2)
M       (2,3)       (2,4)
N       (6,1)       (5,2)
O       (8,1)       (8,1)
P       (2,3)       (2,4)
Q       (1,10)      (1,10)
R       (6,1)       (6,1)
S       (4,1)       (5,1)
T       (6,1)       (7,1)
U       (4,1)       (4,2)
V       (2,4)       (2,5)
W       (2,4)       (2,4)
X       (1,8)       (1,8)
Y       (2,4)       (2,3)
Z       (1,10)      (1,10)
Blank   (2,0)       (2,0)

every -ing bingo just became worth an extra 2 points!

Another difference, that actually has a bigger impact on strategy, is that the BINGO bonus (the bonus for playing all 7 tiles in one move) is reduced from 50 to 35.
Together with the placement of the bonus squares (see above) often allowing quadruple letter words and 9-time scoring letters (12 if placed also in both directions), you can sometimes score higher by good placement rather than bingos.

Here is a link.
If you cannot access that page, let me explain it below:
The Scrabble grid looks like this: (P for red cells, B for pink cells,
T for blue cells, and D for light blue cells.)

P--D---P---D--P
-B---T---T---B-
--B---D-D---B--
D--B---D---B--D
----B-----B----
-T---T---T---T-
--D---D-D---D--
P--D--(B)--D--P
--D---D-D---D--
-T---T---T---T-
----B-----B----
D--B---D---B--D
--B---D-D---B--
-B---T---T---B-
P--D---P---D--P

The Words With Friends board looks like:

---P--T-T--P---
--D--B---B--D--
-D--D-----D--D-
P--T---B---T--P
--D---D-D---D--
-B---T---T---B-
T---D-----D---T
---B--(-)--B---
T---D-----D---T
-B---T---T---B-
--D---D-D---D-
P--T---B---T--P
-D--D-----D--D-
--D--B---B--D--
---P--T-T--P---

Letter Distributions: (S=Scrabble, W=Words with friends)

Letters ? A B C D  E F G H I  J K L M N O P  Q R S T U V W X Y  Z
S count 2 9 2 2 4 12 2 3 2 9  1 1 4 2 6 8 2  1 6 4 6 4 2 2 1 2  1
S score 0 1 3 3 2  1 4 2 4 1  8 5 1 3 1 1 3 10 1 1 1 1 4 4 8 4 10
W count 2 9 2 2 5 13 2 3 4 8  1 1 4 2 5 8 2  1 6 5 7 4 2 2 1 2  1
W score 0 1 4 4 2  1 4 3 3 1 10 5 2 4 2 1 4 10 1 1 1 2 5 4 8 3 10

Other differences:
- Scrabble uses the OWL2 dictionary, while Words with friends uses ENABLE.
- BINGO (using up all seven tiles from your hand) gives you 50 points on
S, while 35 points on W.
- S's center square is a Double Word Square, while W's center square is regular.
- On Mobile S Apps, they show your score for the whole game. But on the W app, they don't.

The Scrabble grid looks like a large X, while the W grid looks like an O.

What are OWL2 and ENABLE? Online dictionaries?

@jontia They are word lists. You can't make words outside the list.

In addition to the different dictionary/word list, Words With Friends tiles and their values are actually a little different from what you can expect with Scrabble.
• 1 point for: E ×13, A ×9, I ×8, O ×8, T ×7, R ×6, S ×5
• 2 points for: D ×5, N ×5, L ×4, U ×4
• 3 points for: H ×4, G ×3, Y ×2
• 4 points for: B ×2, C ×2, F ×2, M ×2, P ×2, W ×2
• 5 points for: V ×2, K ×1
• 8 points for: X ×1
• 10 points for: J ×1, Q ×1, Z ×1
• 0 points for: 2 blank tiles
Source: Words With Friends Solver

Is this list any different from that in Basicpract's 8 year old answer?

Words with Friends is often referred to as the advance version of the Scrabble.  The main differences of the two game is that Words with Friends can be played online with friends wherever they are.  It also has a feature wherein players can even chat with each other while playing the game. In this article - http://ezinearticles.com/?Tips-on-How-to-Play-Words-With-Friends&id=7125844, you would learn more about Words with Friends and how it differs from Scrabble.

I'm referring to the board game version. Not the electronic version.

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

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


text:
"Brigand Attack" (when upgrading Settlement --> City)
I just bought this game last week and had a question (and BGG couldn't help...)
When read at face value, it would seem that

"Each player who has more than 7 resources must discard all excess resources"

would require discarding down to seven cards when this event occurs. The official rules (.pdf) don't really say anything to enforce (or refute) this.
But having played Settlers, I wonder if the intent is to discard half (rounding down)...
How should this be treated?

The card is poorly worded. It should probably say, "Each player who has more than 7 resources must discard all resources in excess of 7."
At the Official Catan Game Portal:

Brigand Attack: Players who have more than 7 resources cards discard all cards in excess of 7. Afterwards, the destiny card is flipped.

Thanks for the link. I was very close to finding that link, but must have clicked "rules" instead of "learn game" (or something like that)!


text:
Does Ada Wong's Level 1 ability trigger Infected text?
In the Resident Evil Deck Building Game (base set), Ada Wong's level 1 ability allows her to look at the first card in the Mansion and choose to leave it on top or move it to the bottom. It is unclear whether the effect of the Infected would be applied or not, given that there is no actual combat.
Most of the effect text is obviously inconsequential; the Infected is neither defeated nor revealed so none of the effect text that triggers on defeat or reveal would apply anyway.  However, the Hunter and the Uroboros Aheri cards in the base set both trigger when the Infected in question is not defeated.
In particular, the text on the Uroboros Aheri card reads:

If this Infected was not defeated, shuffle it into the Mansion

Although Ada's ability doesn't actually "defeat" anything, it's unclear whether the effect text applies at all.  If the card is placed on the bottom of the Mansion and the effect text is skipped entirely, that makes this the only way to guarantee the position of the Uroboros Aheri card without triggering a reshuffle, which just feels wrong to me.
So the question lies: Does Ada's ability bypass the Infected card entirely, effects and all, or would the effects still trigger (when applicable)?

Ada Wong's ability allows her to look at the top card of the mansion deck, and either leave it on top, or place it on the bottom of the mansion deck. Although the rule book is unclear about a lot of aspects of the game, I don't think it is unclear what to do about Infected with Effects. The rules say that if an infected is revealed and it has an effect, take note of it, and apply it when the effect says so. Ada Wong's ability allows her to look at the card, not reveal it (a specific game term, that would make the top card open information), so no effects are triggered. I can also be determined from the rules, that only after revealing the top card of the mansion that you either defeat the infected and add it as a decoration to your character, or not defeat it is placed on the bottom of the mansion deck. So, any infected effects that trigger on not being defeated would only do so after being revealed.


text:
Should the basic resources from the first two Resident Evil boxes be combined?
Both the base set of Resident Evil and the Alliance expansion are standalone games, and come with a complete set of the basic resources (Ammunition, Handguns, Knives and Herbs).  I know that the Mansion cards of both sets can be combined and played together if you want a longer game (the Daykiller), but the rules don't appear to specify what to do about the basic resources themselves.
Does combining the piles from the two sets unbalance the game?  Should the basic resources from both sets be combined, or only one set used while playing?

The Resident Evil:DBG rules don't specify because you are not supposed to combine the other cards, just the mansion cards.

Advanced Note 5: The Day-Killer - Feel like Resident Evil™ action all day long? Combine the Mansions from Set 1 and 2 and rejoice in the Infected hunting fun! The game ends when both “Albert Wesker” and “Uroboros Aheri” have been defeated.

It is your game, so you can play it however you like. Officially though, you are only supposed to combine the Mansion Cards for the Day-Killer variant.
As for what effect this might have, and if it would be any unbalancing, it depends.
A common tactic in a four player version of the game it to buy up the Ammo x30 (and sometimes Ammo x20) cards before your opponents have the ability to draw into a hand with enough cash to buy those cards themselves. This will deny them from buying the really expensive weapons in a particular 18 pile distribution. If you double the Ammo cards from fifteen to thirty copies, this tactic probably won't be possible.
Normally, there is only one Burst-Fire Handgun, and one Survival Knife. Players with additional buys have a greater chance of picking up those weapons for their own use, or to deny them from other players that might benefit from them more (i.e. Jack Krauser). Having multiple copies of the Survival Knife in the Basic Resources makes it harder to deny Jack Krauser at least one Survival Knife. If Jack happens to get two copies of the knife, things could get even worse. This is of course somewhat balanced by the fact that there are now twice as many regular knifes that Jack has to cycle through before he gets to the special one.
The other Basic Resources Green Herb and Ammo x10 will have little effect on the game when doubling their number.


text:
Can items and Tokens still be claimed from the Mansion even if the character is defeated?
If a player explores the Mansion with more than one Explore (ie: +1 Explore from a Shotgun), they normally have the option to draw more than one card and resolve them both at the same time.  While this is fairly straightforward when both cards drawn are Infected, the situation when one of the cards is an Item or a Token is not quite as clear.
At what point would the Item/Token be resolved?  Is it immediately after the card is revealed, as would be the case if it was a single draw?  Or maybe it would be after the Infected itself is defeated.  Or maybe it's just after the Infected is battled, win or lose, so long as the player doesn't die.
I'm leaning towards the "just don't die" interpretation myself, but the rulebook is not particularly clear (I only have the base set to refer to, not sure if it's been clarified in the expansions).

