text:
When can protection from creatures be played
The other day I was in a situation where my opponent had 3 creatures on the board (4/4, 3/3, 1/1) and I had one creature on the board (6/6). My opponent attacked with all three creatures and I chose to block the 4/4 with my 6/6. Then my opponent played Divine Verdict on my 6/6 then also tried to play  Crypsis on the 4/4 that I blocked.
Am I correct in assuming that it was too late for the protection from creature card to be played because the combat damage had already been done?

I would nominate this to be closed as it is very unclear what is being asked.

I fixed some formatting and also added cards that do what you are describing, if you feel they aren't right feel free to change them

They can play a card that gives their creature protection, but it is probably pointless if they are playing a card that destroys the blocking creature anyway.
In the combat phase there are 5 steps

Begining of Combat
Declare Attackers
Declare Blockers
Combat Damage
End of Combat

During each of these steps each player gains priority and can cast spells/activate abilities if they want to. In your example the card giving protection must be cast at the latest in the Declare Blockers step, because the first thing that happens in the Combat Damage step is combat damage being assigned, which would deal lethal damage to the 4/4 and send it to the graveyard. However casting the card giving protection is pointless since with the 6/6 being destroyed there is nothing that will deal damage to it. Even though Protection prevents blocking once a creature is blocked removing the blocker or giving the attack protection does not stop the attacker from being blocked.

If opponent was thinking he could cast that to make his 4/4 unblocked he would be wrong. He would need to give it trample to get that 4 damage in.

@diego so the destroy blocking creature would actually prevent the damage to the creature being blocked?

@thatdude1087 It would not prevent the damage, it would cause the damage to never occur in the first place since the creature is dead.

ok so it resolves before any combat damage

@thatdude1087 Yes, the stack must be empty and all players must pass priority before moving to the next step or phase


text:
Can Pandemic Legacy be played as "vanilla" Pandemic?
I've never played Pandemic, but thinking of getting the Legacy edition. Is it possible to play it without the legacy elements a few times first, and get an experience that is same or similar to that of the regular Pandemic?

Yes, you could play something very similar to vanilla Pandemic using just the base game components and ignoring all the Legacy elements.  The board is slightly different, but you probably won't even notice.
You can really only do this before you start playing the legacy version though.  Once you start playing the legacy version, things will happen that will modify the game in ways that will quickly make it difficult or impossible to play the base game.

What are the slight differences? I feel like it is important to know to ensure that one person's "slight" is not another person's "major".

Out of the box I believe you'll have fewer character choices than base Pandemic, and there are more connections between cities than the standard Pandemic board has.  The special event cards available are slightly different, and you'll have to decide how many to use (I'd suggest On the Brink's two per player).  There are only 5 epidemic cards, so you can't choose to play with 6.

In fact, the Legacy rules themselves suggest playing a few games if you aren't familiar with Pandemic.

IF YOU'VE NEVER PLAYED PANDEMIC...
We recommend that you play a few games without any of the special
"Legacy" rules to get a feel for the decisions you will have to make.
Read this rulebook then play without using the following rules:
•Game Months, Legacy Deck, Dossiers
•Objectives, Funding, Game Calendar, Panic Level
•Scars and Lost Characters
•Game End Upgrades
The object of these warm-up games is to cure four diseases before any of
the game-losing conditions are triggered (noted on page 14 of these rules).
You should play at least two games this way to get a feel for the game before
adding the additional rules.

Thats not true. You can play the game even after you finish the legacy version.  Simply take out all the stickers that got put on during legacy play. They r really easy to take off.

Trying to avoid spoilers, but there are certain things in the game that are more difficult to reverse, at least if you follow the instructions literally.

I am pretty sure the rules out of the box (so it's not a spoiler) say that when you are instructed to destroy something, you should rip it up and throw it away. You can instead put the "destroyed" items aside. We're in August and so far we haven't done anything to the components that can't be ignored or reversed.

What's not true? This answer should be a comment.

This is definitely not an answer; the question is asking about if you can use your legacy copy to play regular Pandemic first, before starting a campaign, and this is a response to another answer about how to undo the changes you made during the campaign.

Yes, you can play “vanilla” before, during and after playing the campaign.
During the campaign:

don’t destroy anything, just put it aside1
before placement, shift stickers a little so that they don’t hide information of the virgin board2

During the “vanilla” play:

follow vanilla rules according to the Legacy rule book (or download and read vanilla rules)
ignore stickers
do not incorporate introduced Legacy material (easy to avoid)
use all the 5 vanilla events only

Resilient Population
One Quiet Night
Forecast
Airlift word
Government Grand word

use the 5 available roles and find a way to shuffle them

4/7 from vanilla vrol

Medic
Scientist
Researcher
Dispatcher

1/6 from On the Brink exp

Generalist

You might want:

find and print all the vanilla roles (only 5 in Legacy and not easy to shuffle)
use On the Brinkexp rules regarding event cards:

use 2 cards per player
draw form a pool of “funding”/event cards

the 5 vanilla cards and
2/8 On the Brink cards available in Legacy5

Borrowed Time
Remote Treatment

the last Legacy card “flexible aid package”4 could be used as well6

use the original lines between cities, instead of the Legacy modifications

there would be no connections between these yellow cities:

Los Angeles – Lima
Santiago – Buenos Aires
Buenos Aires – Johannesburg

there would be connections with black/red:

Bagdad – Karachi
Chennai – Bangkok

1 actually, you can still destroy almost all material as instructed in legacy, just not the material you need in vanilla (and you will know which that is)

2 the majority of the stickers (e.g. panic level) do not even hide anything and the ones who might you can probably remember

word the card has different wording to accommodate Legacy features, but the effect is the same

4 I am not sure about the name, as the one I have is in German

exp On the Brink is the first expansion of vanilla Pandemic: among other things it includes Events and Roles which can be used for vanilla play

 5 later in Legacy you will discover another event from On the Brink: New Assignmentword6 you will discover up to 5 other unusable event cards which could be re-purposed for events from vanilla expansionsvrol the Quarantine Specialist (non-vanilla abilities only; needs to be played with original features in mind) and the Operations Expertword come later, the Contingency Planner is not in Legacy

Like people said before, it is easy to play vanilla pandemic with the pandemic legacy box. Moreover, various extra components/rules supplied with the game and gradually revealed through the game make it possible to play many interesting modifications of the game even after you finish the campaign.

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/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Are there quasi "official" rankings of board games?
I'm interested whether there are surveys of the best board games put out by board game manufacturers or evaluators such as gaming magazines or boardgamegeek that are considered authoritative. Or is there an official popularity competition between board games or a world cup of board games?

I assume when you say "official" you don't actually mean you're looking for there to be some sort of official governing body charged with deciding what the best games are? Do popularity contests (i.e. people voting on their favorite) satisfy what you're looking for, whether they're just reviews from everyday people or awards given by critics?

List of Game of the Year awards

Hi @freekvd why won't post this as an answer?

@BrunoEstrazulas I would if this question had not been put on hold. I will if it gets reopened.

DrJim - Prizes for best board games (which I suspect would work for your "competition between board games") tend to only be for new board games. @freekvd's lists link is for these. Zack's answer gives more of an "all-time" ranking.

I did my best to clarify the question by asking for "authoritative" surveys and nominate it for reopening in its current form.

I still think it is a bad question.  "Authoritative" is too nebulous, and the question boils down to a recommendation question (of recommendations no less).

BoardGameGeek is a very comprehensive list of board games, their relative rankings, and reviews, commentary, and more for all things board games. They also have a convention, the BGG.CON.

Hi Zack. I've proposed an additional link in your answer, direct to BGG's ranking page, as I think this helps answer the question better. Please feel free to accept/reject as you feel fit.

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


text:
The Master combinations in Dr Who the Card Game
When attacking with The Master it says that it can be combined with any enemy card.
So when I place The Master first: does it mean I can add any enemy?
If so, then when I attack with a certain enemy and place The Master with it in succeeding turns, can I still add another card to combine with The Master?

Based on the rulebook it stated there

You can add Enemy cards to one of your attacks, as long as the card
  or cards you play can be legally played with the cards already in
  place

Based on my understanding, if The Master is already in play along with another enemy, the enemy card you are going to add should be legally played with the cards. (meaning all of the cards) including the other enemy cards with The Master.


text:
Is there a website where I can play against AI in the board game Abalone?
I'm looking for something like this except online and with AI I can play against. If it's free, that's even better.

I don't know about websites, but there is at least one Android-compatible app that has computer AI including a series of progressively more difficult challenges.

Do you happen to know the name of it or have a link to it in the play store?

I use one called Abalone from the Google Play Store.  The developer is SPPA4APPS.  I got the paid version, but they also have a free version "Abalone Free" with many of the same features.  There are fewer challenge levels, but it will let you see if you like the implementation before buying it.

I know, the UI and design is not as in example, but maybe someone else would be interested: http://playdosgamesonline.com/abalone.html (Has 6 levels)


text:
Clarification on the rules of Top Trumps when two or more cards win
The rules state:

If two or more cards share the top value or data is not available for that particular subject then all the cards are placed in the middle and the same player chooses again from the next card. The winner of the hand takes the cards in the middle as well.

However, what they don't make clear is:

Does every player continue to play in this case?  (If two players have the same top value and a third player does not, does the third player continue to play – and possibly even win the hand?)
What happens if this situation occurs on a player's last card?  They cannot carry on but have not yet lost the hand!

Is there some de facto rule that's used in each of these circumstances?  Or is there an official rule that is just hard to find?

As it's written, drawing a hand confers no advantage to the people who played the top cards. It's not that the same hand continues, it's just that there's now a bonus stack of cards available for the winner of the next hand.
In this way, if your last card was put into the middle like this then you're simply out of the game. You didn't win the hand, and you have no way to win the next hand to claim the bonus.
Now for the extra bit that the rules don't cover: if you were the player choosing the category and this happened, I'd have the next player either become someone else at random, someone who's obviously doing the worst, or just have you pick the category but not play a card.


text:
Does anyone know the Campaign Badges for the Second Purging of Lastrati or the 3rd War for Armageddon?
I am in the process of painting an obscure Space Marine army of mine called the Storm Giants. Due to having a similar name to the Storm Lords, I was looking to include a campaign badge from either of the aforementioned campaigns. However, I am having trouble finding images online of badges from either campaign. Does anyone know where I can find these badges, or know what they look like?

