text:
My god, they've taken the ... that I've got to get to!
There's a card "I've got to get to the...", which requires a player get to a building before searching again. There's another card "My god, they've taken the..." which takes over a building.
When a building is taken over, a player can't enter it.
What happens if a player needs to get to a building, but that building has been taken over? Can the player never search again, or does one of the effects go away?

I can't say I've ever played this game, but the names of the cards makes me really want to...

The card text says

Play this card at the start of a Zombie Turn on any Hero and roll a
  Random Building.
That Hero may not search. Discard this card when the Hero moves into a
  space of that building. If the Hero is already in the building or
  cannot enter it, Re-roll.

Your scenario renders the hero unable to enter the building, so a re-roll is required.
This is confirmed on a BGG thread by an answer from the game designer:

If the building is made unavailable to the Hero, then you must re-roll to determine a new building for the Hero to get to.

It didn't occur to me that the "or cannot enter it" bit would re-evaluate when the building's state changed. Thanks!


text:
How are Scrabble Bingo's calculated with regard to word multipliers?
Are bingos added to the basic score of the word and then modified by multipliers or are they added on after the play is scored?

According to Hasbro's rulesheet the fifty point bonus is added to the word score after all the letter and word multipliers have been taken into account.

Via wikipedia:

Any tile played from the player's rack onto a previously vacant square that is a "double-letter" or "triple-letter" premium square has its point value doubled or tripled as indicated.
Add the normal point value of all other letters in the word (whether newly played or existing).
For each newly played tile placed on a "double-word" premium square, the total of each word containing that tile is doubled (or redoubled).
For each newly placed tile placed on a "triple-word" premium square, the total of each word containing that tile is tripled (or re-tripled).
Premium squares affect the score of each word made in the same play by constituent tiles played upon those squares. Premium squares, once played upon, are not counted again in subsequent plays.
If a player uses all seven of the tiles in the rack in a single play, a bonus of 50 points is added to the score of that play (this is called a "bingo" in Canada and the United States, a "Scrabble" in Spain and a "bonus" elsewhere). These bonus points are added after totaling the score for that turn.

source: Stack Exchange

license: 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/2.5/

sort: votes


text:
What happens in Hive if you cannot lay a piece?
In the game of Hive, envision the following sequence of turns to start the game:

White plays Beetle
Black plays Queen
White moves Beetle on top of Queen

At this point, Black cannot lay any pieces, since every potential spot on the Hive touches White, and Black's only played piece (the Queen) cannot move since it is covered by the Beetle.
I know the rules say that if one side cannot move, then the other player continues to play until the game ends or until there is a legal move for both players.  Is this just a degenerate version of that scenario, and White wins in a ridiculously fast manner by placing all of its pieces around the Beetle/Queen stack?

The rules say you can't move any pieces until you've played the queen. I don't know, it may still be possible to have no legal moves, but the scenario you gave isn't legal.

Excellent, thank you.  I'm new to the game and completely missed that rule.  It was a very odd moment when I saw my opponent (also new) do this to me, and I thought to myself, "Well, there's the quickest game in the history of Hive!"

Re whether such situation can arise: White places Queen, Black places Queen, White moves Queen, Black places Beetle, White moves Queen towards Beetle, Black moves Beetle on top of Queen – no legal move left.

Indeed, the equivalent of Fool's Mate in Chess--essentially only attainable if both players are coordinating.

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

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

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


text:
What should I be trying to do strategically in Through the Ages?
I played Through the Ages for the third time last night and am struggling to come up with a decent strategy to assist in winning. I am not sure if my problem is due to the random nature of the events and tech upgrades, or if my strategy is just wrong.

My strategy was

have the strongest military
use a leader to give 1 extra civil action to replace military
produce a lot of resources, to build upgrades and wonders easily.

My downfall was that due to my leader allowing only one military action, I had no defense/colonisation bonus cards, so struggled to win territories, which came up a lot. The bonus on one was 11 points of culture, so effectively that could have been a 22 point swing!
I only lost by 4 culture, so no idea if my final score was the result of poor decisions/strategy, or just luck of the card draw.
I would love to hear more experienced player's views.

I think it's impossible to outline a universal winning strategy, but I'll chip in with some tips.

You don't always need to have the strongest military, but it's usually a bad idea to have the weakest. If you're relatively close behind the player(s) with the most military, it's quite easy to ramp it up in the event of a war.
Familiarize yourself with the event cards, they change character from age to age. Ancient events are presents for everyone. Age I and II are where you're rewarded for being best at something, and punished for being worst. Age III is purely culture gains.
More civil actions are good, to a point (combine with yellow cards).

First, it sounds like the leader you are describing is Hammurabi, but he only applies for Age A and 1 (he will die at the end of age 1), so there's no way he should have been impeding bids for Historic Territory 2 (an Age 2 event card that by definition couldn't have come out by then).  Are you sure you're playing everything right?
Also, you don't mention if you're playing the Advanced Game or the Full Game, but it's important, because there are significant differences between them in what works and what doesn't.  I'll try to highlight some of the important differences.  But here are some things to think about:

Science is probably the most important thing in the game, barring your final culture score (of course).  Not resources, food, CAs or anything else, but science.  You can work around most other things, but science is the wellspring from which all the advances you can make are.  Also, unlike almost everything else in the game, you can't really have too much of it.  The first strategic question you have to answer is "where am I going to get more science income".  It can be from Alchemy, it could be from Printing Press (which is only so-so but is sometimes necessary), it could be from the Universitas - whatever it is, figure it out.  Alchemy is probably the card I reach deep for early most often in the game, and if it's the last one, it's almost a must grab.  I can't emphasize this enough:  when in doubt, do something to increase your science.
Next, of course, comes CAs.  Civil Actions give you a lot more options and control over your fate.  Science is what allows you to gain CAs (mostly), so that's one of the reasons for science's supremacy, but if you don't increase your CAs, you can't troubleshoot effectively.  And that's what TtA is, in the full game:  you're troubleshooting problems from turn to turn, keeping your civilization as efficient as possible.  Try and plan out what you're going to do here.  Early Monarchy?  Were you lucky enough to draw Pyramids?  Are you going to reach for the first age 2 government that slides out and revolt to it?  Whatever you do, try and keep your science balance at a point that will allow you to make your governmental switches efficient.  And don't worry about losing some resources to corruption!  A couple rocks is a small price to pay to switch to something like ConMon.
Probably the next thing I look at is military.  Trying to win with military is a crapshoot.  You just might not draw the cards you need to make it work, and if you overinvested, somebody else is going to clobber you on points.  But while you can't be sure about winning with military, you sure as heck can lose the game with it.  I always check, every turn, what my relative position is, how many D/C cards I am back of the leaders, how many cards they've been drawing and how many I'm about to draw and everything else.  If I am vulnerable, I have to fix this problem.  If there's only one person that's in a position to whack you, maybe you can get away with it - especially if there's a juicier target out there!  But you have to be aware of your position with everybody else and then take steps to fix things.
Now, you get to make progress on other stuff.  Try and increase your resource production first, because that enables you do do most other stuff (although you can use a high CA civ with yellow cards to cover for a lack of rocks pretty well).  Food, you just want to keep at a reasonable level, you can over-invest in it pretty easily.  Try and see how many cards people are seeding in the event deck and guesstimate if you need to keep some troops available for colonization.  But if you've fixed those other problems, you can start applying your discretion here.
A word about events:  don't just seed them with no good reason.  Don't put something in you think you might benefit from.  Just put it in if you're reasonably confident.  And if you're behind on military, particularly early in the game, don't seed anything!  You're just helping your opponents get gnarly stuff like Border Conflict, Uncertain Borders, Raiders, Foray and all that other stuff out faster.  Don't help them out, make them do all the work.  Then, maybe when you get back on top on military, there will be some of that junk still left in the deck to take advantage of.

Note that nowhere in there did I mention culture.  That's because, by and large, culture is an accident not a goal up until mid-to-late age 2.  That's not true if more than one person sprints early, then you might have to invest some just to not fall too far behind, but if there's only one clear culture leader, I don't worry about it.  Don't build Dramas or the Taj Mahal - those rocks are better spent on Bread & Circuses and the Universitas.  Invest in infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure and then when you hit age 3, you'll be able to crank out a ton of culture (and slaughter them on impacts).
Hope this helps.

One tip that I give to new players is to "focus on your weakness" (in the areas of happiness, pop/crops, science, military, resources, culture, and government. Might have missed one, but you get the point!)

(By the way, I'm "The Chaz" on boardgaming-online if anyone wants to add me to a TtA game.)

Hammurabi is a double edged sword. It gives you one extra CA which helps a lot in the early game. But you desperately need that second MA he took from you. With only one MA it is really hard to get a decent age I tactic card, which are Medieval army or Phalanx. The only way to get the second MA is warfare, so you need to take it as soon as it is available.
After you have the warfare it is a big help also in age II where the most powerful tactics are. After Hammurabi dies you have 3 MA and can draw full set of military cards, which increases your chance to find your precious napoleonic army or classic army. Also Mobile artillery is really good because it requires only 2 units, but it doesn't give much bonus if you manage to get Napoleon as your leader.
My general strategy is to first upgrade science then mines. There is plenty of resources available in the yellow cards but only little science. I try to collect enough science for discovering Constitutional Monarchy in early age II. Then you can pick that up even with 3 CA and discover it right away. After that your playing gets so much easier and you can choose how you are going to do your culture.
One thing to add. Strategies for two player games and four player games differ. In two player game it is essential that you manage the card row efficiently. Estimate what your opponent will take from it and calculate which cards will be in the 1 CA slot on your turn. Also in two player game taking the cards your opponent desperately needs is a must, even though you wouldn't need those card at all. For example if your opponent has not picked up irrigation form Age I, by taking Selective Breeding from Age II you will practically force your opponent to take Ocean Liner for getting any new workers. And if he misses that too, well.. You have already won. (Unless he has played suitable territories into the deck and plans to colonize them and get more yellow buttons etc. but that's more advanced)


text:
Taking back turns, and forgotten privileges
A generic question across most board games: once a player has taken their turn (taken their finger off the piece they are playing), should they be allowed to change their mind?
Similarly, if a player forgets to take a privilege, such as an occupied building in Puerto Rico giving an extra worker, or plantation, if they remember a few moves later, should they be allowed to take the privilege?
Very few rules explicitly express how these events should be dealt with, so they are generally left up to the group. However, my group's rules will change depending on the personality of the players playing (not all members are available each time we play). I would like to make this consistent, and would appreciate feedback on how others deal with this scenario.