You would apply the effect of any [Token][Item][Event], or any other Non-Infected card when it is revealed, before defeating or failing to defeat the infected. You resolve combat only after applying the effects of the Non-Infected cards.
The official Rules say:

Non-Infected Cards
Sometimes Events can be found when Exploring the Mansion instead of an Infected. In this case, When the Event is revealed, perform the effect listed on the card.

There is also the Comprehensive FAQ (which appears to be answered mostly by Alex_Bandai, who I assume is a Bandai Representative):

If I am defeated can I still collect Tokens or Items reveled?
Yes, you collect all tokens and items as soon as you discover them.


text:
How can I tell the difference between early Magic: The Gathering card editions?
I have a few Magic: The Gathering cards whose editions I'm having trouble identifying. They are obviously from either Alpha or Beta, since they have black borders and the same design as the Unlimited edition, but how can I distinguish between both editions?

ALPHA cards are black bordered and have very very rounded edges (2mm radius) compared to all other kinds of magic cards (1mm radius). Just pick up a black bordered card and overlay them on top of each other. If the corners are VERY different then you have ALPHA, otherwise you have BETA.
There are several cards that were corrected between alpha and beta and can be used to instantly identify extremely worn cards. As cited on Wikipedia

Circle of Protection: Black was accidentally omitted from Alpha.
Cyclopean Tomb had no casting cost, instead of a casting cost of 4.
Death Ward incorrectly credited Dan Frazier as the artist rather than Mark Poole.
Elvish Archers had its power/toughness listed as 1/2 rather than 2/1.
Force of Nature was printed with the letter G in its text box rather than the green mana symbol, and the artist's name was spelled incorrectly.
Orcish Artillery had a casting cost of 1R rather than 1RR.
Orcish Oriflamme had a casting cost of 1R rather than 3R.
Phantasmal Forces was printed with the letter U in its text box rather than the blue mana symbol.
Red Elemental Blast was printed as an instant rather than an interrupt, making half of its ability unplayable under the rules of the time.
Sedge Troll incorrectly credited Jeff A. Menges as the artist rather than Dan Frazier.
Volcanic Island was accidentally omitted from Alpha.

One set that recently came to my attention that is not identified on the identification chart for English cards (see below) is called "Alternate 4th Edition".
More info about those cards can be found at The Magic Librarities, here are the main points:

This set is only available in starter decks. Their ISBN is 1-880992-26-4 instead of 1-880992-25-6.
The back of the Alternate Fourth Edition cards feel glossy, very much different from normal Magic Cards.
Alternate Fourth Edition cards do not glow under ultraviolet light, while normal cards do.
Alternate Fourth Edition cards have a darker blue colour at the top of the letter A from the word MAGIC while normal cards have a light blue colour.
The printing pattern is very different. Regular cards have a hexagon pattern, while Alternate 4th Edition cards have an indiscernible pattern.

This Magic Set Identifier flowchart will help you determine the set of English cards up to about 2001, beyond there it's fairly easy to identify from the set symbol on the card. Thanks to Hackworth for providing an up to date url for it!
There is an updated version of that flowchart that includes foreign language cards as well. While identifying English cards is relatively easy, there are some difficulties with other languages, especially with German Revised White Border Cards (aka "Unlimitierte Edition" (unlimited edition) - not to be confused with the Unlimited set!). Some of them are almost undistinguishable from Fourth Edition cards.
The Green Disenchant Project has some more in-depth information and scans that may help identify such cards.

Does this graph apply to non-English cards?

@John I have no knowledge of non-English printings.

All of my Unhinged have a silver border and show a horseshoe (U). Not sure how difficult it is to edit the flow chart, as they are nowhere listed on your chart and you have a 2nd cracked egg emblem (unglued) listed under the white border section as a Battle Royale (reprint).

Unhinged came out in 2004 - the chart only appears to cover sets released up to ~2001 (Apocalypse, released May 2001, is present, but Odyssey, released the following October, is not).
Fortunately, by then Wizards was better about consistently putting expansion symbols on cards, so it's a lot easier to figure out what set they're from.

@John It does not apply to non-English cards...because the earliest sets don't exist in any other language.  Revised was the first set to have a release in any language other than English.


text:
What are the changes in the Revised Edition of Curse of the Dark Pharaoh?
I recently picked up a copy of the Miskatonic Horror expansion. In the rules, it says

Note: Miskatonic Horror is designed to be used with the revised edition of The Curse of the Dark Pharaoh. If using the original edition ... (that is, if the expansion does not say "Revised Edition" on the lid of the box), use only the new Exhibit Item cards.

This is the first I've heard of a "Revised Edition", and I'm a little annoyed that my version of the expansion (which I got quite recently) isn't fully compatible.
What are the differences between the original and revised versions of The Curse of the Dark Pharaoh? Was the original substantially broken in some way(s)? Is it really worth buying a second time?

I don't have my two sets in front of me to give a direct card-by-card comparison (I can do that later if desired), but here's roughly the differences between the two sets.
The original edition of CotDP has 'Barred from X' cards, where X is a neighborhood. An Investigator gets one of those, they can't go into the relevant neighborhood until the terror level increases and the Barred card goes away. The revised edition replaced them with 'Patrol' markers. When a patrol marker is in a neighborhood, all investigators that pass through a patrolled street must sneak through or be arrested. Similarly, Patrol markers go away when the terror level increases.
A new mechanic to the expansion is the 'Whispering Exhibit' encounters. There's a marker on the board in a street area. If an investigator is in that street area during encounters, they have a Whispering Exhibit encounter. This usually gives the Investigator an opportunity to get an Exhibit Item by passing some sort of check. Then, pass or fail, the encounter specifies a street area to move the Whispering Exhibit marker to. If no one has a Whispering Exhibit encounter during a turn, the marker moves as a moon monster.
There are also a significant number of card changes. Most, if not all, of the benefit/detriment cards have been re-written to provide different effects. Some Mythos and encounter cards have been rewritten in a effort to be clearer. A good portion of the Exhibit Items effects have been changed, especially the Masks. Most of the Allies have been reworked as well, they no longer provide +2 to 2 different combat states. The Messenger now gives a -1 to everything! Some spells have been changed as well. Plague of Locusts now returns a single monster to the cup rather than weaken everything in the neighborhood.
The cards in the Miskatonic expansion that are meant for the revised edition are additional Whispering Exhibit encounter cards.
As to whether or not the expansion is worth purchasing, I think the revised edition is better than the original. One of my (and many other people's) biggest complaints about the AH expansions is that certain mechanics get severely diluted once you mix in more than one expansion. With the Original edition, as you added in more expansions, the odds you would see an encounter that would mention an exhibit item (let alone actually getting one out of it) would plummet. The Whispering Exhibit mechanic rounds that out nicely; They're always available. Personally, I also thought that the allies in the Original edition of the game were too strong and was glad to see them toned down. The Barred from neighborhood cards were also rarely important. It was rare that one would show up, and it only affected a single investigator. Patrol markers still have to be triggered by encounters, sure, but they only create a minor obstacle for the entire team rather than completely preventing someone being useful in a given neighborhood.


text:
Can a toilet be covered if the votes are tied in Drunter und Drüber?
In the game Drunter und Drüber a tile that covers a toilet must be voted on by all players. The rules say that the tile is placed if the yes votes exceed the no votes, and the tile is not places if the no votes exceed the yes votes.  But what if the votes are equal?
We ruled that in that case the tile is not placed, but the rules are not clear on this.

On a tie vote, the Yes votes carry.
Mayfair Games released this game as Wacky Wacky West, on their website is a play demonstration/rules explanation video.
At about 3:15 the voting is explained and contains this:

If there are more yes votes than no votes or if it's a tie the tile is played and the outhouse is destroyed.

On BoardGameGeek, there is a file uploaded entitled Rule clarification - tied voting which has:

The German rules state the following:
"Ueberwiegen die Ja-Stimmen oder waren Nein- und Ja-Stimmen gleich stark, bleibt das Plaettchen ueber dem Toilettenhaeuschen liegen."
This can be translated as follows: If there are more "Ja" votes than "Ne" votes, or if the "Ja" and "Ne" votes are equally strong, the tile remains in place.

I found some rules here.
Wow, here's some tricky wording.  Emphasis mine for this quote:

If there are more yes votes than no votes then the player lays the tile in the normal way. If however the number of no votes beats the yes votes then the player returns the tile to his hand.

It clearly says "Yes > No" to place the tile. However, it doesn't actually say "No > Yes;" rather, it says "No beats Yes".
My interpretation of that is that the number of yes votes must be strictly greater than the no votes to cover a toilet; otherwise, including on a tie, the nos have it.

That was my idea too. The Yes = No is not covered in the rules.

I have read the rules in three languages, original German and two translation.
But besides the rules, the ties placing the tile makes much more sense.
Note that the "abstain" vote is the only one that comes back.
Imagine everyone voting aggressively, using up all their vote cards within the first few turns. The game has barely started, and all players have used up all their voting cards, except for "abstain". So, from that point on, every vote is a tie, and the game would be unusable, unless ties place the tile.

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


text:
Masters of Venice - On Delivering Guild Orders
In the game Masters of Venice, what happen if after I have delivered a Guild Order, and upon drawing a new one, I still have enough goods to meet the newly drawn order?
According to the rules, I still take VP and adjust the prices of good as in my first order. However, do I count the second order as a new separate order (hence perhaps giving me more VP than the first order)?
And what does it meant by in the rules that "You do not get to deliver the order" in such cases?