Having trouble figuring what's a 'campaign badge' - where is it painted on the miniature?

Also, a quick Google shows these two chapters have a different color scheme: Storm Giants are gold/yellow, with a red lightning insignia on left shoulder (and other selected spots such as their back, helmet etc.), and tactical designation painted red and white on right shoulder. Storm Lords have gold/yellow helmets, armors half red (right) half white (left), with a skull and three lightning insignia on left shoulder and white tactical designation on right. Seems to me it'll be quite difficult to confuse one for the other...


text:
Why does a Thunder hammer have Concussive?
In the Space Marine Codex, the Thunder hammer has the Concussive rule, allowing it to force the model it hits to Initiative step 1 during that Assault Phase. However, it also has the Unwieldy rule, meaning that it hits on Initiative step 1 in the first place. Is this some sort of hiccup in the rules, or am I forgetting something?

Good question - Note that unwieldy has no effect on walkers and monstrous creatures - but, afaik Space Marines don't have any who can use the hammer...

And of course, it's basically useless against single wound models...


text:
What is a "Small Area" when talking about Cluster Mines?
When I was building a scout-heavy army, I noticed that cluster-mines could be taken by my scout-bikes to mark a "small area" as dangerous terrain. However, there is no actual measurement in how big this area is in either the Space Marine Codex and the Core Rulebook. So in light of this, Is a "small area" the size of a small-blast marker, (3 inches) or is it some other dimension?


text:
How does "Concealment" transfer to Dedicated Transports?
I have been looking over the combat benefits from the various force organisations granted by Gladius Strike Forces. The one that interests me is the 10th Company bonus where all units in this Company gain Concealment (Stealth until almost anything other than embarking, disembarking or shooting). However, I have a number of land speeder storms that act as dedicated transports that gain this status as well. So my question is if I disembark a concealed unit and its transport moves, does the entire unit loose concealment or just the Transport?

I'm going to check this in greater detail, but from the wording it looks like the unit and the transport both lose Concealment.

Disembarkation is a move. So getting out will make the unit lose stealth, though the transport would retain stealth as long as it didn't move. If the transport moves (before or after disembarking) it loses stealth as well.

The 10th Company's special rule Concealed Positions gives Stealth to each unit in the formation that deploys using the Infiltration rule.  We also know that the Dedicated Transport is a separate unit from the unit that disembarked.

Dedicated Transports do not use up any slots on a Force Organisation
  Chart, but otherwise function as separate units.

Therefore, if the transport moves, only the Dedicated Transport will lose Stealth. Each unit--independently--will have special rule Stealth until it performs an action that cancels it.


text:
What are the rules for Storm Giants?
When I started looking up Warhammer 40k, I had selected the regular Space Marine book and a few models as a reference. After finding out how incredibly powerful scouts could become, I decided that a good chunk of my forces would be scouts; luckily, I found a specific chapter online that did just that: Storm Giants. Unfortunately, I found out later that Storm Giants are not a selectable chapter in the Codex, only the vastly different Storm Lords. So, considering that specific chapters in the codex get a bonus for every unit being from that chapter:
First, Are the Storm Giants listed in a specific Codex?
And second, What chapter would the Storm Giants be considered as far as bonuses go?

According to the first wiki article you linked to, Storm Giants are most likely a successor chapter of the Salamanders, which means they should probably be played using Salamanders chapter tactics.  However, also according to the same wiki article you linked to, (in universe) the true founding chapter of the Storm Giants is unknown... The fact that it is the Salamanders is just the Imperium's best guess.  So really, the Strom Giants could be a successor of any chapter, and therefore you could use any chapter tactics you desire without breaking canon.
As Aslum pointed out, the references section of the first wiki page you linked to will give you more information.
EDIT: Aslum deleted his post... However, his advice about checking out the books listed in the references section of the Storm Giants wiki page is spot on. (should you want a physical book reference)

Thank you for this answer, it certainly gives me options if I can't find anything in the physical books!


text:
When does play begin in Euchre?
I'm the dealer.  The person to the left tells me to pick it up.  He plays before I discard.  As a result of the fast play, I forget to discard, and in the end of the play, I'm obviously holding onto one extra card.  Does the official play begin at the discard?  Or am I penalized for not discarding?

The original title was entirely valid. Removing the name of the game in question makes it a vague and unclear title; such removal is not helpful.

@Nij I think part of the issue was that prefacing the question title with "Euchre:" is really unnatural and not how questions are usually written on this site. I changed the word "Euchre" to be part of the question to be more natural, but still keep that information. Does that seem like a fair compromise?

Much more natural, yes.

Officially play does not begin until the dealer has discarded.
(take the following quote with a grain of salt, there are tons of euchre variants and home rules that may contradict this).
http://www.euchrelinks.com/rules.html

XIII. If the eldest-hand leads before the dealer has discarded, he
  cannot withdraw his card and change his lead, nor can the dealer be
  deprived of his right to play alone. The discard is not completed
  until the dealer places his card under the kitty, or on the table, and
  has quitted it; and when the dealer has once quitted the discarded
  card, he cannot change it.
XVIII. If any player plays with six or more cards, or, if the dealer
  plays and omits to discard and fails to announce the fact before three
  tricks have been turned, such player or dealer cannot count the point,
  or points, made on their side in the hand, and they lose the deal. But
  if the adverse party win under such circumstances, they are entitled
  to count all they make.