It depends on what the players agree before or during the game. For fairness, I just pay attention that the extra-rules do not favor a single player but all can benefit from them, so once you decide a privilege can be taken later, this can be done by everyone all the remaining time. This question is primarily opinion based. Do what you want.

I like the following rule:

If no new information has been disclosed since a decision, then a player is allowed to take back any action or inaction where this is practical.

Information could be cards in a deck, rolls of dice, but also intentions of a fellow player.

But also if it could have affected another player's decisions.

How long it's been since the event is also a factor. The longer it's been, the more strict we are.

@Matthijs: Yes. I guess technically this could fall under "discloses intentions of a fellow player". I would typically allow it if it affects another player's decisions in a way that was clear to everyone when the original play was made, including the person making that play - but not if the player making the original play "didn't see move X coming" or something. That is exactly what I meant by the "intentions of a fellow player" bit. :)

@Don: Yes. I guess technically this could fall under "where this is practical": you don't want to redo more than a minute or so of play. Also, after more than a minute or so, it's typically impossible to recreate the exact game position that you were in beforehand. And finally, it's generally impossible to see ahead so far, so it would also violate the "disclose information" rule in the sense that it shows where the game would go if you went down that route.

@Erik P.: The problem of your policy is: If someone forgets something, then the following player has to hurry up with his turn, in order not to let the previous player realise his failure.

@Rasmus: that's only true if you don't want the other player to be able to take it back :) The other extreme is to suggest, "Don't you want to do X instead of Y?" before you start your turn. That could be considered patronizing, of course.

@Erik P - Just to note that tonight my group used this rule, and it went down pretty well. As it was agreed up front, everyone was happy about it and it came in useful on a few occasions. +1 for Great answer.

This is generally how we play Dominion where I work.  I seem to recall doing it for Magic the Gathering under the term "Wait a moment phase."

@Matthijs: of course "new information" also includes any kind of player reaction. @Powerlord: actually Magic has rules for pretty much everything, so I don't think it fits talking about it here.

I agree with Lohoris. If after you make a move your opponent hesitates before doing something, that itself is information. It shows that they don't immediately know how to react to what you just did. Whether or not this is useful information is debatable.

@Matt: Agreed. And it depends on the game and on the setting whether a hesitation is relevant information.

I'm pretty lenient in general.  Unless it is a tournament or something akin to it, denying someone their privilege may result in hard feelings.
The exception is if another person made a move that would have been different if the privilege had been taken. To use your example, in Puerto Rico, if a person used the builder and forgot to deduct $1 a went to take it back a bit later I would disallow it if another players pipes up with, "I looked at the start of my turn, you had no money.  Based on that I chose to XXXX"
In that case, its too late, and the first person is stuck.

I usually game with my family and friends. And we generally have a "one takeback" rule in effect, especially our first few times through a game.
Someone will make a bad decision, or miss out on a privilege, and will ask, "Can that be my takeback?" and if everyone agrees that they could and / or should have made the other play and it doesn't impact what's happened since, we generally let them change it.
Once.
That way, everybody gets one during a game. It's not usually disruptive (because of the limited number) and nobody feels like people who make bad decisions are rewarded with endless do-overs.
Of course, this is predicated on the idea that you're playing for fun and want to stay friends with everybody after the game is over. And when we're really playing hard, we'll announce before the game starts that there will be no takebacks and players will just have to live with suboptimal plays.

In my experience of playing games, it doesn't really matter that much, as long as you are consistent. That is the key for me, people will not feel aggrieved if you toe a hard line if it's the same for all, and the same is true if you are highly forgiving.
Personally though, I try to play as close to the rules as possible, as it teaches people to play to the rules, and makes them better players. If they are forgetting to take privileges, how closely are they really monitoring their strategy? While it is not nice to lose a game because you forget to take your bonus, it rarely affects a game that much because the better players tend not to make those basic mistakes.

We follow an (admittedly odd) rule whereby the distinction lies between forced moves and optional moves.  Essentially, if you forgot to do something you were required to do, we do our best to roll back to that point.  However, if you forgot to do something which you were allowed not to do, then you're stuck with that move.  This may come from the fact that we frequently play games like Battlestar Galactica, wherein "I forgot to do move X" may in fact be cover for "I did not want to do move X, but don't want you to know that, so I will instead claim error".

My choice is the third alternative.
Suppose you play a game with the rule that "forgotten privileges are lost", then that game might be less fun. So, in such games it would be good to make the previous(/next) players to remember their privileges.
If it will be a problem with the "forgotten privileges are lost" rule, then that game might probably be bad designed. Such a bad design can usually be easily fixed, using pen and paper.
On the other hand, any rule where "forgotten privileges are NOT lost", might still be worse than the lost rule, depending on the situation. So, there should be a third alternative:

At least as long as no privilege is forgotten and no pen and paper are used, pay attention to the previous(/next) players and remind them of their privileges.
First time any privilege is forgotten should go with the rule "forgotten privileges are NOT lost".
Any time, a player forgets a privilege again, it should be lost. So, the general usage of pen and paper (for at least that player) should be established after the first time.

Dependent on the type of game, it is very irritating and therefore suboptimal to pay attention to the previous player: Oneself has to be reminded whenever it is the previous player's turn, and one cannot think about the own turn while paying attention to the previous player. So, at least in that case, it will be better to pay attention to the next player's turn instead. To do this is actually contra-intuitive, because one's stress is gone when the own turn ends; so, this has to be trained and secured by observing the observer: pay attention that the next player pays attention. If this is too bothersome, remember that pen and paper might be good alternatives to minimize the needed attention span.

Good point: "Forget once, shame on you. Forget twice, shame on me."

How new is the player asking for a take-back to the game, and how much do you want them to want to play the game again?
If a veteran who regularly wins the game within your group is asking for a take-back, I'd call that very poor form.  If it's a new player who suddenly realizes their mistake, I'd call it poor form to refuse them a second chance.
The first time I played Caylus - quite a complicated game to get your head around! - I asked another player during the move-the-Provost round if I would be safe not paying to move it.  "Oh, I should think so," he said.  "Okay then, I won't pay."  The player who'd given me the advice proceeded to pay 3 and deprive me of some key resources.  "Oh," I said, "so I could have paid the bargain price of 1 and been completely safe from that jerk move?  I didn't understand that, can I take it back?"
The other players decided not to let me - which they were in their rights to do so, of course, but I'd still call it poor form.  As a result, I decided I didn't like Caylus much and didn't play it again for a couple of years.  At which point I discovered I actually really liked it!

If the game is friendly, taking back a turn shouldn't be a problem. With competition, it is and it should be communicated to all players in advance.

I would also add that in general, once the next person's turn is done, going back and rehashing "oops, I forgot to do this on my turn!" is not appreciated, even in a friendly setting.

A variation on this rule occurred in a game we played last night. A rule was mis-interpreted while playing Brass. The move was discussed before the piece was placed to confirm it was valid, but later was found to be an invalid move as a supplementary rule clarified that move was illegal.
We did our best to roll-back the move to make it as "fair" as possible. I would never see this happening in a tournament scenario, but then again, clarifications of rules would not be so subject to mistakes, and the judges rule is final would take over here.
The general theme we have been playing however, is that a turn can be taken back, as long as no new information has become available. Privileges are allowed to be taken only if it does not affect someone else's decision (so simply forgetting to take £200 for passing Go, would be such a privilege we would allow to be back dated).

We try to be as lenient as possible, no one wants a crappy game because they forgot one thing.  I always give slack, because I always want slack.

Interestingly, I'd like to think that I always give slack... but I almost never want it in return.  Making mistakes and forcing myself to live with the consequences is a great way for me to get better at games!

Not in really fast paced games (Where doing something stupid can really be a mood-lifter) like Mag-Blast for example. Almost all other games shouldn't be played too competitively. Usually you don't get to take back a move as soon as an effect of the move is being resolved (dice/cards/etc), but before that, absolutely no problem.
With the exception of chess: Touch a piece, and that will be the one you are moving. Let it go, and it is set! (I must admit that I treat chess more like a sport than a game)

We generally have very friendly games, but it of course depends on your particular group. Our games tend to be so uncompetitive that we'll ask each other for advice and reveal our hands if we're trying to make a decision on our turns; it's more of trying to find the optimal move as a group. So generally as long as we can rollback enough to figure out how the game would play up to that point with the modification, it's ok. If something significant has happened since then that wouldn't have happened with the change, or if something has happened since then that prompted the change (which would be rather rude), we generally won't do it.

Depends heavily on the complexity of the game - I'd generally allow a lot more take backs in ASL (Advanced Squad Leader) or WiF (World in Flames) than in chess.