There's an errata posted on BoardGameGeek that corrects the rules about delivering Guild Orders, and an updated set of rules (from the publisher's site, also available on BGG) which includes the correction. According to the errata and the new rules with the errata included, you do indeed count the second order as a new order, and thus get more VPs than the first gave you.

• On page 8 under Guild Hall replace the last
  paragraph with the one below:
IMPORTANT! – If you have just delivered a Guild
  Order, then picked a new Guild Order and happen
  to have the Resources with you to fill it, you may
  turn them in immediately. Adjust prices and Orders,
  and collect VP’s, as described above.

This is also confirmed by the designer in a thread on BoardGameGeek:

Brian has it correct, the guild orders are placed in front of you to track how many you have completed. The value of the delivery increases for each you deliver. Hence, 3 for the first card delivered, 4 for the second, 5 for the third and 6 thereafter. Let's say you deliver two at the same time, and they happen to be your 2nd and 3rd cards delivered, you would thus receive 9 on that delivery of two cards.

I do not have the original rules before the correction, so I don't know what it said; in particular, in the updated version, I see nothing about "you do not get to deliver the order," so I'm assuming that's something that the updated paragraph has replaced.

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


text:
Is the player being bribed allowed to see how much cash is offered?
In Power Struggle, to bribe a player, you put money secretly in a folder and pass it to the player you want to bribe.
Can the player who is being bribed see how much is offered?
If not, what is the point of offering more than 50,000?
If yes, what is the point of secrecy?

The player who is being bribed can see the offer (in page 11 of the manual, the example shows that the player sees the offer). However, other players cannot see it and then it is secret from them.


text:
In Troyes, how do use Chivalry and Joust as part of a VP engine?
Chivalry allows you to put one cube on one event card for each red die in your district (excluding the ones you use). Joust operates in the same vein, but requires the total value of the red dice in your district to be higher than everyone's else to gain 2 VP per activation.
However, those 2 activities disregard the red dice you use to activate them, which make those 2 seemingly less useful than Troubadour, Pilgrimage, Journeyman, Goldsmith and Sculptor for VP engine.
Also considering that one citizen at the palace costs 2 coin to upkeep, and it's easy to be expelled.
What's the best way to use those 2 cards as VP engine?

Chivalry by itself is difficult to be a good VP engine. Its strength lies in that you can distribute the cubes anywhere so it can help you gain fight events regardless of the typical dice color. As you noted in your question, the challenge with Chivalry is that it it gives you a cube for each red die you have left after the cost is paid. Since you typically lose 2 to 3 red dice just battling events, it can be hard to effectively defeat events this way.
As the previous answer suggested, this can give you some good end game points if you spread out the cubes and get the 1 VP credit for having a cube per event card at the end of the game.
Where I've seen Chivalry used extremely effectively is with the Captain which gives you that same bonus when activated. If you have a good number of cubes spread out on event cards and activate the Captain multiple times you can have a powerful VP engine.
Joust took me a bit to fully understand, but this one can be a very good source of VPs. The key to remember is that you don't need to have the highest # of red dice (after you've paid to activate it), but instead the highest total of pips on the red dice you have left. This means that if there are 2 red dice left and you have one that has only 1 pip and an opponent has one that has 3 or more pips, you can buy that die from them and activate Joust and score your VPs. Also b/c it only costs 3 to activate, this is one that you can activate multiple times fairly easy.
One last thing to consider is the VPs you get for being first or second to purchase. Chivalry only pays 2 for the 1st player and 1 for the 2nd player. Joust pays 3 for the 1st and 2 for the 2nd. So if Joust first position is available and you can get the dice to make it work, I'd strongly consider it.

Since you are considering using these activities, I will assume you have a decent amount of red dice (3/4) and a decent denier engine that allows you to support them. Here's my two cents:
At 4 pips per activation, Chivalry is an expensive Activity card to use, especially since you have to use your remaining red dice to determine the amount of cubes you can place in the Event cards. And since most Event cards require at least three cubes to defeat, using them as a VP engine may not be your best choice; it may be more cost-effective to counter the Event cards directly.
Having said so, using Chivalry can set you up to score a bunch of VPs on a future turn, since you can place these cubes on different Event cards, and get the majority/ preferential spot on more than one (whereas attacking them directly limits you to placing all your cubes on the same card).
Joust, at 3 pips, is more likely to be useful, and it guarantees you are getting the VPs you want. There's only six red dice on the board, so as long as you have a decent red roll (or spend Influence points to re-roll/flip) you are likely to have the red pip majority on your section of the board.
You should always buy a red die from another player for 2 deniers so you can use your total red pip count to activate Joust (and if you buy it from a player who has red pip majority, it puts you back on top). Hopefully you can do this several times in a row (once no one else has red dice, you can start using your own red dice to activate the card; you'll still have majority!).
As always, the Activity cards combination will greatly affect the strategy you have to follow in order to win the game. Without knowing what other Activity cards are revealed, it's hard to say this plan will work for you 100% of the time.
For example, if the Blacksmith Activity card is in play (which adds 5 pips to your red dice selection), then you are pretty much guaranteed to have the greatest amount of red pips on the table, so you should definitely follow this plan (as long as you are the one who activates it!). However, if that one isn't in play and there's no easy way to get Influence points, you probably won't want to spend them to re-roll your red dice, and you will be stuck with whatever roll you get, which may diminish the effectiveness of this strategy.
YMMV


text:
Any defense against the forum cards in Roma?
My friend and I have played about a dozen games of Roma, and it seems pretty consistent that the player with the most forum cards wins. They're just the fastest way to collect victory points. Has anybody successfully fought back against a player who has more forum cards?

Mercator is usually a sure fire way to beat a forum machine, but there are defenses against that too.  (Siccarius and Gladiator both do very well.)  If you Haruspex the Mercator and you have a Consiliarius and/or Scaenicus in play you can usually win handily against a forum machine.  This will usually force your opponent to play offensive with Legionarius and the like.  (The money you use to buy VP can quickly turn against you if your opponent gets decent draws - but they have to realize it and stop spending their action dice on VPs and draw cards or else they will likely lose.)
The Mercatus though isn't so good since you only get points for the # of forums your opponent has, while your opponent is typically generating more VP than they have forums on average.  It could be good in some situations but I personally have never seen it shine.
(Forgive my spelling of card names, I don't have them at hand to verify.)

We thought Mercator seemed to be the best option, but combining it with Haruspex, Consiliarius, and Scaenicus makes it more effective. Thanks for the advice.

I played hundrets of plays with a friend in Roma and we propose: there are too many Forums.
The perfect number of Forums is 4.
Then is the balance:

they don't appear so often,
you're usually prepared if opponent puts down the Forum,
it is also much more common to try to beat the oponents down to 0 VP,
The game is much more versatile.

If you play with 3 or less Forums:

Then usually one tries to eliminate opponent's VPs.
Game is much more agressive
One always think twice before laying down the Forum card.
Usually it ends on one use of Forum, because the opponent usually crushes
Forum with:

Machina (+Essedum)
Legionarius (+Essedum)
Centurio
Nero is always sure. Also delays the oponent before lying down the Forum.

If you play with 5 forums is also ok, but it tends to be biased to the Rush-for-all-VPs side. 6 is, as you noticed, mainly about getting all the points.
So I highly recommend 4 of the Forum cards.


text:
Which of these rules for a Scrabble first turn play are official?
I've played scrabble with different groups of people and their rules on first turns vary a lot.  The rules I've seen used are:

Double score for first turn (Scrabble rules confirms this and is the first thing a scrabble player learns)
The word's middle letters have to be dead-center. ("JUG"'s "U" must be in the middle of the board)
You can only play a word horizontally. (Never seen this in writing but noticed that I haven't seen anyone play vertically either.)

Which of these are official?

I think the "horizontal" rule doesn't actually make any gameplay difference for the first play due to the board's symmetry.

Like you said, the center tile counts as a Double Word Score tile, so whoever plays first gets double the points.  That is an official rule.
The second and third rules mentioned are house rules, and are not supported in the Scrabble rules.  The second rule would prevent you from hitting one of the adjacent Double Letter Score spaces, as even a 7 letter word wouldn't be long enough to reach it, since they are 5 spaces away.
Even the most recent Scrabble Tournament rules clearly indicate that the first word played must simply cover the center tile, and be spelled top-to-bottom or left-to-right.

Agree - a letter from the first word must be on the center square.  Other than that, position or direction should be up to the player.

LittleBobbyTales is correct about the tournament rules.
Beyond what he has said, (in tournament rules) if the first player for one reason or another accidentally does not make their first play across the center tile and then hits their clock (signaling the end of their turn), the second player has the option to point this out and make the first player remove the play and play again or accept the play.  If the play stands, the first play is not doubled, but it is scored according to whatever premium squares that it covers.  The second player may then play across the center star, earning a double word score.  In this sense, the center star is exactly like a Double Word Score square.  This does actually happen occasionally in tournaments, sometimes leading to a rare "triple-double," where the second player plays an 8 letter word from the Triple Word Score on the edge of the board to the center star, through the first word, garnering a six times word score.
It should also be pointed out that it is often good Scrabble strategy to play the first word off-centered from the center star (i.e. contrary to the second bullet point).  Tournament Scrabble players specifically study 5-letter words with high point tiles at the beginning or the end in order to play them with the high point tile on the Double Letter Score five squares away from the center star.  Also, it is good technique to avoid putting vowels next to the Double Letter Score squares in the rows above and below the center star row (or to the left and right, if the word is played vertically).  This avoids the danger of having the second player make a parallel play with a high point letter on the Double Letter Score, garnering four times the value of that letter.
Finally, a number of tournament players play their first word vertically, but the majority don't.  It makes no difference, particularly in a casual game, since the board is symmetric, but some tournament players do it to throw their opponent off of their rhythm.