If you had stopped play and discarded after the first card(s) were played, they cannot be un-play their card once you discard (and you can use that information to choose a discard).
Since you did not discard and played the hand with 6 cards, you cannot score points this hand.

Might be worthwhile re-emphasizing in the last sentence that the failure to discard does not prevent non-dealing side from scoring.

In this particular case, the dealer side won the round, but when caught with the extra card, the non-dealer team gave themselves 2 points because dealer played with 6 cards.  I don't think that is covered in any rules I've found.


text:
How important is it to avoid bagging out in Spades?
I'm very new to Spades, and am trying to grasp the basic strategy.  In the few games that I've played so far, I've been sort of paranoid about bagging out; 100 points seems like a lot to lose.  (Of course, I might be wrong about that.)  Because of this, I've ended up overbidding several times in order to avoid bags.  So, I was wondering, how important is it for me to avoid overtricks and bagging out?

Are you playing with a blind nil rule?

No, I'm not. @freekvd

What's the alternative to bagging out? If you over bid, you risk losing the number of points of your bid. If you under bid, you have a good chance of making your bid, and any bags are effectively minus points for that hand, but you still get the points for your hand.
For example, a bid of 9 that doesn't make it sets you back 90 points. A bid of 5 with 3 bags effectively nets you 20 points. So what's better, -90 points, or 20 points?
One flip side of under bidding is that you might make your opponents over bid, causing them to go set.

In general, you are better off bidding accurately or 1 books under so you can make your bid and get positive points (rather than getting set and taking negative points).  So yes, in general some small amount of bags is better than getting set.
As stated in other answers, there are statistical dynamics that depend on what score you are playing to (300, 500, etc.) so you have to strategize each round to prevent bagging out (-100) or anticipate it.
Over-bidding is not a winning strategy - and it's unlikely to lead to wins.
The real art of Spades is learning how to bid Well!  The more you play, the more you learn.

Bags are, on average, worth not quite -10 points. They're positive points until you get 10, and unless you get an exact multiple of 10, not all of them are turning negative. Also, it's important to keep in mind that this is the average. Later in the game, you can look at the situation to better judge how dangerous bags are. If you're close to winning and don't have any bags, it's safe to underbid, but if you have 9, then it's more important to bid precisely.

Depending on the rules you're playing with, there are different risks you can afford. If you're playing up to 300 (or less) points, chances of a bagging penalty are slim if you bid for what you have, especially as a beginning player. You can always adjust your bidding strategy after taking 3-4 bags and still make it without the penalty. When playing for 500 points, you'll want to aim your bids more carefully.
If you find yourself bidding too low, don't forget to throw away some spades or high cards after you hit your bid. This can cause the opponent to take bags, which is usually a good thing.
When playing with a blind nil rule, it can be entirely ok to take the penalty points every once in a while. Just play into a scenario where if you take the penalty, you would be somewhere between 100 and 110 points behind. Then you would immediately qualify for blind nil and play break-even while claring all your bag points (assuming you succesfully complete the bnil).

You should always bid your hand and hopefully the sum of all bids is 13. If the sum is less than 13, you and your partner should try to give the bags to your opponents.  It can be very difficult to overcome a loss of a hundred points, therefore it is very important not to collect that tenth bag. Nine bags is fine, but stressful.
On 10 point scale of things to avoid, I would say it is a 9.


text:
Did Wizards ever write a followup for the 2003 card face redesign?
I started playing Magic: The Gathering in 1997, when the Fifth Edition had just been released. The game immediately captivated me, and I especially loved the visual design.

A radical card face redesign was announced in early 2003 for the Eighth Edition. Today, in 2016, this is ancient history, and the "new" look has been the standard for more than half of the game's existence.
My question is this: Wizards of the Coast has repeatedly written followups for card mechanics, such as a lengthy blog post explaining design mistakes that led to several Urza Block cards being banned. Has anything like that (positive or negative) ever been published by Wizards employees about the 2003 visual redesign? I'd really love to know how they view their decision in hindsight.

Interestingly, the two images you posted are actually separated by about 4 card frame changes (many more if you count new kinds of frames for new kinds of cards).

They probably view the change positively, since they've kept it for so long.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but since your question ultimately is about how Wizards feels about the change, I'm not sure how relevant your aesthetic complaints are.

I agree, and I've edited the question with the goal of preserving the little history lesson, and the question, while removing all of the complaining. I also tried to find the "lengthy blog post explaining design mistakes that led to several Urza Block cards being banned" so that I could make it a hyperlink, but I couldn't find it.

The references section of the Card Frame article on the MTGSalvation Wiki refers to a large number of articles published by Wizards about card frame changes. The ones about the Eighth Edition change that you're asking about are:

Card Frame Redesign FAQ, by the magicthegathering.com staff.
Frames of Reference, by Mark Rosewater
A Scary Card Frame Story, by Randy Buehler

The article most relevant to your question is Frames of Reference, because it is where Mark Rosewater explains why exactly they made those changes.