Chess is one of the game I feel most inclined to allow takebacks in. Maybe it's just that I've played too many complete newbies, but when they move their queen or whatever to a square where you can just take it with no consequences - there's no way the game stays fun unless you allow and indeed encourage them to take the move back!

Could you edit your answer to expand the acronyms ASL and WiF please? :)

@Timothy: ASL is Advanced Squad Leader, probably the most rules-heavy wargaem in existence.  WiF is World in Flames.  Both of these had their own tags here at one point, but tags are often deleted if not used.


text:
When is it a good time to offer a draw in chess, and when should I accept one?
Professional players often offer draws in chess and accept them.  While draws can be very common in professional play, they appear to be very rare in casual play.  Naturally, if you're winning, accepting or offering a draw seems silly, but what if there isn't a clear winner?  When is a good time to offer a draw, and when should I accept one?

Are you asking about casual play only?

Yes casual play.  If you're a ranked player, I assume that would change when your willing to draw and when your not willing to draw.

If you ask about tournament-play in another question, I will answer it from a game-perspective (rather than a human-perspective, like all the answers to this question)

In casual play, the main reason to offer a draw is if the game is going on forever and shows no sign of concluding soon. Consider the motivation for the game. Maybe you're playing a game for fun after dinner, but at some point your wife is going to start making loud yawning noises. Maybe you're playing a grudge match with a friend, but both of you are hopeless at rook endings - which is where you've ended up. Maybe you made the mistake of starting a game with someone who takes hours to make any move. I've been in all of these situations! In these cases, achieving the win is secondary to the experience of playing the game. As soon as the experience becomes compromised, or real life starts to intrude, an escape becomes appealing.
One player may actually have an advantage, but if it's going to be necessary to grind out a difficult endgame to convert that advantage into a point, then it may not be considered worth it by the players to continue. A couple of times I have even conceded casual games that I believed I was winning, simply because I wasn't willing to continue to invest the time.
Another reason is if the players are amateurish enough that forcing a win is difficult or impossible. I once spent a frustrating afternoon watching two friends with very basic chess playing abilities circle uselessly for several hours, trying to figure out how to achieve a checkmate. It was like watching Brownian motion on a chessboard; essentially random checks with the vague hope of accidental checkmate. In the end, they gave up and declared a draw. This situation is depressingly common among the large group of casual players who possess no knowledge beyond how to move the pieces.
A final, rather dishonest reason is to protect the ego of your opponent. Too many casual players take losing at chess as a personal failure, or worse, an insult or demonstration of superiority by their opponent. If your opponent is your boss or your grandfather, and they take losing very badly, maybe a draw is a more political decision. In this case, the game is just part of a larger game - the game of maintaining workable relationships in the real world.

The comment, "but at some point your wife is going to start making loud yawning noises", is priceless.  +1

I genuinely can't think of a better answer than "when you consider there is no possibility of either player winning the game".  If your opponent doesn't see this, but you can explain to them how a win for anyone has become impossible, so much the better for your ego.
Either that or if the last bus leaves in five minutes!

In general whether playing a "serious" (i.e. tournament, rated game) or playing casually a draw should be considered when a game is no longer interesting but isn't a clear victory by one side (which is when in either tournament or casual play the losing side should realize this and probably should resign).
What do I mean by "no longer interesting" - this will vary by your level of skill but it isn't uncommon at all for players a high level to try out an opening variation but if via their opponents play the game transposes into a position known from past games and openings both players may decide that they should call it a draw and in a casual situation play another game.
In casual play there are many types of games people play - casual games without a clock can take almost literally any amount of time both players want to dedicate to it (if play by mail this could be months or even years) but in person it is polite to play reasonably quickly and to offer (and accept) a draw when the game bogs down or shifts into a fairly known area especially if the goal of playing is to explore new avenues of play between players of nearly equal strength.
In casual games with a chess clock (which could be speed chess or could just be close to a tournament speed) again draws may be offered when the game is falling into a duller, more repetitive pattern - but the opportunity to win via time often means that one player or the other may have a real advantage and often presses that even in an otherwise drawlike situation.
I used to be a very serious chess player - my favorite non-accepted draw came in a team tournament, the last of the season when I was in high school. I offered a draw to my opponent even though I was slightly down in pieces (but had some advantages in position) because I knew that my team's position would not be effected by a draw or my win and I knew that my opponent would advance to the end of the year individual tournament if he accepted my draw.
However he either forgot that or decided to press his luck and he turned my draw offer down. But then proceeded to fall into time pressure and in a few short moves he lost his queen and I won the game handily (though on later analysis with correct play he should have beaten me at the time I offered him the draw - but in time pressure he was unlikely to have found the right set of moves to do so as the position was highly dynamic)
Offering a draw and NOT playing a game to the very bitter end is also a mark of respect to the other player - whether in a tournament or in casual play. Knowing when a game is drawn and equally importantly knowing when you have likely lost the game is a sign of a chess player of some skill.
One of the signs of chess players of less skill tends to be that they play every game to the bitter (and often for more serious chessplayers observing painfully slow) end. This isn't to say that you should resign or should offer (or accept) a draw when down a bit or when in a seemingly disadvantageous situation but it is to say that you should recognize when the game is mostly equally balanced and rather than play for dozens or more moves and often hours more, take (or offer) a draw (or if losing resign) and play another game. You will learn far more in the long run when you learn to recognize the difference between games which still have a lot of dynamic possibilities and games where they are drawn or where one side has a clear path to victory (even if it isn't a forced checkmate).
I disagree, strongly, with the other answer that suggests the only times when a chess game should be drawn is when it is technically a forced draw (i.e. neither side has sufficient pieces for a mate).
Above all else chess when played casually should be fun. Playing games out to their bitter end is rarely fun for both players and should be avoided.

Great answer, this mirrors my experience as a former tournament player and teacher.

Usually, when chess in analyzed, it's done with the benefits of a decision judged solely on the game state. That is, players are modeled as caring only about winning the game. But of course people are motivated by more than that. Deciding on whether to accept a draw depends on factors external to the actual game. There are many overlapping motivations for playing chess: money (at the high end), ego/bragging rights, fun, developing one's skills, bonding with someone else, etc. When to seek/accept a draw is going to depend not only on the board state but on what your motivations are.
For example, if your motivation is to practice chess and increase your skill, there can be value in playing on from a position that experts would consider drawn, if you haven't fully mastered how to maintain the draw from that position. On the other hand, you might want to accept a draw from a position that you think you could win, if you don't think that executing that win would develop your skills at all.
If your motivation is fun, then the question is whether the game is still fun. If all that is left is the application of endgame theory that you find tedious, then a draw would make sense. But if you would enjoy seeing how the game would play out even if it ends up a draw, then it would make sense to not offer a draw. As for whether you should accept a draw, the fact that your opponent is offering one suggests that perhaps they aren't having fun anymore, so the very fact that one is being offered is an argument for accepting it.

In chess draws are not usually arbitrarily decided.  There are very specific conditions that trigger draws.  The most common is just the kings (and a knight or bishop) remaining.  This is the only time a draw should be accepted.  Any situation that is not listed as a read draw should be played out.
Chess games cannot be stuck if all rules are followed including the automatic draw for repeating a situation on the board, and people knowing basic mates (like the queen king mate)
Why do they happen often in high level play?
In chess the black side is considered at a disadvantage and in a very high level game is playing for the draw.  So the goal of a grand master is often, win all white games and draw all black games.

actually this isn't exactly true. Draws should be accepted many times more than when a checkmate is no longer possible. There are countless other positions which are drawn even if technically pieces remain which could (in theory if not in practice) create a mate. In high level play Black should still be looking to win - draws by either side are often dependent on situations outside of the board as much (or more) than the actual position (i.e. overall situation in a tournament) and many games at high levels become drawlike for more see my answer.

Actually, two equal grandmasters playing each other would both try to win, Black or White.  If you've ever played chess, you would know that Black wins just as much as White, on average.

@drm65 "If you've ever played chess" Yes when i play black I play to win, i am not a grand master.  The whole point of the question is how that differs

My point is that a grandmaster will be striving to do just as much as a "lesser" player (like you or me).  There isn't an experience level at which someone cannot strive to win a chess game, from either side

Now, there are times when one should play for a draw, but that is always and only dependent on the strength of the other player, never on the color of your pieces.

Actually you play for a draw at times when it is to your advantage in a tournament to draw - often if one player can win in a tournament even with a drawn game their opponent will be at a disadvantage. High level (i.e. grandmaster) play also has historically seen many games where the choice of openings was, in essence, a signal to the other player that a draw was somewhat desired (i.e. playing an opening that at grandmaster level play typically leads to a drawn game vs. an opening with far less decided results or "best lines" is a signal.

"If you've ever played chess, you would know that Black wins just as much as White, on average."  That is not true, and there is plenty of data proving there is some small advantage to White.  For citations to various data and studies, see Wikipedia article on "First move advantage in chess."


text:
Identify the Game: reach the other side of the board, while avoiding barriers
I was at a friend of a friend's house last weekend and played a cool game.  Here is what I remember:

The game is played on a square board
2 or 4 players
The goal of the game is to reach the opposite side of the board from which you start (before your opponent(s))
On your turn you may

a) Move you piece forwards/backwards/left/right (not diagonal)
b) Place a barrier which you and your opponent cannot cross.  A barrier is a length two piece that goes between squares.

Anyone know the game?

Sounds like you are describing Quoridor.

This abstract strategy is surprisingly deep for its simple rules. The
  object of the game is to advance your pawn to the opposite edge of the
  board. On your turn you may either move your pawn or place a wall. You
  may hinder your opponent with wall placement, but not completely block
  him off. Meanwhile, he is trying to do the same to you. First pawn to
  reach the opposite side wins.