As mentioned, only the first rule is an official rule.
The third rule makes no difference whatsoever, because the board is symmetric.
I find the second (center your word) rule problematic in casual play. It seems like casual players often find it easier to play "to the right, and down", so I try to play my first word so that it ends on the star square. That way, the other players can work in the apparently "more natural" direction.
I think it's much easier for the average person to come up with a list of words starting with K, as opposed to a list of words ending in K, for example.

If one has the first turn, but not able to play (all consonants or exchanges tiles), is it not who ever plays on the center pink square nets the double word score, not necessarily the first turn?

Yes, I believe that's the case. The first word played has to use the star square, and therefore, gets the double word score.

I try to play so that my first word starts on the star square - for exactly the same reasons you mention. If my opponents find this difficult to deal with, then they clearly require more practice doing so. ;-)


text:
Good opening questions for Adventurers in Are You the Traitor?
Many people complain, when they first try Are You the Traitor?, that they don't know where to start; a lot of people will just sit there and think about it, without saying anything, or will accidentally reveal their role quickly by the questions they ask or fail to ask.
What are some good opening questions or strategies for getting the ball rolling, if you're a guard, traitor, or keyholder? While you have different goals in all of those cases, you're trying not to reveal that, so your opening questions or discussion should probably be the same regardless of which role you take. The same question could be asked for the wizards, but for the purpose of this question, lets restrict it to the Adventurers.
If you're an Adventurer, what are good ways to start the game and get the ball rolling?

There's the obivious one...
"Are you the Traitor?"
I find that newbies especially, will telegraph their own identity by their behaviour in the first 20 seconds.
Asking about the traitor ===>  Guard.
Asking about the wizards ===>  Keyholder.
etc.
So my suggestion for your own personal strategy is to form a habit (and importantly, be seen to form a habit) of always asking the same question (be it "Are you the traitor" or "Are you the keyholder") to all players in the same order.  This stops them from gaining information from your question or question ordering.  What you want to do is watch the reactions.  For example, if you ask if Alice is the Keyholder, and she answers with an uncertain no, and Bob lights up and glances at the 2 wizards, its usually safe to accuse Bob of being the traitor (because he knows the keyholder, and now needs to signal evil wizard).  The key to that game is not the question, or the answer;  its regulating the flow of information by amassing as much for yourself as possible without revealing any of what you already know.  Your goal is not necessarily to discover your target;  your goal is to possess the sum of the public knowledge, while maintaining your monopoly rights on your private knowledge.


text:
How well does the Axis & Allies Chess variant work?
My curiosity in this variant was piqued by this comment in my 'Games that have no element of luck' thread.
I'd love to read an expanded explanation of the rule changes and peoples experience (positive or negative) with them.

Axis & Allies Chess Rules
Okay, I finally found the link to the website with the original A&A Chess rules. To be honest I didn't play this variant much, but it seemed apropos to the original post about luckless games so I mentioned it. From my limited experience I can concur with the inventor's comments: although it looks identical to normal A&A they really are very different games.
A&A Chess is about deciding how to position units to make them the most versatile: most able to contribute in an effective way on multiple fronts. It's about hiding your true attacking power by attacking with units based in multiple territories (i.e. using units your opponent didn't realize could reach) or by feinting one attack while intending all the while to make another (Calais v. Normandy?). In this way, the base strategies of Chess and A&A Chess are similar, although the mechanics have nothing in common except a board.
I've found that there are two main reasons why people don't end up liking A&A Chess:

They decided to play it because they'd been screwed by the dice too many times and are expecting this game to be normal A&A without bad rolls; it's not (see above).
Analysis paralysis. This is really a symptom of a certain style of player. Trying to understand the outcome of large, multi-round battles requires Rainman-like intuition or a lot of mental math. If you're playing with someone who's going to crunch numbers for 20 minutes before a battle then you're going to get bored.

My preferred answer to both issues is also suggested on the site and goes by the name Low-Luck Axis and Allies. This variant still grants a hit for every six attack or defense points, but allows players to roll a single dice against their remainders. In statistical terms, LL A&A tightens up the variance around the expected result (i.e. reduces the potential influence of the random dice rolls). For mathematical reasons best explained on another stack exchange site, LL's effects are most noticeable in small battles, where a couple bad rolls can make a huge difference.
My advice is that if you're frustrated with bad dice rolling and just want to smooth out chance, go for LL A&A. If you're looking for a complicated and well-nigh impossible to optimize luckless war game then go with A&A Chess.


text:
Mystery of the Abbey - How to track clues over time?
If I have Novice Gerard in my hand early in the game, and quickly learn that player A has one Templar Novice crossed off and player B has one Templor Novice crossed off, I know I can eliminate all three Templar Novices.
...However, if I learn early in the game that player A has one Templar Novice crossed off, and then learn 15 minutes later that player B also has one crossed off, I need to somehow deduce whether they have the same Novice eliminated, or two different ones.  It would be helpful if I could look at my sheet and determine how old my previous clue was, and whether or not these players have had the chance to share this information with each other or not.  (Obviously, this is a simplified example, but hopefully you get the point.)
With a sheet covered in markings, it's easy to lose track of where and when I learned each piece of information, and this sometimes affects how I can interpret a new clue.  How do you go about tracking whether a clue on your sheet is "stale" or "fresh"?

What I do in games such as these is to make use of the directions my opponents face.  So, on the box for each monk, the player across from me will get the top-center of the box, while the player to my left gets the lower left of the box.  My notes will go in the appropriate location of the box for each player.  As for tracking the card movements, it's best to assume that knowledge is always shared, even if it wasn't, so the elimination note will pass from player A to player B anytime they exchange information.  This allows you to ask questions that you're SURE will leas to new information (if the question is answered as you hope), instead of possibly redundant information.

My answer is that it's not actually possible, and as a result my single playing was sufficient.
I was really disappointed because it's a beautiful game with a lot of neat ideas. If it was also a real deduction game I'd like it much more.


text:
Increasing engagement in Crack the Case
I thorougly enjoy playing the Milton Bradley game Crack the Case with friends.

For smaller groups (up to 5 people), I find that without teams or keeping track of time or points is already more fun than playing according to the rules. For years, I've played simply by taking turns playing the storyteller. Especially if children are joining in, we'll award the storyteller role to the person who asked the "bingo!" question.
In bigger groups, however, I've found that this style is too chaotic, and I'd prefer to go back to more of a team-based strategy. The conventional rules literally have one team sitting around waiting as only one of the members play the role of storyteller. Does anybody have any suggestions for increasing group engagement while playing in groups of six or more?

Simultaneous cards.
Seriously, why can't both teams go in separate rooms and each of them try to either solve the same card or different cards of the same difficulty? Whichever team solves theirs first, wins. That way, you have more engagement.


text:
How does DeGray's Pilebunker chip work when trashing Gems of size 2+?
In Puzzle Strike, the "Pilebunker" chip says:

Opponents reveal their hands, trash their largest [Gem chip], then you gain that many [1 Gems chip]s.

How does this work when trashing 2-Gem, 3-Gem, or 4-Gem chips?
More specific example: if it's a 2 player game and I play Pilebunker, and my opponent trashes a 4-Gem chip, which do i gain?

1 1-Gem chip, or
4 1-Gem chips?

Edit: As per @lilserf's answer, I had misread the tile completely.  A full list of tiles can be found here. And here is what the chip actually says:

You don't gain anything!
Pilebunker's actual wording is:

Opponents reveal their hands, trash their largest [Gem chip], then gain that many [1 Gem chip]s.

Note that it's "then gain", not "then you gain" - each opponent gains the 1-Gems.
Pilebunker effectively splits their biggest gem in their hand into 1-gems, diluting their deck.

Wow, if that's true then both me and a friend both misread the tile completely.

I too played this one wrong today. We went back and forth discussing possible interpretations, and decided that just breaking up the opponents' gems didn't seem powerful enough, and that it must be conferring some transfer of benefit to the holder. Of course, I wound up losing that game anyway -- perhaps for having too many 1-gems in my own hand.

Yeah, breaking the opponent's gems actually turns out to be INCREDIBLY annoying and plenty powerful, though it doesn't seem so at first.


text:
Can allies interact with mission tokens?
I'm playing a mission with Luke Skywalker as an ally and the mission requires that I pick up 'X' mission tokens and carry them to a location on the map.
According to the rules:

Rebel allies are not heroes. During their activation, they
  cannot interact with crates or rest. Rebel allies can perform
  only one attack each activation, and follow all other rules for
  non-hero figures.

I can't seem to find the "all other rules for non-hero figures" part.
Does this mean that Luke (or another Ally) can pick up mission tokens?