To demonstrate exactly how not a big deal it is now, there's a mention in Twenty Things That Were Going To Kill Magic" in 2013:

One day, CAPS, the department in charge of laying out and printing the cards, explained that there were a few changes that needed to be made for printing purposes. R&D saw this as a chance to fix a number of other problems with the card frames and revamp them. As this new frame first appeared in Eighth Edition, they were referred to as the Eighth Edition card frames.
This change had a huge impact on how the cards looked and many players objected to the shift. They felt the new layout had less of a fantasy feel and moved the game away from its roots. This was another very loud outcry with many words written both in articles and on message boards.

That is, they still just think of it as having fixed some problems (or at least Mark Rosewater does).
This is corroborated in Starting Over, where Mark Rosewater discusses what he'd change if they started over (in the form of a time travel conversation with Richard Garfield):

"We also changed the card frames to make the words easier to read. Especially in the name. The original font and layout made reading cards from far away very difficult."

(Looking back up at your example, I have to say I totally agree: whatever you might say about the beauty of the design, the old one is way harder to read, and that's pretty important in Magic!)
In fact, he goes on to mention that if they could have, they might well have made even more changes, mentioning the Future Sight frame as an example of some ideas (thought not the optimal form).
I don't think I've ever seen anyone at Wizards say anything negative about the redesign, and generally, it's not a topic comes up much at all, suggesting they're still pretty happy with the decision.

I think the example in the post actually doesn't sufficiently illustrate how unreadable some of the old cards were. Imagine sitting across from one of the original dual lands or an Alpha Clone.

Absolutely agreed, some were much worse! But even the better ones were bad in that regard.

Back in the old days (Revised-6th edition), I knew the art work for every card, so reading was unimportant....  No longer the case (of course my eyes are a lot worse now too....)

@John Sure, I think it's clear they didn't do this for the small fraction of players who've been playing that long, but rather for all the current and future players who haven't. In any case, the point here is, 10 years later, Wizards seems quite content with the decision and the current state of affairs.

Wow, this question is a blast from the past. I gave up collecting and playing Magic as a result of this change. Scourge was the last expansion for me. :| Wrote Mark Rosewater a long email rant at the time as well. :)

@ire_and_curses Game's still there if you ever want to play! There are entire formats you've never played! Oh, and Morph came back!


text:
Is the Pandemic expansion "In the Lab" available in multiple languages?
I like to play Pandemic. I have bought the game and the expansion "On the Brink" in Dutch.
Is the expansion "In the Lab" available in multiple languages? Even in Dutch?

Check the versions listed on BGG, it appears there's no Dutch version:
https://boardgamegeek.com/browse/boardgameversion?linked_src_objecttype=thing&linked_src_objectid=137136
Also, I haven't found a Dutch version for this on several Belgian and Dutch web shops.
(On a side note: the Dutch version of Pandemic has some textual errors on the role cards. Just in case you didn't know.)

Really? Amazing community over there, enjoy!

There is indeed no Dutch version of "in the Lab". I often found that Dutch versions of boardgames have textual errors, wrong translations or are non-existent.
boardgamegeek is the best website on the internet. Join; you won't regret it ;-)

Update: A Dutch version of In the Lab became available a few months ago. (A little late if you ask me)

According to BGG, there are multiple language versions, but not in Dutch...


text:
What is a good modern miniatures Tank combat game/system?
Short story; I'm working on a 3-d printer, and I have a passion for tanks and games. So I thought I would make a miniatures game! a friend gave me a reality check, and now I'm checking around to see if there already is a system out there that does what I want, namely;
Modern armored vehicle warfare with miniatures. I'm hoping for something that's fairly realistic, dealing with modern vehicles and equipment and goes into some depth; perhaps accounting for things like armor thickness and shot angles? I'm not terribly interested in infantry (even if they would play a huge role in real life) but I'll take just about anything under advisement.
I'm hoping someone can point me to a good system. Or if there not one, then one that could act as a base for one...Or even chicken scratches that someone once made. I feel like I'm going to have to homebrew what I want anyways, but any sort of base to work with would be appreciated.

Google "Jane's Naval Wargame." It forms a turn based structure, using the statistics of real life systems, to establish analogs for the game.
Actions are interpreted from the Jane's Fighting Ships books.
A similar system could be developed to reflect the nature of ground combat.

I read up on Janes a little. Its bit over 100 years old at this point I believe? It seems like a ok logical idea to use as a basis for writing a whole new system from scratch, but I'm hoping for something I could take a bit more from. I'm trying to avoid "from scratch"


text:
How does the Dog companion work and what is its benefit?
When given the Dog Companion it says:

Take a small monster token to represent the Dog. Put it in your room.
  (Use a token of a different color from other monsters, if any.)
Once during your turn, the Dog can move to any explored room up to 6
  spaces away, using doors and stairs, and then return. It can pick up,
  carry, and/or drop 1 item before it returns.
The Dog isn't slowed by opponents. It can't use one-way passages or
  rooms that require a roll. It can't carry items that slow movement.

What is the point/benefit of the dog?
I'm assuming it can only pick up dropped items? What items can it pick up, in what scenario?
If it can explore tiles, and landing on a tile with an icon that makes you draw a card which ends your turn, and your dog can explore 6 of these freely each turn, how do you keep track of which tiles still need cards drawn when you land on them? Do you still draw cards when you land on these spaces?
If a explorer finds a room that has to roll, does the dog sit outside or find a way around? Or does the final rule only apply for when it is exploring?