There is a similar game called Blockade, but unlike Quoridor, the board for that one isn't square.


text:
Can Sorcerers convert two units from the same Tribe in one turn?
A Cunning Rules Lawyer pointed out that, while the rules for Sorcerers say:

Once per turn per opponent, your Sorcerers
  can conquer a Region by substituting one of
  your opponent's Active tokens with one of
  your own taken from the storage tray.

It isn't 100% clear if, when you're playing a four player game, you can convert four regions of the same opponent, or if "once per opponent" means you have to target a different opponent each time.
Does once per turn per opponent mean that you have to target a different opponent each time, or just that you have as many conversions as opponents?

Looks like this is clarified by Antoine from Days of Wonder in this thread.  You may only use it once against a given opponent in a turn.

Of course you can only use it against each opponent once on any given turn.
They may as well try to argue that there are 3 turns left in the game, and 3 opponents, so they can use it 9 times this turn against a single opponent. That has as much grammatical sense as what they're arguing, and is clearly not what the grammatical structure means.

No, that would be a fundamental difference in power level.
The difference between "Power bounded by adjacent opponents" vs "Power bounded by number of opponents" is a lot more subtle.


text:
What Happens If The Sorcerers Run Out of Tokens?
In a game of Small World we were playing recently, we were facing Seafaring Sorcerers in a 5-player game, and they managed to expand very well, to the point where they were rapidly converting over most of the map. At one point, the player ran out of tokens to play.
What Happens in This Case?
Does their expansion halt completely? And if a sorcerer is killed, can they then re-use that token for conversion?

The rules address that specific case in the section on picking a race (page 3)

If, on the other hand, a Special Power (or Race power) lets you take
  additional Race tokens from the storage tray during the course of the
  game, you are still limited by the total number of tokens physically
  available. So a player with 18 Sorcerer tokens on the board won't be
  able to use his Sorcerer power again until some of his tokens become
  available.


text:
Which Axis and Allies Game Takes the Least Amount of Time to Play?
I have A&A Europe.  I generally just play with one other person.  The problem is that the game takes so long to play that we rarely play - because it takes so long.  Do different editions take more or less time to play?

A&A Pacific takes significantly less time to play than standard.  While I havent played Europe, BGG says that estimated time is 210 minutes as opposed to 120 for Pacific, so pacific should be shorter. Its about 2-3 hours, depends how willing to concede defeat the players are and. Additionally, it works excellently with 2 players. I would give that a try.. Have fun

From the "normal" game the 1st edition is a little bit shorter than the 2nd and the anniversary edition because the rules are easier and you do not need to read/learn/memorize it. But in general the normal game will be long too. Never played a game under 4-5 hours and even then one side "just" gave up.

Axis and allies 1941 takes the least to play at 1.5 -2 hours and is also the cheapest edition.


text:
How can I speed up a game of Axis and Allies?
I find Axis and Allies takes a long time to play.  Does anyone have any house rules that would shorten the game?  I actually own A&A Europe, but general answers are welcome.

This is an excellent question!
For a board game I love but never play now since me and my friends, all working, can never get the 50 hours needed to finish it :) (ok, it's more like 8 hours no kiddin') if we don't simplify the rules and/or shorten the terms.
We have successfully used gentlemen's agreeements, as follows:
Shortened victory conditions (classic, revised, 1942, anniversary edition and 1940s):

We use the shortest victory conditions, always. It still takes many hours
Capital conditions: If a capital falls; the game is over even if it can be retaken. In practice that is a game winner anyways. I am sure there can be exceptions, but not if you play aware of that condition. It affects mostly the crucial Russia/Germany stalemate.

This helps a lot since you may reach a point at which Germany has good chance of taking Moscow in two rounds, or die so you can simply resolve only the moves and battles that affect that and call it a game.
Japanese stalemate settlement (classic, revised, 1942, anniversary edition and 1940s):

Our housee rule is: If japan has been wiped out from the mainland and has lost its fleet while there are at least scattered Allied ships in the Pacific, give all VP cities to the Allies and check if game is over.  Taking Tokyo is a 6 round affair at this point, that takes hours.

Europe and Pacific 1940:

For Germany: if USSR is advancing while the Atlantic has protected Allied transports unloading troops in Europe for two rounds or more, we call it a game. (Even if Italy is huge, because it failed to counter the previous.)
For Japan: If Japan land troops are both in Caucasus and eastern Russia (3-4 territories) while Japan holds the biggest Pacific fleet, we call it a game as well.

If you are new or almost new to the game:

I think turn time limit helps a lot. Agree on one, just make sure Germany and Japan have a bit higher limit than the allies
If you will play often, play at least 3 games of limited rounds (for instance, 3). Discuss who would win and why. For games like 1942 or Revised this helps a lot because you will better understand what can be achieved at that round and will have an idea about how long your games will take.

And the golden house-rule: Accept the dice, be a gentleman.
Agree on these kinds of conditions when the game starts and accept that the game is over at any of these points.
I am serious on this, because most games finish with a bitter taste of no conclusion with statements like "but I could still attack here and win that and..." which mostly leads to hours of playing to reach the same apparant result.
Not surprisingly there are these A&A chess and "Low luck" (tripleA videogame) housee rules that to me are based on this bitterness. The game is not designed for that, thus making the game somewhat scripted after a while.

There is a variant of Axis and Allies referred to as Axis and Allies Chess. I've not tried it myself, but this variation uses no dice, which I presume would greatly speed up the game.
Alternatively, you could consider playing it online - then you don't have to spend all that time setting up, moving pieces, counting out IPCs, and so forth. But I guess that kind of defeats the social aspect of the game, unless you all bring your laptops over and play whilst visiting together. :-)

Axis and Allies when played with many players (one player per nation, usually this means five) can be a long game with a lot of down time between turns.
A house rule we have used when we have a player for each nation is to rearrange the turn order so that allies move together (all the Axis, then all the allies).  Yes, this does affect the game, some balancing changes need to be made, and I wouldn't recommend this for tournament play, purists, or the super competitive.  It does remove a lot of downtime.
The way it works:
All the Axis move together, then all the Allies move together, repeat.
After all team players have finished combat movement, then combat takes place.  Nations may attack the same territory, but must attack one at a time (the defenders defends together as normal).  The attacking players may choose which order they fight in and each must fight at least one round before retreating, but they still must attack independently.  Note this makes it impossible to clear speedbumps/skirmishers for a teammate's blitz.
Some balancing changes to consider:
When we play this way we usually have widely different skill levels in the game so fine balance doesn't matter as much as having fun.  We do make some changes to help nations where losing the initiative would cripple.  For example, you may choose to give the USSR a non-combat move and full production phase before the first Axis move.  You may also give the UK a bid or non-combat move in the Pacific.
We have played this way a few times and it has gone well.  If you enjoy it please upvote and comment.

There is a simple victory condition: Whichever side has the most IPCs after the game is "mature." You might agree that it is required for one side to have an IPC preponderance of X points, so that the game is not decided by one or two points. O
The "mature" precondition exists when both sides have more or less continuous fronts in every major theater. Then, it is impossible to win by "penetration," and the game/war is decided by the preponderance of resources. In such situations, it's not worth playing out the game.
Or you can decide to call it a game after a certain period of time or after so many rounds.

here is a new game
Everyone moves all at once. Yes, everyone.
You find a map with the sea spaces with numbers
Everyone writes down EVERY move.
Then all at once, everyone moves their pieces. You can get some pretty surprising strategy out of it
Like if you move a sub into sea space 111 and don't say attack on your written down move. And a ship happens to move in there as well. Well, both of you share the same sea space no attacking.
super fast game, but interesting turn out. Sometimes you forget to give "orders" and you forget an attack or a move. But that's high command for ya.

And a typical written move goes like this

2 tanks 2 inf attack russia to west russia,

This becomes a completely different game with these rules and I am not sure how they would speed it up as people will spend more time thinking about what other players can do since it all happens at once.


text:
How much strategic depth is there in Quarriors?
I've played Quarriors a few times and I love Dominion.  The one game of Quarriors that I won, I just happened to roll my monsters attack side up many times in a row, I didn't make any coherent plans nor perform any tactical countering of my opponents.  This has me worried about the lack of depth in Quarriors.
How much depth is there to Quarriors?  Do good players analyze a board and come up with good, kingdom-specific combos?  How often do you pass up buys for the most expensive cards for something that better fits in your deck?

Not much. The game is won or lost on creatures. The problem is, those creature dice usually only have a 50%-67 chance of coming up as a creature. It is quite possible to have the better dice bag, and just lose because of poor dice rolls.
With only one buy, the best purchase is usually obvious. Since most spells don't gain you glory and creatures that score also allow you to cull your weak starting dice, you are usually best off buying the most costly creature you can get. The most costly creature usually scores the most Glory, and usually has higher defense and attack power. Many times, whomever gets an early 8 Quiddy starting roll and can buy the Dragon or other 3-4 Glory creature first will usually win.
The game is usually pretty short. This is especially true of the 4 player game, where the game ends on 12 glory. This doesn't give the dice bags much time to develop a strategy.
The Advanced and Expert rules on page 10 of the newest rule book do add some important strategic changes. With the Advanced rule, you can buy two dice per turn, that makes you have to decide on multiple smaller quicker scores (less risk of not rolling a creature), or bigger creatures that are more likely to survive. The Expert rules require you to cull the creature that scores. This rule makes the game take longer, and gives dice bag strategies more time to develop.

Although there is quite a lot of luck, there's definitely strategy involved.
After playing probably a hundred games (at lunch time and mostly 2 player) we've noticed different play-styles. One of us tends to start off well but get bogged down. The other often starts slow but storms home at the end. This can't be put down to just luck.
The particular cards that are in play have to be analyzed to discover what will work best. This is what makes it a fun game (for us). trying to figure out what will work well this time.
Also note, we played the Advanced variant.