I've never played the game, but it seems as though the rules consistently refer to either "figures" or "non-hero figures". So a hero is a special kind of figure.
Some quotes from the rules:

During a figure’s activation, it may perform two actions. The available actions are Attack, Move, Interact, Rest, and Special.
  [...]
  A figure can perform the same action multiple times during the same activation except as follows:
  - A non-hero figure can use only one of its actions to perform an attack per activation.
  - A figure can perform each special action only once per activation.
  [...]
  Rebel allies are not heroes. During their activation, they cannot interact with crates or rest. Rebel allies can perform only one attack each activation, and follow all other rules for non-hero figures.
  [...]
  Some missions allow figures to retrieve specific tokens. A figure adjacent to or in the same space as the token can perform an interact to retrieve the token. Place the token on the figure’s base to mark that the figure is now carrying that token. The token now moves with the figure.
  [...]
  During a campaign, each Rebel player controls a hero. The word “Hero” is used to refer to hero figures, the player controlling the figure, and all of the associated components.

Since it says 'figures' in the piece about mission tokens, and does not exclude 'non-hero figures', I'd say a non-hero figure can collect mission tokens.

In particular, many mission rules specify “Rebel figures may X” or “Heroes may_X_,” which I think is clear: Luke is a Rebel figure, but not a Hero.


text:
With both Seafarers and Cities & Knights expansions, how many victory points should I play to?
I've recently gotten Cities & Knights and plan to play it with my existing Seafarers of Catan expansion once I get the hang of it.  Looking through the manuals for both Seafarers of Catan and Catan: Cities & Knights, I can't find how many victory point should I play to when combining the expansions.
Both expansions can be played together, but it doesn't say how many victory points to play to.  I assume since Cities & Knights increases the number of victory points you play on the base settlers map, it would do the same for the Seafarers maps, but I can't find a reference for this.
When playing a Seafarers Scenario with Cities & Knights, do you play to the number of victory points for the scenario, or do you increase the number of victory points you play too?

I'd caution against doing this.  I love both expansions (especially C&K), but the one game I tried with both was just too bogged down and lost focus.

The rules for Seafarers (pdf) do not address combining the two expansions. The rules for Cities and Knights (pdf) do address combining the two games (page 13), warning that only certain scenarios work well, and providing rules for things like how to treat ships as roads and how a knight can chase away the pirate. They do not, however, specify how many victory points to play to. The FAQ on combining the two expansions addresses a few questions, but not the victory point question.
There is a thread on BoardGameGeek about combining the two expansions, in which two separate people mention that the official rule is to add 2 victory points to the Seafarers scenario if you're playing with Cities and Knights. According to Daniel Johnson:

Also, Klaus Teuber's website has a FAQ at http://www.klausteuber.com/en/index.php?page=seefahrer_staedte_und_ritter.html with a few questions that might not be answered by the Almanac.
...
2. The victory point goal should be 2 more than in the Seafarers scenario.

Sadly, the site linked to seems to have been reorganized, and that link just redirects to the home page of catan.com. However, this seems to be the best answer that is available so far; to add two victory points to the conditions listed in the Seafarers scenario.
I have never tried this, as I tend to prefer not to combine expansions in games. I find that in general, combining too many expansions makes a game bog down too much. I love Seafarers, and find Cities and Knights nice too, but combining them would just add too many extra things to think about, and too many confusing interactions (like this one) that need to be answered in separate rules, FAQs, and the like.

I've noticed the omission from the rules books, hence why I asked the question.  Even with my limited play of Cities & Knights, I've noticed it does slow the game down.  I can see why people prefer not to combine the expansion because of the game length issue.  I'm willing to try it, but I will make sure this is a large mass, ever on random maps.

@ICodeForCoffee Yeah, you mentioned the rule books, but I wanted to be thorough about looking for any official sources for the answer, and documenting their failure to provide an answer, before referring to BGG. I also thought it was worth checking the online rules, in case they were newer than what you had and had been updated with the answer.

Some of these links to the Catan website are now dead. See my newly-posted answer; the Catan website now officially supports the "add 2 victory points to the scenario" option.

I'm pretty sure there's no official rule, but increasing the victory point target seems basically mandatory if you want the whole game to develop.

Some of the links in other answers are obsolete; the re-designed Catan website now has a whole section for combining expansions, including the following under Combining Seafarers with "Cities & Knights" Expansion:

The number of victory points specified for each scenario should be increased by 2.

I have played with both these expansions ever since I started playing. We have always played to 13 victory points and it has worked very well.

I would say 16.
The reason is we use the rule to increase the amount by 3 for each expansion.
In this case, you use both so 10 + 3 + 3 = 16.

Welcome to B&CG!  Do you have a source for this answer?


text:
Constantinopolis Taberna Building
I have just completed playing Constantinopolis(BGG) for the first time and there is a rule that I think requires clarification. The Taberna utility building (Reseller) is used for purchasing goods of a type you already produce. The section of the rules quotes this as:

The owner of this building can buy goods from the market that he can
  produce.

I read this as I can buy as many goods as I like in accordance with the limitations of the market.
However, the graphic on the building tile (Taberna below) shows a goods cube with a number 1 next to it.

I would associate this symbol meaning either that it can only be used for a single cube, a single cube of each type, or a single type. I can't find any specific clarifications though. Does anyone know the correct rule?

According to this BGG post you were correct in your initial interpretation and the "one" is a misprint:

unfortunately it was a misprint on the Taberna tile. [...] The correct symbol is the one printed on the board, [...] you are not restricted, you can use [the Taberna] as many times as you wish.

So yes, the rules are correct. You can buy any goods that you would not otherwise be able to buy (because you can produce them), but within the limitations of the current market.


text:
Typo in the Women's Health Clinic, Richville, MD card?
We dug out my old X-Files CCG cards to play tonight, and in the process of playing, came across the card "Women's Health Clinic, Richville, MD".
Card Stats:
WOMENʹS HEALTH CLINIC, RICHVILLE, MD
XF97‐0380v2 ‐‐ Rare
Episode: End Game
Site ‐‐ Cost: 2 RP
Keywords: Site, Mono, Result, Subterfuge
Prerequisite: SUBTERFUGE 4+
Question: You may ask one MOTIVE question.

Sites have keywords, which other cards can then play against.  This card has the keywords Site, Mono, Result, Subterfuge, but lets you ask a Motive question.  In the base set as well as the first expansion, if a site had Motive as the question, it would have Motive in its set of keywords.
Here is a sample of a site that makes sense (picture is a little blurry):

However, the "Women's Health Clinic, Richville, MD" card has Result as a keyword, but you can ask a Motive question.  I can either assume 1 of 3 things:

The keywords should actually be Site, Mono, Motive, Subterfuge (third keyword matches the question asked)
The question asked should actually be Result (to match the current third keyword)
This is actually by design; while allowing you to ask a Motive question, it allows players to play Result-specific cards on the site instead.

We played the card as printed (you can ask a Motive question, but Result cards can be played on it), but the card threw us for a loop.  Does anyone have any information if this is actually a typo of sorts, or by design?
(A spoiler of the cards can currently be found here in PDF format for those interested)

That card says, "You may ask one Method question," not "Motive."

Your logic is undeniable, and it seems by all accounts to be a mistake.
ALL other cards that allows questions have the question type as a keyword. Seems like this one slipped through their fingers.


text:
Learning to count cards
In many games, it can be extremely helpful to know what cards have already been played and/or the number left in any given suit.
What are good ways to learn to count the cards played (especially in a game such as pinochle where you cannot inspect your taken-trick pile to see at least what you've claimed out of the hand)?

There are many different systems for card counting.
All of them involve adding a number to the count if a card you don't like(e.g., a low card) is played(since that increases the amount of high cards left in the deck) and you subtract a number from the count when a high card is played (since this decreases the number of high cards in the deck). The systems vary however in how much is added/subtracted for each cards. Depending on what are the most profitable cards in the deck you might want to choose one system over another. The system that only involve adding/subtracting 1 from the count are much easier to learn and to apply in games since it is less information to keep track of.
Important to note is of course that most of these systems are originally developed for Blackjack, and might or might not work very well on other card games.
Wikipedia has an excellent article on card-counting. I'd suggest reading this. To practice card counting, the most easy way is just to go through a few decks multiple times a day looking at the top card, saying the new count out loud, and then drawing the next top card. You have to be able to do this as fast as possible without making mistakes.
Also, if you like entertaining stories:
Bringing Down the House is a story(which really happened) about people winning HUGE amounts of money from card counting in Blackjack, and the troubles they faced.(There also is a movie adaption called 21, but the book is much better.)

When I used to play Bridge regularly, I started out simply by keeping track of suit counts.  How many have been played from each suit.  I then added counts for Aces and Kings, keeping track of those on top of the suit counts.  I then expanded into tracking all of the trump suit, and followed by tracking the remaining suits.  If you play regularly and take a gradual approach, it will eventually become second nature, but it does require regular play.