Honestly, I almost find it easier to just remove this card entirely.

In addition to why it's useful, removing an omen card from the game is a big deal and cuts away a decent portion of the possible haunts. There are also specifically 13 omens, so that if you keep rolling high on haunt rolls you're guaranteed to get a haunt on the 13th omen.

What is the point/benefit of the dog?

The main purpose is to trade objects between players. Say that a character gains the Revolver item, which allows them to use Speed to attack. If the character who found it has a low speed, they can use the dog to give it to another player with a higher speed, without having to take the time to meet up with them on their own.
Some scenarios require an object to be in a certain location. For instance, The Mummy Walks (#1) requires the book to be in the same room as the mummy in order for a character to attack it. If one of my allies is in the same room and I'm 6 spaces away, it would probably take me two turns to give it to them. But with the dog, I can give it the book and then have it travel the distance in one turn.
Also, some of the scenario setups instruct you to put items in rooms, such as The Stars are Right (#14), which tells you to place paint cans in several rooms. The dog can pick those up and give them to its owner.

I'm assuming it can only pick up dropped items? What items can it pick up, in what scenario?

The rules do indeed say that the dog can pick up a dropped item. I suppose technically you could have a character drop an item (a free action) and then have the dog pick it up.
My group has always ruled that a character can voluntarily give or take something from the dog, since that seems to make the most sense thematically and avoids the extra complexity of dropping and picking up things. It's basically the same as the Trade action, but at range through an intermediary.
The dog can carry any omen or item, aside from ones that slow movement (per the dog's description) or specifically say that they can't be transferred or carried by the dog. For instance, it can't carry the Girl or the Madman because those say they can't be transferred. Some scenarios will introduce new objects and will specifically say that the dog can't pick them up.

If it can explore tiles, and landing on a tile with an icon that makes you draw a card which ends your turn, and your dog can explore 6 of these freely each turn, how do you keep track of which tiles still need cards drawn when you land on them? Do you still draw cards when you land on these spaces?

The question is moot because the dog can't explore tiles. Per the description, the dog can only move to "any explored room up to 6 spaces away".

If a explorer finds a room that has to roll, does the dog sit outside or find a way around? Or does the final rule only apply for when it is exploring?

The last paragraph about one-way passages and rooms that require a roll is intended to be an extension of the rules of the second paragraph.
In other words, when the dog is sent out to a space 6 spaces away, it cannot go through one-way passages or rooms that require a roll. If it's not moving on its own, the dog is "along for the ride" and stays with the player just like any other omen or item.

Thanks for the clarification! It didn't even occur to me that the dog could be used to trade items between explorers which is super useful ( and would have helped my group on a few haunts had I realized it! ).

Yep, the dog is very useful for a number of haunts, and still useful otherwise for transferring items that rely on certain attributes. Definitely worth keeping in the deck!


text:
Which expansions are safe to mix?
Eldritch Horror has a plethora of expansions all with their own symbols at the bottom of the cards separated into many decks. It seems unfeasible to go through each deck and remove all the expansions except the one you're playing with. So my question is: which expansion cards are fine to mix into their respective decks and which do I absolutely need to remove?
For example: The Mountains of Madness expansion introduces a Hypothermia condition which doesn't really make sense for the main board. The same could be said for the  Sled Dog asset. Do I need to remove these?

Related: What to do with “Antarctic Guide” and “Dog Sled” while playing against an Ancient One from the base game?, although that question assumes you are playing with Mountains of Madness.

While it seems Fantasy Flight Games has never explicitly said that Eldritch Horror expansions can be combined, the consensus of players is that it is perfectly fine to play Eldritch Horror with multiple expansions.
No expansion is incompatible with another expansion
Thus far, no expansion directly conflicts with another expansion. For instance, there is no expansion that introduces mechanic X, and another expansion that introduces mechanic Y such that mechanics X and Y cannot be played at the same time.
Most expansion cards can be shuffled in without issue
Because new cards are either Ancient One specific or shuffle naturally into existing decks (e.g. Common Item), there is no conflict between them. While there is some deck dilution, it doesn't seem to be a problem yet.
From BoardGameGeek:

Multiple expansion packs on the other hand mesh together very naturally and easily. There's no reason to separate base game and expansion components - just shuffle them together. The expansion-specific mechanisms, new spell types, tasks and unique assets and impairments, enter the game through cards in the common decks.

From Reddit:

Since you use a random subset of mythos cards, each enemy had their own set of special cards, and the map boards only come out with one enemy and one prelude card, the bloat isn't as bad.
However, each expansion does add more conditions, more spells, more enemy counters, more assets, and so on and those do suffer some bloat. As already said, this isn't excessive - but it could be problematic eventually

Investigators usually lack a reason to go to multiple sideboards
It does seem like having multiple sideboards tends to lead to a situation where nobody wants to go to them. From Reddit:

I own all the current expansions and always play with all of them. Sideboards rarely come out since they are tied to a specific Ancient One or Prelude card. If you do use a side board its usually one and VERY rarely two.