Advanced variant is the only way to go. 2 buys, and give up creatures to score them. This makes long-term engine decks viable, and multiple cheaper purchases work. Otherwise creatures decide the game entirely.

Quariors is very luck driven.  Some people like to describe it as "luck squared" because you have the draw from the bag, and then the roll of the dice.  In Dominion you are at least guaranteed to see your new cool card sooner or later, in Quariors it could just keep rolling quidity.
The designer claims that the luck evens out throughout a game, but i find this very much not true.  Quariors lead snowballs more than any other game i have ever played.  This is a trait partially taken from Dominion, but because you score points and cull with the same action the problem is severely increased. This is also compounded by the fact that other players are playing "defense" against you, so they will keep each other down, as the runaway leader keeps running away and completely blocking the opposition.
What it finally leads to is a few early rolls deciding the entire game


text:
Tournament rules for RftG, how to ensure fair play?
I am going to run a Race for the Galaxy tournament at WBC this year. You should all come and play! I received a message that last year, one of the competitors suspected another player was underpaying for the cards he was building.
Is there a reasonable way to make sure players play Race fairly? We want that no one can pay less for their builds than they should, that no one is keeping extra cards from explore, etc. Is there some way to do this that isn't overly burdensome to the players and the pace of the game?

I take it you don't regard it as sufficient to simply tell players, if you're suspicious (like that person was), ask to count the cards?

You could discard cards face down in-front of yourself, splayed out so that a count can easily be made, before discarding the cards to the common discard pile. Alternately, until the next reshuffle, you could place those cards face down under the development/planet (splayed slightly) that they are paying. This would give players a much longer time to verify that they didn't cheat.
I am not exactly sure how someone would keep extra cards from an explore. During the explore phase, don't you keep either 2 cards of 3 (normally, without any development/planet bonuses) or if you explore deep you keep 1 of 7 cards. How exactly is someone keeping extra cards from this? Are they merging their hand and their Explore, or keeping them in different hands?

Yeah, I was thinking about this, and also having common discard pile go into the box, somewhat far away from the players, so you don't accidentally throw cards into the box before others players have verified them.

There is a mix and match ability in later expansions.  But it could also be easy to just take 2 of 7 cards into hand instead of 1 of 7, for example.

@RobRenaud, If players attempt to take 2 from their 7, you would need to splay their discards in front of them before discarding to the common pool. It would also be wise to institute rules similar to MtG tournament rules when playing cards that allow for a player to examine the top X library cards and keep one. A player shouldn't mingle cards from their hands with the library. If they need to examine both their hand and library at the same time, they should keep them in separate hands, so it is obvious they aren't moving cards between zones they shouldn't.

+1 I tend to do show my payments anyway, just as a matter of politeness. Say "I pay four for X", hold them up fanned out, then discard. It doesn't really slow down the game; it's rare for things to cost more than you can count with a glance (there are only so many Alien Departure Points).


text:
House rules to reduce the game play time of Power Grid
Are there any fair rules for shortening the playing time of Power Grid?
It seems obvious to end the game on less powered cities (rather than the 17 default), but this often skews the phase 2 for the non-leading players. I've considered also moving phase 2 sooner as well. Does anyone have any good ways to shorten the game?

This is a good question, and I'm afraid I don't have a great answer. I think the creators addressed this question a bit with the creation of the Benelux board. When you play with that board you always remove the lowest power plant. That speeds things up a lot.


text:
Can a Cyclone's "Dual Covering Fire" Special Action be used if the Cyclone is engaged in melee?
This question came up last night while we were playing a game of Warmachine.  A friend was running a Cyclone, and he noticed that the Dual Covering Fire special action is an *Action, not an *Attack.
Does this mean that it can be used even if the Cyclone is engaged?  The Action is attached to the ranged weapon however, so does this make it the equivalent of an *Attack?

So, found this little tidbit here:
http://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?12489-Covering-Fire-while-engaged&highlight=dual+covering+fire+melee
It seems that, yes, they can, for the reasons I stated above - because it is a special action, not a special attack.


text:
Is the luck factor indeed overwhelming in the Catan Card Game?
I recently bought the Settlers of Catan Card Game, played two partial games, and was very disappointed because of the seemingly huge importance of luck. Just about every action is based on chance:

resources are distributed based on dice rolls
land tiles are drawn randomly, except if you were lucky enough to pull the magic card allowing you to actually choose the land tiles
hand cards are randomly drawn, except if you are lucky enough to own some resources you can spare. However, even then you still need some luck in choosing the best card stack.
some action cards need some more dicing
when I played, the "mill" event was thrown over and over again by my opponent, so I never had any resources to advance my kingdom

I particularly hate investing effort to plan ahead, just to see my strategy crushed under bad dice rolls. I am seriously considering throwing away the game after having played it only twice. However, I bought this game because it received a lot of good internet reviews, even from reviewers I trust. Therefore I ask myself: is there really some strategy involved in this game, or do you just need a large amount of luck to win?

Just because you dislike the game doesn't mean everyone else does too. Some people like reacting to and handling random events while others prefer playing within a more predictable system. This may simply not be your cup of tea...

@Kempeth: You are right: whether you like a luck based game is a matter of taste. However while reading a lot of reviews about the game I got the impression that it is more a strategy game than a lottery. Therefore I wonder if there is a way to largely eliminate the luck factor.

No, not in my experience. In fact, the Catan Card Game has a great depth of strategy and many ways to offset the luck of the dice.
Your chances will be greatly helped if you've found a Scout card, certainly. It should ALWAYS be one of your starting cards if you have the chance. If you don't, then you know there's one in the three stacks that neither of you searched to start with. Use the ability to cycle a card from hand, and pay two useless resources (gold, or sheep or corn) to search more stacks for a Scout.
When you do get a Scouted settlement, choose the numbers carefully. I try to choose a brick or ore that has the same number as my gold hex, so I get a real resource on every number. You could do the opposite and deliberately seek out both 5s so that you have a natural choice to Alchemist for.
After a game or two you acquire something of an instinct for which cards are good early, good late, good all the time (Merchant), or never good. Cycle your hand aggressively: you should always be aiming to draw a card per turn unless you have a really perfect hand.
There are several different approaches / strategies for how you deal with the event die, depending on your attitude to the luck of the game. If you're playing cautiously, you'll try to keep windmill points at least balanced with your opponent so they can't steal from you, and try to seek out tournament-point knights to get the tournament resources. I personally tend to go for the windmill token anyway as one of my 11 VP.


text:
What is the maximum score in Ticket to Ride USA, and how to aim towards it?
My wife has been playing Ticket to Ride on her iPod, and has achieved what seems to me a very impressive score of nearly 250 in the 2-player game.  Naturally, nothing now matters to me except trying to beat her...
Even assuming a terrible computer opponent, it seems to me to be quite difficult to get much above 200 points in a normal game.  But I thought if I enlisted the help of the BG:SE brain trust, we might be able to work out the maximum possible score for the US board.
And if we can find out or approximate that information, from there I'm guessing it should be easy to work out which routes or combination of routes are the best to aim for for racking up a top score...

Sorry, don't have time to fully answer this. Leaving for someone else to explain. :)

@ire_and_curses I'll upvote the comment since you easily would have beaten me to the answer.  :-)

Success! After only a day of sporadic trying, I managed to score 265, connecting Vancouver, Montreal, LA and Miami and picking up about 15 routes.  It would have been 272 if I hadn't pushed my luck by picking up more routes on my final turn :(

Straight from Board Game Geek:

In order to get 295 you must get one of the most important cities Miami! You end up sacrificing New Orleans and Sault St. Marie to do so.
Follow the same route from Vancouver to Santa Fe, but then you deviate from there:

Santa Fe -> Denver -> Kansas City -> St. Louis (Splitting Point Here)
St. Louis -> Nashville -> Atlanta -> Miami
St. Louis -> Chicago -> Pittsburg (Splitting Point Here)
Pittsburg -> Toronto
Pittsburg -> New York -> Boston -> Montreal

This route will give you the same 62 points for train length, but 223 for destination cards resulting in 295!
Dropped Destinations: Dallas to NY; NO to Vancouver; NO to Chicago; Sault St. Marie to OKC; Sault St. Marie to Nashville (48 points)
Added Destinations: Denver to Pittsburg; Miami -> LA; Miami -> Boston; Miami -> Montreal (51 points)

Following this as close as possible, you should be able to beat 200, and eventually eclipse your wife's score of 250. It's going to take a little luck, but this seems like the best blueprint.

Cool! I should've known that BGG would have been a sensible first port of call, but obviously I'm a BG:SE loyalist.  I'm going to go read up...

@thesunneversets There's also a word document posted on the BGG section I linked. This goes through the way they figured it out, including individual calculations for each route. For some reason it shows up 5 points shy of the maximum, but 295 is the score ceiling.

Having played a few games using this for inspiration, it certainly gives you a fighting chance of breaking 200 (against a weak AI anyway), but I'm all the more impressed by my wife's score of 246 now.  So much has to go right to even stand a chance of hitting a score like that...