TL;DR For euchre, memorize the suits in the same order every time and remember the boss cards in each suit plus all trump cards.
For counting in Euchre, which I think is pretty easy to get started with, I started by making sure that I could count down the maximum number of trump that could be available as the tricks progress.  I only subtract cards played and don't deduct the cards in my hand until I play them.  It's too easy to subtract them twice unless you get in to that habit right from the start.
Then I started keeping track of which trump are potentially available.  I started by keeping track of the highest (boss) trump that could be out there.  Even at the hardest, 7 out there and I have none (though I usually just ride these out and don't worry about counting) left-right-ace-king-queen-10-9 can rattle around in my head pretty easily and now I can forget about counting the 7 because I have the list that I can count if I need to.
I started expanding this once I got good at it, to the suits with aces outstanding. At worst, now I'm thinking suit-suit-suit-left-right-ace-king-queen-10-9.
Once I got really good at keeping this in my head, through practice, I noticed that I keep track of the suits in my head in the same order every time.  Now, instead of tracking the suits with aces left, I switched to tracking the boss for each suit and all the trump ending up at boss-left-right-ace-king-queen-10-9-boss-boss (where the trump drifts around in position based on suit).  It's easy to lose track of the off suit boss because they could be thrown out of order, off suit.  (ie if the boss was King and the queen was thrown off suit, then the king was played in the next trick you could be waiting for the queen to come out ...)
10 cards out of the 24 available tracked helps a lot.  I suppose I could shoot for more, but this is usually more than enough.
Depending on your memory, you could try tracking A-K-Q-J of each suit plus all the trump (watch where you count the bowers) ... this would give you 18 of the 24 cards, but I haven't gotten to this level myself.

In pinochle, to make it easier on you and to get you start it. Just count All the Aces first (4 of each) and trump (20 cards in total). Just focus on these cards and as you practice, you will notice that everything else will become easier to count.
As you go, you will find your own way of counting cards. Good luck.

This is good advice.  Counting the 12 non-trump aces and the 20 trump cards in double-deck is going to serve you very well.  But don't wait for the play phase to begin your counting!  Read the auction and the tabled meld.  If someone makes an Aces Around bid in the auction, you can generally assume they are telling the truth and are holding a minimum of one ace in each suit.  This, in most cases, will be evidenced by tabling meld.  Watch EVERYONE's tabled meld and remember as much as you can.  Showing excessive length in a suit can really impact play decisions.  Count as much as you can!


text:
Determining if/when to use trump in the "pre-game" of 2-handed Pinochle
When playing two-handed pinochle, the 'normal' rules of the game are suspended during the initial phase (when melding takes place along with trick taking while depleting the deck of undealt cards).
In other words, you cannot yet renege, you are not penalized for not following suit, you are not forced to out-trump trump, etc.
In this phase of the game, what is the best way to determine if it is a good idea to use trump cards?

There may be other ways to think about this, but for me these are the reasons to play trump during the melding phase:

If you need to start the game with the lead.  If you have a lone Ace or if you have cards in every suit you don't want the other person to start the play because you will lose cards that would otherwise take tricks or may not get into the lead at all.  So you need the last trick in the melding phase - how big a trump to use is the question: I wouldn't use anything higher than a Jack to save a lone Ace because a higher Trump will probably get a counter in the main game anyway.
If you need to meld before it is too late.  If the other person might take the last trick in the melding phase and you don't have an extra 10 of trump then waiting until the last trick to meld your run won't work because you need the trump for the meld so you need to take an earlier trick - and you can probably do it with a low trump if it isn't the last trick.  Even if you do have an extra 10 of trump if your opponent has one of the Aces of trump and you are in the lead then they will take your 10 with their Ace - they get a counter and they keep you from getting your run so it is worth the Ace to them.  It is worth it to take an earlier trick to meld a run or 100 Aces even if you have to use a low trump to do it.
If you need to meld before it is too late.  If you are going to meld 80 kings don't do it after the sixth or seventh trick because you won't have time to use the non-trump kings to take tricks before the phase ends - and if you don't save them in the melding phase you will lose the kings to the opponent's 10s and Aces in the main game.  It is worth it to play a nine or Jack of trump to get the Kings on the table early so that you have time to save them by taking tricks with them.
If your opponent needs to meld before it is too late.  If your opponent decides to play a 10 of trump near the end of the melding phase and you have an extra Ace of trump then play it - you get a counter and they won't get to meld whatever they thought was worth spending a 10 of trump on.  Even if they are leading a low trump or a non-trump Ace it might be worth it to use a nine or Jack of trump to make sure they can't meld.

As always it depends, but if I knew I wasn't going to get a run (or I already melded it) the advice about nine and Jack might extend to King of trump especially if your opponent has both Aces of trump because if they are going to take your King anyway you may as well save it.
Having said all that, using trump in the melding phase is uncommon for me - I only do it in situations where I am confident that the points I am melding or stopping my opponent from melding is larger than the benefit of having that last trump on the last trick of the main game.  My father isn't as cautious and uses trump more often so I guess it depends on who you are.

Excellent answer. I agree. The only rule for me is this: if playing a trump will advantage me more than keeping it, by all means, play it!
It’s a bit rare, but

To win the lead so I can meld points,
On last trick, to gain the lead so I can play lone Aces, provided I know or strongly suspect that they are winners;
If my opponent has signaled in some way that they have a large meld they want to play and my winning the trick will deprive them of the opportunity. (I recently played more than one Trump and blocked my wife from melding a run and Aces…250 points! Her reaction made me question the overall value of that move, however, so you need to keep the bigger picture in mind. ;-)
If I know I’m going to lose the Trump anyway, I may play even a high Trump just to get it out of play. (really rare defensive move).


text:
Why does Pinochle utilize ultra-high point values for melds?
In Pinochle, according to the Bicycle insert in my decks, at least, aces around (one ace of each suit) is worth 100 points. The 9 of trump is worth 10. Other meld values all are multiples of ten.
Likewise, a double aces around (two aces of each suit) is worth 1000 points.
What is the reason for using multiples of ten for point values even at the entry level instead of a simpler form (which I always play with) of 10 points for aces around, 4 for the pinochle, 1 for the 9 of trump, etc?

To make it easier and more tempting to play for high-stakes. United States Playing Card Company will deny this of course.

My parents always thought this was just dumb and never played with extra zero at the end, so I was taught to not do that

@BenjaminLeinweber - same here :)

The current 10 points for every Ace, 10 and King in the trick pile is a new way of scoring.  The original scoring had different values for different cards so although the multiples of 10 aren't needed now they were before.
According to http://www.playingcardsandmore.com/pinochleanoverview.aspx
Original Card Values: Each Ace 11, Each Ten 10, Each King 4, Each Queen 3, Each Jack 2, Each Nine 0.
The Simplified Card Values: Each Ace 10, Each Ten 10, each King 5, Each Queen 5, Each Jack 0, each Nine 0.

And now it is even more simple than that - we only do things with multiples of 10.

According to pagat.com's John McLeod, quite a well researched card aficionado, there were four steps in the evolution of Pinochle scoring.
http://www.powerpinochle.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=877&pid=3074#pid3074
Based on the individual "counter" points in the trick taking phase, A T K Q J were scored respectively:
11-10-4-3-2 (original quinary scoring)
10-10-5-5-0 (ternary scoring)
10-10-10-0-0 (binary scoring)
1-1-1-0-0 (reduced binary scoring)

If playing with 9's, before the most modern evolution, it was worth 10 and was referred to as Dix (pronounced Deese) which is French for 10.  Yes, the 9's were called 10's -- blame the French!
Only when the most recent scoring came along were the meld values able to be divided by 10 to stay in sync with trick points.  Simplifying the scoring was a necessary evolution to make pinochle more inviting to players.
If you want to learn how to count meld using the most modern scoring, go to Power Pinochle's Meld Calculator and either generate a random hand or build your own.  http://www.powerpinochle.com/forum/meld.php

+1 for mentioning pagat.com  Although I always believed everyone played pinochle slightly differently, the rules I learned for pinochle are the ones he lists at https://www.pagat.com/marriage/pinmain.html  so I gues not everyone plays differently after all.

Pinochle is super tribal; there are lots of nuanced amendments to the most mainstream conventions depending on where in the world you are playing.  How much is Triple Pinochle worth, how much is a Run and a Roundhouse? I would love for a governing association to decree a set of rules based on reasoning rather than pure popularity for the goal of making the game more competitive yet inviting to new players -- no small feat.  Until then, house rules ...rule.


text:
Getting started with trick-taking games (whist, euchre, bridge, pinochle, etc.)
I've heard there are a lot of different trick-taking games out there, such as whist, bridge, euchre, pinochle, oh hell, hearts etc. I've heard a lot of good things about these games, but have very little experience. A few questions:

What's the easiest way to learn one's first trick-taking game?
What's a good trick-taking game to learn for someone who's never played one before? Which should beginners avoid?
How easy are new trick-taking games to pick up after one has gotten a good foundation?

I almost suggested Euchre, but as I was typing up some simple things to remember, it started turning complicated.  Euchre is really something someone needs to teach you rather than just reading about it.

Don't forget Tichu

Spades.
I think Spades is the easiest starting point, because is (1) easy and (2) the point is winning tricks, making it more consistent with the logic of other games. IMHO, spades shares more in common with the other games.
Hearts has the reverse logic -- you are generally trying to LOSE tricks, not win them.  If you start with spades, you spend your time thinking about how to win tricks.  That means you can switch to Eucre or Bridge or Pitch or whatever...  Or you can learn hearts next.