The range of possible scores in Ticket to Ride is 635. The minimum is -340, and the maximum is 295.
The minimum can only be achieved with two players. Your opponent keeps two goals, which must be Denver to El Paso and Kansas City to Houston. You must then draw every other goal in the game without playing any trains. You will get 0 for playing trains and -340 for goals. Additionally, your opponent needs to claim at least one route to prevent having a tie for longest continuous route.
The maximum points possible, 295, can be achieved by following the instructions given above.
However, achieving either a -340 or 295 is virtually impossible. To get -340, your opponent needs to draw Denver to El Paso and Kansas City to Houston and also throw away their third destination ticket. Since those two routes only require nine trains to be used, your opponent will likely draw a few more goals before you can take the entire deck.
Likewise, getting 295 is just about impossible. If you're playing against a real person, they will probably take at least one of the routes needed. Additionally, if your opponent takes one of the goals you need, it is impossible.
When playing against a stupid computer, the computer will also probably take one of your routes.
However, there is one way to make your chances of scoring 295 extremely high (without cheating). That is playing against a baby that doesn't do anything and forfeits all of their turns. This way, all you need is for him/her to not draw goals you need and for you to draw at least one goal you need per turn.

The game does not end until one player has (or almost has? I always need to look up the exact number) exhausted all their carriages; so not only do you need to spend every turn collecting routes but also the opponent must build practically all of their carriages. Likewise, forfeiting a turn is not possible as each turn is either drawing wagon cards, placing carriages or choosing routes.

Top score as far as I know is 293.

Destinations:
1. Vancouver-Santa Fe (13)
2. Vancouver-Montreal (20)
3. Seattle-Los Angeles (9)
4. Seattle-New York (22)
5. Portland-Phoenix (11)
6. Portland-Nashville (17)
7. San Francisco-Atlanta (17)
8. Los Angeles-Chicago (16)
9. Los Angeles-New York (21)
10. Los Angeles-Miami (20)
11. Chicago-Santa Fe (9)
12. Chicago-New Orleans (7)
13. New York-Atlanta (6)
14. Boston-Miami (12)
15. Montreal-Atlanta (9)
16. Montreal-New Orleans (13)

Longest path (10)

Path:
Vancouver
Seattle (1)
Portland (1)
San Francisco (10)
Los Angeles (4)
Phoenix (4)
Santa Fe (4)
Oklahoma City (4)
Little Rock (2) New Orleans (4)
Saint Louis (2) Nashville (2) Atlanta (1) Miami (10)
Chicago (2)
Pittsburgh (4)
New York (2)
Boston (2)
Montreal (2)

Destinations: 222
Longest path: 10
Trains: 61

Total: 293

Hopefully the breakdown is right, lots of numbers so maybe I made a typo, but the destinations and cities are all correct!

Tips: Get all the destinations ASAP, only skip a turn of claiming routes to claim Los Angeles-Phoenix, Oklahoma City-Little Rock and Chicago-Pittsburgh, as these are routes you need that will go first.

Happy travels!

The highest score that I have tested in Ticket to Ride is 308.
You would need to build the following trains:
Vancouver → Seattle (1) → Portland (2) → San Francisco (12) → Los Angeles (16) → Phoenix (20) → Santa Fe (24) → Oklahoma City (28) → Dallas (30) → Houston (31) → New Orleans (33) → Atlanta (40) → Raleigh (42) → Washington (44) → New York (46) → Boston (48) → Montréal (50)
From here, build the following branches in order (otherwise the game will end before you finish):
Atlanta → Nashville (51) → Saint Louis (53) → Chicago (55)
Atlanta → Miami (65)
You would also need to have/pull the following 17 routes, which you will need extreme luck to get:
Seattle → New York (87)
Los Angeles → New York (108)
Vancouver → Montréal (128)
Los Angeles → Miami (148)
San Francisco → Atlanta (165)
Portland → Nashville (182)
Los Angeles → Chicago (198)
Montréal → New Orleans (211)
Vancouver → Santa Fe (224)
Boston → Miami (236)
Portland → Phoenix (247)
Dallas → New York (258)
Seattle → Los Angeles (267)
Montréal → Atlanta (276)
Chicago → Santa Fe (285)
Chicago → New Orleans (292)
New York → Atlanta (298)
If you managed to build the trains correctly, then you can give yourself the Trans-American Express for the longest train, an extra 10 points. this will bring your total up to 308.
I may have made a typo or did something wrong, so please reply if I did.

That set of routes has a total length of 48, in the standard game each player only has 45 trains.

And it isn't optimal for 48 trains either. Just do the described route for 295, and extend it with Vancouver-Calgary, that's a three train route (so possible when going from 45 to 48 trains), giving 4 points, and completing the Calgary-Phoenix ticket for 13 points, giving a total of 312. (I'm not claiming that is optimal either, it was just a quick way to see that 308 wasn't that just came to me)

@Henriksupportsthecommunity: You're right, there are officially only 45 trains. I've seen spare trains in the box, though, so some people might indeed play with 48 trains.

The highest I have ever seen was 378. All 45 trains were used, they got 26 destinations, and made all of them, had longest train and globe trotter (1910) I have a picture of the score too, as I couldn't believe it and I was seeing it.

The 1910 expansion has more tickets than the base game, and thus a higher possible score.

I believe 289 is the highest possible score.
I have achieved it.
Those who say 295 w/ Miami failed to subtract KC to Houston, another 5 points.
I'm trying to figure out why the original document says 290 is the highest-- maybe just a math error.

Can you give us a breakdown of how you achieved it?

I have achieved 295, so your belief is clearly wrong.

I have hit 266. I remember when I thought 200 was really high. 295 is the highest I've seen but I don't have a blueprint for it. Miami is a very important city. Basically I usually try to connect LA to Vancouver and NY, going more south if I can. Then try to get down to Miami. Watch your train count. Once I have a my 3 corners I'll try to keep drawing routes as long as I can, making sure I fill in the path to Miami along the way without triggering a last turn. Do this and you may not ever get 295 but you will eventually beat your wife (if she hasn't figured this out already)
It may be worth noting that if the computer draws a few routes it may mess you up as to what's left.
Thanks for other answers as well!

Read the back of the score card. If you have a consecutive path of all 45 trains you get a bonus score of 225

This is wrong - the score card says 45*5 to indicate the number of trains (45) and the number of players (5); there are 225 train pieces in the game. Building all your trains in a path will get you 10 points for the longest route.


text:
How do you play the Master Spy in Guillotine?
Guillotine is a fun, quick, bloodthirsty little card game that would grace any group's collection.  It is very simple, which is just as well, as the rulebook errs on the side of vagueness.
There is one card, though, where it's hard to work out how the creators envisaged it to be played.  The Master Spy goes to the back of the line after any action card is played.
There are two ways of interpreting this.  Either the action card is fully resolved, and then the Master Spy goes to the back of the line.  This means that, basically, the Master Spy cannot be executed except fortuitously, when he is the only person left standing at the end of a day.
The other interpretation is that the action card is played, the Master Spy goes to the back of the line, and then the action card is resolved.  So, supposing you play an action that reverses the line: the Master Spy goes to the back of the line, then the line is reversed, and then THWACK!  It's off with his head.
The latter way of playing appeals to most of the groups I've been part of, simply because it allows for clever play (or at least as clever as you can get in a game like Guillotine).  I do suspect us of approaching the game too much like diehard Magic: the Gathering rules lawyers: drawing a fine temporal distinction between a card's being played and a card resolving is probably not something that would occur to casual card players.
I was wondering, if anyone else here has ever played Guillotine, how do you play the Master Spy?  (I can't imagine Guillotine is a serious enough game for there to have been an "official ruling", but if there has, that would constitute an even better answer!)

The Master Spy is quite hard to kill!
Boardgamegeek posed this question a while ago and got this response from Wizards of the Coast.

there is no way to play a card to get the master spy to the front of the line without him just going back after the cards effects.

For further reference, a secondhand account but the ruling was during a WoTC run game.
This is the way I've always played it as well.  He's the Master Spy!  Of course he's hard to kill :)

Pshaw, how do we know the Master Spy didn't intercept the transmission from WotC and replace it with his usual false propaganda?  (Good to know that it isn't just me who's lost sleep over this question, though!)

@the - he is that good, which is just another reason not to mess with him!

Despite this official response, I agree with the sentiment in the original question: it's more fun to play with a spy that moves before the card takes effect. I also think a bumbling master spy goes along well with the flavor of the game.

Pat's response is spot on, I think (and bonus points for the official response). However, you can still influence whether you get to kill the spy. The most obvious way would be to use a "Double Header" to kill two nobles if there are only two left in the queue. Also, if there are as many cards left as there are players, then you could try playing a card that makes you kill no nobles at all that turn and hope that the other players will all kill exactly one noble - which would leave the master spy for you.

I actually killed the Master Spy with a "Double Header" at our games evening last night - very satisfying, and it works however your group interprets the rules!

I prefer having him show up first in line and neglecting to play a card before terminating him :)

I actually found a funny way in which he can die early. The card that reads "choose a player, the nobles will be randomly rearranged just before that player takes his next noble"(roughly).  My opponent, sneakily chose herself. the spy moved to the back of the line. then... the cards got randomly re-arranged and she got lucky.
I see that the wizards may disagree, It seems to me that the card is played and the effect was to set up the randomness.  The final randomness only occurs after whichever player is chosen is done with their action.  It's genius to use it on yourself.

I like it!  I think almost half the fun of Guillotine is trying to work out complicated ways to kill the Master Spy :)

I have always been of the opinion that it is impossible to kill him until he's the "last one left standing" because he ALWAYS moves AFTER the action takes its effect.  We played tonight and a friend played the card that shuffles the line just before his wife would collect her noble.  Naturally, she played an action card that had no effect on the line due to the upcoming shuffle and argued that her card took effect when she played it even though the Master Spy was already at the end of the line.  As luck would have it, Master Spy popped up at the front of the line as a result of the shuffle and she claimed her card had already taken effect so she collected Master Spy.  I feel vindicated to see she was wrong as ruled by Wizards of the Coast.
That being said, we actually had a game where Master Spy was fourth in line at the beginning of the day, preceded by two high point cards and Unpopular Judge.  The first two players simply collected their heads without playing an action card.  I was third up, but prevented from playing an action card due to the Judge's flavor text.  My wife, who was next in turn, happily played no action card and snatched Master Spy from the front of the line since he hadn't moved!  So, it is possible to get Master Spy before the end of the day if the right set of circumstances arises.