Spades to Bridge --> play is the same; add "no trump" and dummy hand; bidding more complicated
Spades to Euchr --> drop a bunch of cards from the deck, etc... but still  win tricks
Spades to Pitch -->  multiple versions exist; typically a varient of spades
Spades to Hearts --> lose tricks, not win them
Hearts to Bridge --> more "moving parts"  than "Spades to Bridge"

In any case, once you know one trick taking game, it's somewhat trivial to learn the rules and basic play of one more.
I'd recommend you avoid Bridge as a first game. The bidding is really complicated. You can start having fun and start feeling competent much faster.  Pinochle is more complicated....
However, if you're only going to actually learn one game, I have to say that I find Hearts and Spades to be the most boring.   What makes a game better for beginners makes it worse for experienced players.

It isn't just bidding that can make contract bridge intimidating for new players; scoring and hand play can also be difficult to learn. Partnership play can also be a little challenging, so it might even be better to start with individual play and introduce partnerships later.

The easiest is probably to play Oh Hell, with the ascending variation.
http://www.pagat.com/exact/ohhell.html
Everyone is dealt 1 card, and the trump is turned up.  Everyone decides if they're going to win that one trick or not.  Get good at that first, and the other games become much easier.

Great idea to suggest a trick-taking game that starts quite literally as simply as possible, then builds in complexity.  Upvoted.

Concur; great suggestion.  (Also, thanks; I've been trying to remember what this game was called for days and couldn't.)  Another suggested variation for beginners: Go through the trump suits/no trump in order each round (clubs / diamonds / hearts / spades / no trump) instead of drawing at random.  In a ten round ascending game of 1-10 cards, this guarantees each trump option twice - very good practice for beginners, and it ensures that you'll get practice with the (very different) play of no-trumps.

Hearts
...is the easiest with which I'm familiar. I like Spades better, but it's a bit more complicated. A quick search will reveal many, many sites that allow you to play Hearts online, and chances are good that your computer came with the game pre-installed, so you can play against a computer. I'd bet a six-year-old could learn it without too much struggle, and would be surprised if an eight-year-old couldn't.

Plus, Hearts has a surprising depth of strategy for such a simple game.

Hearts is excellent for developing no-trump strategy. When playing games with trumps, I tended to lean too heavily on trump cards, so, I always got derailed in no-trump rounds. :-P

I agree with Keith that Spades would give the best introduction to the genre as a whole.  Hearts may be easy to learn, however it is counter intuitive compared to the rest of the games.  I have not played bridge, so I can't speak to that, however from my experience a good progression would be:

Spades - teaches bidding, fixed trump (always spades), and trick taking
Euchre - teaches rotating trump (highest bidder decides)
Pitch - teaches tricks with different values and selective trick taking
Pinochle (the king of card games IMO) - teaches meld as well as expounding on all the rest

As far as a good way to learn, either read the rules from a book or website to get the basics.  Although, the best way is to have it explained to you and play with someone who knows how to play.  A lot of these games are easier to learn by doing.

"Euchre - teaches rotating trump (highest bidder decides)" Euchre doesn't have bidding for tricks... are you thinking Bridge?

No, I meant Euchre, but you're right, there's no bidding, I was equating weighing your hand against the kitty as a bidding system.

I would not go with Hearts as it is almost the opposite of a trick-taking game. The point is not to take tricks and the strategy is quite different from most trick-taking game.
We played a game as a kids called simply "trumps". 7 cards each. Turn over the top card of the deck. Its suit is trumps. Whoever gets the most tricks is the winner.
Next up in complexity (and way, way up in fun) is "contract whist". 7 cards each. Hearts are trumps. Each player specifies a contract (how many tricks they will win) in order (contracts can't add to 7, so at least one player will not make theirs). Play the hand. 1 point for each trick with a bonus of 10 if you make your contract EXACTLY. Repeat with 6 cards each (clubs are trumps). Continue down to 1 card each cycling through the suit - H, C, D, S, NT - which is trumps. Most points at the end is the winner.
The queen of trick-taking games - better than bridge (really!) - is Nomination Whist. It's pretty much The Official Card Game of the Royal Navy and is always played for beer. Sadly, I don't have many card-playing friends these days.

Saying Nomination Whist is better than bridge is an overbid!

It was a little tongue-in-cheek but the reason I like it better is because you don't have to learn so much ritual. You can have a great game of "noms" just playing by instinct. You have to read a couple of books before you can be a contender at bridge.

Easiest way to learn your first trick-taking game is to play a few open hands.  Give a brief overview, then just deal out a hand face-up on the table.  It matters to some extent what game you play, but more than that, just play several hands with everyone leaving their cards on the table.  Each play, you explain both the rules and the reasoning behind plays.
Once someone has a firm grasp of any trick-taking game, it is much easier to teach them another one, instead of starting from ground zero.  In fact, every time I'm teaching someone a new-to-them card game, I always start by asking what other games they already know.   I then use that game(s) as a starting point.

Bridge, spades, and whist form a "subfamily" of related games within this group. Therefore, I would learn one of these three. The other games are (mostly) different from each other, which is to say you don't get the 3-for-1 feature with any of them.
Of the three, spades, is the easiest, and therefore recommended by others. On the other hand, I recommend bridge, because it is the most common of the three games, and will probably get a player further in social circles.
But in either event, one can treat the learning of spades or bridge as a prelude to learning the other.

I would recommend MiniBridge which is a simplified version of Bridge (there is no bidding).


text:
What is the best tournament format for Cripple Mr Onion?
I'm planning to run a Cripple Mr Onion tournament (the gambling variant of the game, but not for money), but I have never run a tournament before.
How should I structure this tournament?  What do I, as an organizer need to know to have this tournament go off successfully?
I'm willing to use and adapt a tournament format for similar card and/or board games but I need to know where to start.
The game requires at least two players, but not more than seven. So probably six or seven to a table. In my own (small) experience playing the game (and I've never played the gambling variant myself), it works better with a larger number.
I have no real idea how many players to expect. There'll be a couple of hundred at the Irish Discworld Convention, but no doubt the tournament will clash with other events. And some people there won't be interested. It might be two or three tables. Perhaps more. Perhaps just one.
Rules of the game (pdf): Cripple Mr Onion.

I retagged it; if I'm not mistaken it's a card game from the Discworld books that was made real.

Totally missed when you gave the link to the rules.  That helped out a bunch.  As I understand it, Cripple Mr. Onion plays out much like Blackjack in that each player bets individually against the dealer.
There is a difference in that the dealer is a player too and the position of dealer is bid for each round.  I don't think that makes a ton of difference to what I'm proposing.
If you end up with 7 or less people you should do one table and one round.  At the end of the time, players are ranked by the number of chips that they have.
If you have more than 7 people you will need 2 rounds.

Divide the players up into X groups of Y people.  X and Y should both be between 3 and 7 (inclusive).
Split your available time in half, reserve 10 minutes for a break during which the chips will be counted.
At the end of the first time period, the person with the highest chip count at each table will move on to the finals.
For the finals, collect all the chips and redistribute them evenly.  (You don't want someone who had an extremely weak first table having too much of an advantage in the finals)
At the end of the finals, players are ranked by the number of chips that they have.

Example, you have 20 people.  The first round will be 5 tables of 4 people.  The finals will then be one table of 5 people.

As Pat Ludwig states, position is important in the game.  So you always want each table to play a full round so everyone plays from all the good and poor positions.  Pat Ludwig's suggestions are good advice under the assumption that you want a quick tournament and that all players arrive on time for the start.
Fitting all the matches into an appropriate amount of time is a key success factor for a tournament director.  Plan your rounds starting from final table backwards.  I will assume this game takes ~10 minutes / player / round once everone knows the rules. Under the assumption that you have a little more time, I perfer a drop the low men approach.
I also like having your final table start with a full seven players.  Drop from 1 to 4 players after each round depending on time available.
For early to middle rounds in a really large tourneyment, I would suggest around four or five players to a table.  More players makes the rounds slower, fewer players makes the outcome too dependent who you face in the round.
Each assignment of players should play exactly once around then break for new assignments.  Drop X players after the round then reassign seeding by chip count.
So my example 20 player 4+ hour tournament would be:
First round  5 tables of 4 (~ 45 minutes)
Second round 4 tables of 4 (~ 45 minutes)
Third round  4 tables of 3 (~ 30 minutes)
Fourth round 1 table of 7 (~75 minutes)
Fifth round 1 table of 5 (~50 minutes)
Sixth round 1 table of 3 (continue as time allows, place per chip count at end of scheduled time)
If you want to allow participation by late arrivers, here are some ideas:
1. Reserve a table for late arrivers.  But don't wait too long to get this table started.
2. Have players pair up for an initial seeding round as they arrive.  Only play two hands in this fashion use chip count to seed players for the initial full tables of the tourneyment.  This allows some time for late arrivers and helps insure that folks know the rules, before the beginners slow down a larger group.
3. In addition, Charge some minor fine on initial buy in for late arrivals.  Probably a little less than 1% per minute late.
Initial seeding is also a significant fairness factor.  Each starting table should have an even mix of beginners and experienced plays to the greatest extent possible.

Wikipedia has the rules for Cripple Mr Onion, and there's also the (older, I believe) lspace rules for the game.  The Terry Pratchett fan club "the Guild of Fans and Disciples" used to give new members a printed copy of the rules (the lspace version, I believe); I'm not sure if the organisation exists any more (their website is at Geocities, so...).
The rules are too long to reproduce here, but as a summary of the game (loosely paraphrased from the above sources):

Cripple Mr Onion uses two decks of
  cards (ideally one English and one
  French) and revolves around forming
  groups of cards which either sum
  exactly to twenty-one (an onion) or
  come close to this total without
  exceeding it.  There is both a
  gambling and a non-gambling variant,
  and there are two forms of betting in
  the gambling game: "matching the
  Dealer's stake" and "raising the
  Dealer".

I know the rules: as I said, I've played it a few times. It's running a tournament I know nothing about.

I don't know who gave you the downvote. You probably don't deserve it. You didn't answer my question, but my question was so badly phrased before Pat's rewrite that this is hardly your fault.

The edit has completely changed this question.  My answer is for the original question, not the new one.

Actually, the edit didn't change the question. That is what I was originally asking. I just phrased it very poorly. All praise to Pat for interpreting me.


text:
What variants are there for the playing-card-based game "War"?
The game War is played with two decks of standard 52-card playing cards. Each player shuffles their deck into a draw pile. Simultaneously, each player turns over the top card. The player with the highest card wins the war and takes both cards. When a player runs out of cards, the player shuffles their cards and the cards won from their opponent into a new draw pile. Play continues until one of the players has no cards. Which never happens.
I played War a lot as a kid. Now my kids are learning to play. But the game still suffers from being entirely luck-based and never ending. What are the variants to this game that reduce luck and/or involve strategy?

Strategy War / Armed War
There is a variant of war, called "Strategy War" or "Armed War" (a joke on hands) where, instead of pulling the card from the top of your deck, you chose it from your hand.  This works as follows:

You shuffle the deck and deal it out in equal parts.  Each player takes the cards dealt to him/her and puts them in his/her hand.
All cards a player plays and all cards a player gains during the game go to his/her discard.
A player's discard becomes his/her hand only upon his/her hand becoming empty.
The game is played as usual, but with players choosing which card to play from their hands on each turn instead of pulling off the top of their pile.  Players each play their card face down, and then once all cards are down, players reveal the cards they have played.
In the event of a WAR, players shuffle their hands and take three cards at random from their hand to form the facedown "WAR" cards, then return to viewing their hands to select the final card for the WAR.  If, during this process, a player does not have enough cards in his/her hand, he/she puts all the cards from his/her hand into play as "WAR" cards, then continues using cards at random from his/her discard to complete the three facedown cards, then takes his/her remaining discard as his/her hand and continues playing.
2's beat whatever card is highest (Aces, unless you are playing with Jokers), but lose to all other cards.  This is essential in this variant, to make Aces not just an obvious play at the end of a war.

For example, players Aaron and Blake each play a card face down; they reveal, both showing a King.  They shuffle their hands, each put three cards at random from their hands into play facedown, and then return to their hands to select a final card for the WAR.  When they reveal the final card, Aaron played an Ace and Blake played a Queen; Aaron wins the whole hand and takes all 10 cards.
The advantages to this variant are several fold.  First, there is actual strategy.  Second, wars are more common due to the overlap in play style.  Third, there are interesting tradeoffs between using your best cards early versus saving them for later, which is a great thing for kids to learn.
If you want to make the game faster, take out a chunk of the low-valued cards, such as the 3's through 8's (make sure to keep the 2's as the ace-beaters).

Strategy War with identical decks:

Deal: split the card deck into equal black and red piles, add the two jokers on to each pile as the weakest cards.

Play: players choose any card from their pile and present it face down, then simultaneously turn them face up. The higher card wins. Players keep separate piles for their winning and losing cards.

War: In the event of a tie the cards are retracted and a different card must be presented.

Strategy tips: The best strategy for using the weakest cards such as jokers or two's when you think your opponent is going to present his Ace or King, this way you make him waste his strongest cards on your weakest, thus protecting your own higher cards. The most satisfying wins are when your card is one or two points higher than your opponents such as a ten taking out a nine or eight.

Draw: It is possible to have a tie: if both players have thirteen winning cards and the last card presented by each player is the same then play continues with both players using their pile of fourteen winning cards until a clear winner emerges.

If players take back their cards in the event of a tie, how do you ever capture an opponent's Ace?

Time limit variant:
At the limit, a new rule becomes active:

if a 3 is won, remove it from play. If all four 3's are removed, start removing the 4's, and so on up to aces. by the time the aces are removed, there are only jokers and 2s and the game should be over soon.

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


text:
What's different in San Juan's second edition?
I just bought a copy of San Juan after playing it a few times on iPad and loving it. When I got it home, I saw that it is the second edition. On Board Game Geek, first and second editions have their own entries. What's new/different in San Juan's second edition that it would get classified as a separate game?

@PatLudwig Why was the [version] tag removed? The tag description says it's for "Questions about different versions of the same game", which is exactly what this question is.

@Thunderforge Could version work if it was the only tag on a question?  Will anyone ever use it as a way to group questions together that they want to see?  It adds no value.

Meta discussion about the version tag.

Artwork and the following.
The Prefecture now costs 4 instead of 3.
With the Goldmine, you now get to keep the cheapest card instead of any card.
With the Guildhall, you get 1 point per production building and 1 point for each different production building.
New building Hut: "In the trader phase, the owner of a hut draws one card from the supply if no good was sold by any player during this phase."
The Bank now costs 3 instead of 4.
And yes this is a copy paste from BGG, if you don't want that please explain how BGG didn't fully explain this.
Link: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1330934/differences-between-1ed-and-2ed

If you're going to copy/paste, you should link to source.

San Juan Second Edition has full-colour cards and the addition of the Cathedral card


text:
What's the difference between King of Tokyo and King of New York?
We got King of Tokyo for Christmas and I just found out about King of New York. What's the difference between these two games? Is King of New York just King of Tokyo done "right"?

King of New York is essentially King of Tokyo with some modifications:

Victory points on the dice are less dominant, having a single VP result. The other 2 faces are replaced with buildings and skulls.
There are regions and things to do for people not in the middle.
Buildings are able to be destroyed, adding a risk/reward mechanic as destroying buildings adds military units. This also adds a potential way to heal in the middle.
The skull results allow you to target people you couldn't attack if they're in a region with lots of military units.
Staying in Manhattan is more rewarding than staying in Tokyo, and the rewards grow with time.

For me, the biggest difference is how the game encourages getting in and smashing things up. In King of Tokyo, being in Tokyo was very risky and offered little reward. In my experience, the dominant strategy was staying outside and rolling for points. In King of New York, with the improved rewards for being in Manhattan, the possibility of healing or taking other rewards, and the decreased value of rolling VPs, staying in is much more viable.

From your answer, could a house rule for King of Tokyo be that in Tokyo,  the player only needs two dice to match to get the VP's?

@Beerhunter It could be, but that brings up the value of rolling for points rather than being a crazy monster and doing crazy monster things. Until I got KoNY (which knocked KoT out of play), I played with a variant where you get 1 energy at the start of each other player's turn if you're in Tokyo (on your own turn you just get the Tokyo bonus). That got you to hold on just that one more turn to get that one more energy, and resulted in a more dynamic game as people struggle to buy and swipe out powers.


text:
Should a temple always be built on turn 2 in Antike?
I played my first game of Antike with 5 other people.  Everyone but me started at Marble, then paid one resource on the next turn to jump to Temple.  Having never played before, I went another way, just to be different.
Getting a temple built on turn 2 obviously kick-starts your economy, but is it really the best way to start?  Did everyone know something I didn't or were they all just mirroring each other?
FWIW, I went Gold-Arming-Know How and claimed the first VP on turn 3.

While getting a Temple is a very good first move, there's a lot to be said for getting the first Technology.
I would immediately follow it up with a Temple though.


text:
How do you resolve Polarity Stabilizer when Bifurcation Conduit has triggered?
Bifurcation Conduit states:
If you have two or more opponents remaining, choose an additional
opponent.  For the rest of the turn each part of your machine affects
both chosen opponents.  Then remove this card from the game.

Polarity Stabilizer states:
Take the top three cards from the scrap pile.
Put two into your hand and one into your opponent's hand.

Assume I am playing with at least two other players and that Bifurcation Conduit has run before Polarity Stabilizer.  How do I correctly resolve this card interaction?
The game currently has me in a situation to draw three cards, put two into my hand, and one into each opponents hand.

I don't think a definitive answer exists from the designer or publisher, but here is my informed opinion.
The first interpretation treats Polarity Stabilizer as you would any other contraption that affects your opponents. You would take the top 3 cards from the scrap pile, put 2 in your hand, then the remaining card to the first opponent. Then you would repeat this process for each remaining opponent (top 3, keep 2, 1 to opponent). This is obviously how you would play Radiometric Disruptor (Opponent scraps a card from their hand). And is probably the way you would play a card like  Entropic Processor (if you have the cards to put cards from your hand into each opponents hand)
The other possible interpretation is that you take the top 3 cards from the scrap pile, put 2 in your hand, and choose an opponent to receive the remaining card. This interpretation hinges on the giving the card to your opponent part, not being considered a way to affect your opponent and the rules example :

For example, Entropic Processor states, "Put one card from your hand into your opponents hand and draw two parts from his parts pile." ... On the other hand, if you put one card from your hand into your opponent's hand and he doesn't have two cards in his parts pile, the effect takes place as much as possible. If your opponent has one card in his parts pile you get it.

I am personally leaning toward the latter interpretation.

Without a definitive clarification, I would be tempted to house-rule it as "three" being short-hand for "two plus one for each opponent this affects". In this case, I would say you should draw four cards, keep two and give one to each opponent.
As I say, this would just be the clarification I would apply without anything more concrete from an authority.