Actually, in this case I think your wife was right -- the Master Spy moves AFTER she player her card, and the line reshuffle happens BEFORE she collects a noble.

@Chris - I don't think so; I believe we established that the official ruling is that the card is played, all its effects are carried out, and then the Master Spy goes to the end of the line before a head is collected.  Seems less fun to me, but I'm pretty sure it's official.

But in this case, the reshuffle is not an effect of the card she played, its an effect of a card that was previously played by another player.

There is only one way it makes sense and it is that he moves to the end of the line so you can't collect him. Otherwise there is no point in them even changing his specific rule. The card is resolved, then he moves to the end of the line making him impossible to catch without waiting it out or not playing action cards.

The Master Spy text is, 'After each action card is played, move this card to the end of the line'. The text implies multiple action cards may be used in one turn, which at first seems to be against the rules. But, it is possible for the Master Spy's effect to be triggered twice in one turn, such as with a 'Confusion in Line' action card (choose player. Randomly rearrange the line just before that player collects his or her next noble). According to a previous post in this thread, WotC official response implies the Master Spy moves 'prior' to collection. Thus, the Master Spy will avoid being collected if randomly reshuffled to the front of the line, as he will just slip to the back of the line after the shuffle.

It has to be one of either two ways, and can't be both.  The card reads "after each action card is played".
1).  "Played" means put on the table.  E.g.  I play double feature but the moment I put it on the table the spy moves to the end, and I collect the next two nobles (not the spy).  E.g. 2  I play reverse the order of the line, the moment I put it on the table the spy moves to the end, then the line reverses and I collect the Spy.
2). "Played" means the execution of the text on the card.  E.g. I play reverse the order of the line and execute the action, reversing the order, then the spy moves to the end. I do not get the spy.   E.g. 2  I play double feature and execute the action, collecting the master spy and the next noble, or a noble and the master spy depending on their order.  I get the spy.
It has to be one or the other.  It rests on the definition of the word "played".  Either reversing the order works or double feature works, but not both or neither.

You're referring to the action card 'after you.'  You play the card and place the noble in the front in another players score pile, that's the action card effect, then you collect the noble at the front of the line for your turn.


text:
The Pilgrim in the Pine Forest
I just bought the new Agricola "Gamer's Deck" from my local store - hooray!  119 sweet new Occupation / Minor Improvement cards that will keep me happy while I wrestle inwardly with the question of whether I can justify buying the silly-looking "Goodies" expansion for $60, just to scratch my completist's itch.
Looking through the new cards though I found two which seemed to contradict each other.  Can anyone tell me what happens if you get both of these in play?

Pilgrim (Occupation)
You receive 2 Food before you pay the costs of playing this Occupation.  At the start of a round, if you have no building resources, you may take 1 building resource from the supply; if you have no Food, you may take 1 Food from the supply.  (At any time, you many move resources from your personal supply to the general supply.)

Pine Forest (Minor Improvement)
At the start of each round, you may place 1 Wood on this card if you have zero Wood in your supply.  When this card has 5 Wood, move the Wood from this card to your supply.  (You may not give Wood to the general supply for nothing.)

If you have both the Pilgrim and the Pine Forest in play, can you "throw away" your spare Wood to keep the Pine Forest growing... or not?  I am particularly confused on this point because both of the relevant lines on the cards are italicized, which gives them the air of being clarifications of the basic rules, rather than special abilities bestowed by the cards.
Does the Pilgrim ruling override the Pine Forest's, or vice versa?  Are you allowed to throw away resources at will in the ordinary course of the rules?  (Not that a sane person would want to, but still...) You can sort of throw away animals you don't have room for... why not resources you don't want?  Anyone think they know the definitive answer?

The definitive answer was given on BoardGameGeek by Hanno Girke (editor of the rules).

The Pilgrim has priority.
The Pine Forest just states a standard rule, it doesn't create a new rule.
Therefore, as soon as you play Pilgrim, you override this rule.

There is some background at play-agricola.com, where the Gamer's Deck was designed.
As noted by Hanno, the standard rule is on the Pine Forest.  You may not give goods from your supply to the general supply.


text:
Rewards and punishments for card games
With playing a long board game you have the satisfaction of the endurance and outsmarting your opponents. It's a struggle and winning is the glory.
When you play something like poker or Uno you are playing several games over and over again.
When I play with friends we play with points or with poker chips and have either rewards or punishments to the winner or the loser.
We try and avoid gambling with poker but this can result in people going all-in after less than 10 hands.
Do you have any suggestions for how you spice up games like Uno and poker to make them interesting without resulting to gambling?

NOTE: I know most people here play for the love of the game, but it's not always the case for casual players.

I'm confused.  Why would you play poker without gambling?  I don't even like the game, and I'm missing something here.

@Margaret: Some people - like me - aren't any good with poker. So essentially you're asking them to pay money to play with them... It's not even about loosing 5 bucks - It's about the wager no longer being a wager but a fee.

@Kempeth No, I'm terrible at poker.  We've just always played with chips, because otherwise how do you keep score?

@Margaret: Then I misunderstood you. Of course you'll need something to keep score. You can use chips without having to "buy" them. But some people object to that saying that the game goes bad if there's no money at stake.

I'm continuing to manfully fight the urge, when someone mentions "spice up" and "poker" in the same question, to give any advice involving people taking their clothes off...

What if the better player paid for part of your buy in?  Surely if you only have to pay $1 for $5 worth of chips, you could still be playing reasonably for money and it isn't a priori a negative value game for you.

@thesunneversets - We are a group of married couples, the days of me getting my kit off in front of strangers is long behind me.

@Rob: It's not like I couldn't afford to loose the usual "buy-ins". It's that I don't see the point in it and I suspect the better players would not see the point in paying my buy-in either... At that point you might play without the money altogether.

@all: about why is it so important to gamble real money in poker and all that, you might be interested in answering my question on this very topic :-) http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/2088/why-is-real-money-betting-necessary-for-poker-to-be-fun

How can you even put poker and uno in the same sentence, let alone compare them!

Chores
When we went on holidays we'd often play card games in the evening to determine who had to get up in the morning to get fresh bread from the bakery.

Pretty sweet idea.  Along similar lines, my old housemates invented a game where you can claim experience points and gain levels for doing housework and so on: http://www.chorewars.com/

...Reminds me of the antes in that one scene from a Firefly episode... "Plums are tall."

IIRC, I think that "Plum" was a suit of the cards being used:
http://www.fireflywiki.org/Firefly/TallCard

There is no poker without gambling
I haven't played Uno in ages, but perhaps the most fundamental mechanic in poker is the gambling. There is a modicum of skill in games like 5-card draw, where at least the player has a choice of what cards to discard, but in the most popular poker games, like Texas Hold'em or 5- and 7-card stud, the best hand is deterministic (slightly over-simplified because the way the cards get distributed is obviously modified as people fold, but given that no one knows what the next cards are poker is still effectively deterministic).
Poker is only fun because although the best hand is fait accompli to an omniscient observer the winner is not; players can only know and play the odds of what's to come, which they do with their bets. It is the betting and the concomitant broadcast of information (or mis-information) to the other players that makes the game, and without it Poker is like war (the card came) for adults: rote and pointless.
Now the "chips" don't have to be money, as others have suggested, but they do have to have real value. Just playing with a stack of chips that hold no actual value to the players is meaningless because there's no disincentive to call every raise, which eliminates the ability to bluff and thus reduces the game to one played without chips.
In practice what I've found works best amongst adults is to pick a buy-in that's enough money that people care a little about losing it, but not enough that they're going to be bent out of shape if they go home empty handed--say $10-20. Then to ensure games don't end after 10 games, put a raise limit of say 25 cents and a re-raise limit of once per round. This naturally limits pot sizes and extends the game and works fairly well in practice.
With kids (assuming you're willing to teach them how to play poker at all) a good system could involve one where chips can be purchased for doing extra chores and chips can be cashed in for privileges--with a side agreement on the chip value of various household tasks and treats. Then the kids can tend to their "bank" between settings and potentially learn something about delayed gratification.

I prefer mild humiliation to any actual risk. It tends to keep things good hearted and can easily be altered to suit any requirements. Naturally, everyone should consent to the rules to make sure fun stays the top priority.
Here are some examples:

doing pushups while singing the national anthem for 30 seconds.
wearing something until a different person looses, like a jester's hat, while playing.
Loosing your chair and sitting on the floor until someone else looses.
altering the words you say when declaring your actions. IE every quantity has to be followed by a certain word, or every sentence must end with "your excellency" said to the winner.

The possibilities are endless :D

You can play poker "without money" if you use chips.  In order to give the chips value, you require that for anyone to "re-supply" their chips from the bank (that is, get more chips after losing all of theirs) they must perform some task;  this can range from "Buy a round of beer" to "Is tasked with supplying the snacks next week" or whatever your group can come up with.

Pool the Winnings
I just remembered something my parents did with Canasta. Instead of the looser paying the winner the looser paid into a pool. When the pool would grow large enough they'd spend it on holidays or something else they both liked.
So if you're playing in fixed group that might be an interesting alternative. If your group consists of different people all the time then they might not like that idea so much.

One thing to keep in mind is that each "chip" doesn't have to have value, but the overall outcome (winning or losing) must.  For a party, or poker night setting where adult beverages are involved, I would suggest keeping track of the bill for everyone's drinks, then splitting the bill at the end of the night between the losers.

Welcome to the site. An upvote for you.

Food
Poker and other games of chance can be played for fun using small foods.  Cookies and M&Ms are pretty good, though people concerned with germs and crumbs may prefer to use fun-size wrapped candies.
One interesting advantage of playing with mixed candies is that since different people like different candy, each "chip" takes on unique, asymmetrical value.  Some people will gladly gamble off their Milky Ways if it means a shot at winning some delicious mini Snickers, and vice-versa.
Just be careful not to eat away all your stakes before you've had a chance to win more!

Drinking Games
There's the classic stand-by of weekend college parties...
Any game can be a drinking game:  Make a mistake, take a drink.
Note: This is not my cuppa tea, but it's an option.

unless people start TRYING to take drinks. ;)

I've never understood drinking games.  Since arguably the goal is to get drunk, and drinking is usually a penalty, it seems to reverse any game into one where losing is preferable.  On the other hand, games where winners drink are great because they're self balancing.  The more you win, theoretically, the sloppier you play.

I had a group of friends who would play cards for water.  Hearts was the usual game.  A large glass of water was filled and placed in the center of the table.  Each hand, the person taking the most points (the loser) would drink the glass and refill it.  (In the event of a tie, everyone tied drinks a glass.)  It sounds like no big deal*, but give it a few games.  That glass of water will start to affect your play, especially with the queen.
(!) Drinking too much water too quickly can be very dangerous to your health.  That said, we never had any problems. YMMV.


text:
Why is Pandemic's Bio-terrorist Challenge not recommended with five players?
The rules say the bio-terrorist challenge is for three and four player games and is explicitly not recommended for five players. Why is that? If it's a difficulty issue, couldn't the number of Epidemic cards be adjusted to compensate? As easy as it is to tweak the difficulty of Pandemic, it's hard to imagine there isn't some way to get it to work.
Am I missing something? Is there some reason it just can't work?

Good question! Amazingly enough, there's a definitive answer. The reason is described in detail in this board game geek thread, where game designer Tom Lehmann explains that playtesting showed the game became too long and boring with 5 players. Basically the game becomes 50% longer, and there are large gaps where individual players don't get to do anything. The detailed analysis he provides is quite interesting.

Great answer; I especially appreciate that you gave a brief and easy-to-understand summary.


text:
Is there a Saint Petersburg strategy that doesn't involve buying Aristocrats?
Is there a viable strategy in Saint Petersburg that involves focusing on buildings (blue cards) while buying at most, say, one or two aristocrats (orange cards)?
Please clarify whether your analysis is with or without the expansion.

If you can claim the aristocrats that provide income based on the number of buildings (or, to a lesser degree, workers) you have early in the game then a strategy that orients on maximizing that type of card, particularly cheap ones, becomes viable.


text:
Would this potential Saint Petersburg house rule work?
A friend mentioned a possible easy tweak of the Saint Petersburg rules: just pay out the buildings once again at the end of the game (perhaps disallowing observatory/debtor's prison except for taking the 1 VP).
This has two possible advantages:

It could enable a viable blue-heavy strategy to compete with the as-many-aristocrats-kinds-as-possible strategy.
The trading card phase at the end would actually matter for blues as well as aristocrats.

Can anyone shoot holes in the idea?  I'm curious for people to try this out and report how it goes.

Could this possibly be reformatted into a question?  Or is this intended to just have "Yes this works", "No it doesn't" answers?

Reformatted a bit, but that's basically what I was going for, yes.

Have you tried this house rule?  I'm a little put-off by you asking for other folks to try it out and report back if you haven't gone through that effort yourself.

Pat, wow.  I haven't had a chance to play, but not for lack of effort or desire.  There's a presumption that people who would try it out would, well, want to try it out!  The implication of your statement is that I should withhold the idea until I've tried it, because I am somehow doing damage by presenting it untested.  If you are someone who doesn't like testing house rules, then obviously that addendum is not for you.

Voting to close because no experience with the house rule has been demonstrated per this meta question. A better version would be "A problem we've had with Saint Petersburg is X; using Y house rule seems to have helped. Is there a side effect we're missing?"

I don't see any reason why this would fail to work, but it would change the strategy.  I'll give it a go next time I play, if I can persuade the other players to try it.


text:
Maxing out your buys in early Dominion
How important is it to always buy the most expensive thing that you can with your first buys in Dominion? I appreciate that in the later stages of the game you often have more money than you can profitably spend, especially since the more expensive cards are often very situational. However, in the first three turns or so, how important is it to always buy the most expensive cards that I can afford with my copper?

As a rule, not important. Far better to have a strategy that you follow than to buy the most expensive card you can afford.
The value of a card will vary depending on your deck, and knowing when to buy a less expensive card that your deck needs (or nothing at all) is, I think, part of the transition from a beginner to intermediate player. If there's a Chapel, it's almost always worth spending $3 on it in your first turns, as getting it early is more important than waiting for an unlucky draw with only $2. For certain kingdom sets you might not want any $5's at all, so buying one just because you have $5 would be deplorable.
Similarly, as @thesunneversets points out, Silver is often what your deck needs instead of a  $3, $4 or even $5 action if you're not hitting $6 enough for gold. Buy the card your deck most needs that you can afford!

There are sometimes even sets where you even want to spend an early $6 on a key $5 card - either because it's just that powerful in combination with the set, or because they'll all be gone soon.

Exactly! If I get a silver first round and $6 after a reshuffle, I'll certainly buy Witch/Mountebank/Wharf/Lab, etc. rather than Gold/Nobles/Harem/Adventurer.

As a very vague rule of thumb, I like buying a Silver on one of my first two turns, to keep my purchasing power from fizzling as my deck gets clogged up with "cool" action cards.  What this means in practice is that, if my Coppers divide 5 and 2 over my first two draws, I'll seriously consider buying a Silver with the 5; unless there's a 5-cost action card that really suits my style and strategy.  Not doing enough "boring" plays like buying more money is one of the main reasons for people losing Dominion way more often than they should, as far as I can see.

I agree (and up-voted), but I think a more general rule of thumb than "a silver on at least one of the first two turns" would be something that produces money on the first two turns. Often a Fishing Village, Militia, etc. can replace the Silver successfully.

The strength difference between $3s and $4s isn't that big.  Underbuying at $5 and $6 should require a lot more thought.

You need to weigh the cards in play, both on their own value plus the value of any combinations you can use them in.
If other players are buying a lot of attack cards, you may want to pick up a defense card on one of the first two turns (Moat, Lighthouse, or Watchtower).
Also, watch what other players are buying.  For example, in my games at work (we play every day at lunch), Fishing Village gets sold out very quickly.  If you don't buy at least one during the first two turns, there may not be any left to buy.
The value of some cards may depend on what other cards are in play.  The value of Smugglers, for example, goes down if Colony and Platinum are in play.  The value of Village goes down if any of the other +2 action cards are in play.  The value of Horse Traders, Cellar, Witch, Torturer, Sea Hag, Familiar, Montebank, and Young Witch go down if Chapel is in play.

It depends entirely on the strategy you're going for. In the general case, buying the most expensive cards you can afford earlier will allow you to use on average more powerful abilities sooner. Although in the grand scheme of things, these slightly more powerful cards you purchased early on may not play along with your strategy, and may actually slow you down.

In general, it's important to buy the most expensive card you can afford that works with your strategy for this set of available cards. Sometimes, this is a point below the coin I have in hand; my strategies generally don't result in lower than that unless I've got multiple buy as well.
If no cards of the available coin total are going to help, it's worth looking one point cheaper.
Silver and Gold, when available, are usually good choices, but targeted action cards should trump them if you already have plenty.

(Disclaimer: the sets I play are the base Dominion + Intrigue, so things may be different with newer cards.) I usually try to buy two action cards with my first two hands if they combine into a good strategy. If there are no good fours, I would get a silver instead of trying to choose between Thief, Gardens and Feast. If the only five on the table is a Festival, it only works as +2 money in the first five hands or so, and you would still want to intentionally overstock action cards for Festival to make better sense than Silver, which rarely is a good idea (it is kinda embarrassing to play six actions, with everybody looking at you playing the whole deck, gain two more action cards, and only end up with 5 money to buy yourself a Dutchy). If I get two action cards in the first shuffle, and they indeed make up a reasonable strategy, then I make sure to get two or more silvers in the next two hands. With more than two actions in your early deck, chances are you won't be able to use these actions effectively; if you have +actions in them, chances are that the matching action won't come up, and if you have four actions in 14 cards after the second shuffle, chances are you will have too many terminal actions in any given hand. I think my wife always buys a silver with 3 money in the first two hands, even if there's Chapel on the table, and we probably win equally often in our games of three or four with the friends (and more often than the friends do, because the friends rotate, and we stay :) ).
Here's a related, more specific question: with a Coppersmith and four Coppers, should you go for Province in your third hand, or for gold? There was a Coppersmith discussion on SE, although this particular question was only briefly touched upon. (I agree with that discussion that it only makes sense to buy Coppersmith if you can trash it two or three shuffles later, so it must be a pretty peculiar lineup of cards for me to be interested in it as a first buy.)

Why not ask that as a question rather than putting it in an answer? Seems specific enough to be distinct from the other question you link, and it might generate nice answers.

Also, I'm very confused when you say that Festival "only works as +2 money in the first five hands or so." And I mildly disagree with "you would still want to intentionally overstock action cards for Festival to make better sense than silver." The +Buy also makes Festival better than Silver, so due to that and it's non-terminal nature, I can't think of a situation where I'd have $5 and buy Silver instead of Festival.