From BoardGameGeek:

The thing is that there's not really much reason to go to the side boards if you don't have a mission there. Sure, you can throw them down and make them available, but rarely will anybody take the detour because you don't have anything to do there (though the Antarctic might be handy as a shortcut?).
It's really the prelude cards and ancient ones that give you stuff to do on those side boards that make it make sense to have them in the first place.

Cards that are only relevant to a specific sideboard should never come up if you leave them in
You mentioned what to do about cards that are only relevant to a certain sideboard, such as the Hypothermia condition and the Sled Dog asset, which only work on the Mountains of Madness sideboard. Fortunately, a BoardGameGeek user described how this is a non-issue:

Cards with the same backs can be mixed together without issues.
Double sided cards like spells, conditions as well as unique assets will all have their own decks and can also be mixed together.
Don't worry about drawing a Dog Sled if you aren't playing with the Antarctica side board, as finding a unique asset you are usually directed to draw a certain type of card... which is never ally.
The Antarctic research cards are unique backed, thus they will create their own deck, and will only be needed when using the Antarctica sideboard.

Should you somehow wind up with gaining a useless card, another user described a pretty simple way to resolve it:

All of my games (quite a few now already) have been played with Base, FL, MoM, and SR, and yet this situation has yet to arise for me. However, my gaming group has discussed it, and we all agreed if it ever came up, we'd just discard it as irrelevant and draw again.

Thanks! Some of the conditions just seem strange which is why I asked. For example, in the Mountain of Madness expansion a Hypothermia condition is introduced and sled-dogs which sounds like they can only be used on the sideboard. Hindsight I should have added this to my original question.


text:
Would it be possible to play through Pandemic Legacy more than once?
I am about to start a Pandemic Legacy campaign. I have managed to avoid spoilers so far, but I have read enough to know that the game is essentially designed to be played through once - changes are made during the campaign that are not easy to reverse (e.g. stickers added, components destroyed). How practical would it be to modify the process so that the entire campaign could be replayed? I realise that the experience a second time around would be less exciting since you would know what was coming, but I can still see potential value in trying out different decision paths, trying a different number of players, etc.

Rather than adding stickers, could one just keep a written record of the relevant information? Or could the stickers be peeled off afterwards?
Rather than destroying components, could one just put them to one side?
Are there any other changes required to the game components that would be irreversible?

No spoilers please!

You may replace every irreversible change with a reversible one. The question is whether the time spent to do that is worth more than buying a fresh game box.

@tsuma534 Exactly! Question edited slightly to emphasise that point.

Yes, it is possible. Someone on BoardGameGeek has designed a Reset Kit, which gives full instructions for keeping various components separate, rules reminder cards so you don't have to sticker the rule book, and other stickers to go over the ones on the board/cards to set them up afresh.
If you're really careful, you can remove the stickers from the board and have something that is 99% vanilla Pandemic, which is also an option.
However, for many people the permanence of the game is part of the experience. You don't just get the excitement of winning, you get the visceral feeling of finality when you tear up cards and mark the board. I understand that that experience is not for everyone, but there is a lot to recommend it.

If you want to remove the stickers from the board, don't stack the 1-2-3-4-5 stickers. That makes them 10x as hard to remove.

The other answers totally overrate the work necessary to keep your Legacy game reusable. I spent the most time of that process on writing these instructions!
We played Legacy reversible without killing the fun or investing a lot of time. Some of it actually improved the fluency of the game play.
What we additionally used (you can do with less)

3 sealable transparent plastic bags
color photocopier (having one close by is probably the biggest challenge)
Post-It notes (often only the sticky part)
scissors
paper glue stick

How we did it
General
Put things aside, instead of destroying them.
Dossier doors
Some doors had associated text in the door retainer with no clue as to which door number that text was coming from. We turned (e.g.) “open box 3” on the retainer into “X → open box 3” with a pen to remember that “X” was the cause which revealed that prompt.
Start of the campaign
Reversible or not: use one bag to keep the game end bonus material (e.g. skills), the other to keep the in-game-material (e.g. scars). This way nothing mixes with the rest.
Once we had two surprise-boxes empty, we used the space they left in the game box to bury copied and “destroyed” material for eventual retrieval.
We photocopied the front side of the character cards and the last page of the manual. These are the only things you need to write on. The character card back sides have a simple table which we drew by hand (a header and a single line).
We also photocopied the sticker sheet (minus the small stickers, see next paragraph).
Small stickers
We actually used the original small, repeating sticker and stuck them on the board (e.g. panic levels, permanent research facilities, destroyed permanent research facilities). But we never stuck stickers over existing ones: if we had to, we peeled the stickers off, put them back on the sticker sheet and reused them. Some repeating stickers were not limited (e.g. panic level), but some were (e.g. permanent research facilities). It was very easy to keep count of what resources we still officially had and which were only in stock because of sticker removal. For example, if you never lose a permanent research facilities in the first place, or never created six in total, you will never need to remember that six is the maximum. – Otherwise, well, keep that in mind.
After the campaign it was a little tedious to peel so many panic level stickers off, but totally doable. We also put them back on some blank scrap plastic sheet instead of the original sticker sheet for practical and preserving reasons.
Those stickers might eventually wear out, but I don’t plan to play the campaign myself again, and my friends should have enough energy and do-it-yourself-skills to create and use makeshift post-it variants of them: a little yellow square with a “2” on it or a little white sticker in the shape of a house – nothing complicated.
Bigger board stickers
There are only very few. So we either used a Post-It and copied the text/picture by hand, or we made a photocopy, glued it on a Post-It to create a sticky copy. In “Season 2” we started using adhesive spray to turn a photocopy into a Post-It.
Stickers which go on cards
Those usually had a headline and some explanatory text. We used Post-Its and wrote only the headline on them. We kept the originals as reference. And we actually also made photocopies: their only purpose was to indicate that we still had that sticker in stock. We discarded the paper copy once the corresponding Post-It was on a card.
Rule book stickers
We used those as intended with one addition: we marked the sticker (actually the space next to it) with the letter the sticker had. E.g. a little “G” marked the space for sticker “G”. This served only as reference for the final cover-up with Post-Its and can also be done later (with the help of the PDF rule book).
Surprise boxes
Open them from the side for better reuse. – They are easy to reconstruct with this list on boardgamesgeek. You can also drop a note inside (a single word was enough for us) to undo their opening without the help of the Internet.
Pawn actions
The rule book discoveries are kept in sync with stickers for 4 action reference cards. We created only one self-made paper reference sheet with photocopied stickers. That was easy, fun and really enough.
Final notes
As the cards have labels, it was very simple to re-create the legacy deck.  We put a Post-It over scratch fields on them. We also created a secondary legacy deck consisting of the pristine dossier doors left:

it was easy to order those doors chronologically by reading the legacy deck again (only door 30 had no fixed order)
a considerable part of the doors could be moved to the surprise boxes as those were discovered at the same time
it turned out that almost all doors left over had a nice size to be stacked up to form a deck
it made perfect sense to put the two annoying tiny doors (hard to stack with the bigger ones) on top of the secondary legacy deck

door 19 was the first to open anyway
door 30 had no fixed order and was “in your face” this way (but not too much)

the empty dossier door retainers are pretty much useless, except for the “X leads to the opening of box 9”, which we wrote directly on the Post-Its covering the additions in the rule book
the third sealable transparent bag helped to hold the secondary legacy deck together, even with copied papers in it (so the next players don’t need a photocopier any more)

Have fun!

Technically, it is very possible to replay the game, but that involves so much bookkeeping that it would hugely impact the fun and general flow of your game sessions.
For every game component that you reveal, you'll have to take note of where and when it appeared. You probably can't use the stickers as intended: they will be hard to remove and/or won't stick the second time.
So, you can do it, but be aware that you might dilute the fun in the process.

Anything is possible.  The bookkeeping involved would be very intensive.  From about May on, pretty much every action and card play would need to be double-checked against your written record of modifiers. You'd start to remember some of it, but relying on memory would mean you'd likely make mistakes throughout the game (heck, I sometimes make mistakes even with the stickers staring me in the face).  As mentioned in the comments, it ultimately comes down to how much time, mental energy, and loss of the true experience you're willing to spend in order to save yourself some money.

We are playing through our Pandemic game without altering or destroying anything, and just finished August. With a set of colored Staples dots (the kind people use to mark up papers and so forth), post-it notes, masking tape, colored markers or pencils, scissors, and a bit of creativity, it isn't hard to replace all the game stickers with homemade versions. Bear in mind we're crafty bullet journal types, so your milage may vary.
For our version sold in 2018, the Legacy deck is numbered, so there isn't much book keeping needed. I write the number of a Top Secret tab underneath when I remove it. I have been copying the rules stickers onto post-it notes at the end of the game which adds about ten minutes per game; but if you don't care about having a pristine game at the end, you could also paste the actual sticker in the rules, write the letter next to it, and later cover them with post-it notes.

Has there been a version were the Legacy deck was not numbered?

My group just finished last weekend. We did not destroy anything during the course of the game. We used stickers which may be difficult to remove and re-apply. It would be especially hard to put the stickers that came off of "door #1" back onto door #1 without having kept track of the fact that it came from said door originally. We wrote on the character cards; I suppose you could white that out. There are scratch-off cards with secret information, but given that you'll already know said information, that shouldn't be a problem. So overall, almost everything could be reset with enough effort. The stickers might not stick very well the second time around.
We plan on removing all the stickers and using it as a regular version of Pandemic. Then we don't need to keep the stickers in good condition.


text:
What's the difference between Pandemic Legacy Red and Blue?
So, basically what the title says. Is there any difference at all in the contents of the boxes or anything else? (without spoilers!)
Maybe it'll make a difference in "Season 2"? (it does say "Season 1" on the box after all).

The contents of the two boxes are identical. The Red and Blue boxes are for people who want to run two campaigns at the same time - for example, with two different gaming groups - to help distinguish between the games.

Absolutely this, and what a great way to sell games :D


text:
Where can I find "Risk Express" dice?
Risk Express (or Age of War if you prefer) is a great game and I'd like to create my own version. That's easy, the game contains just a bunch of cards and 8 dice. I'm interested in such dice, they are six sided, but have army symbols (a cannon, a dragoon(?), musketeers e.t.c.) instead of numbers.
Where can I find such dice? Not necessarily with the same symbols, anything war related may do, I'll re-theme the game anyway, no sci-fi or modern guns though, I want to keep it in ancient, medieval or Napoleonic age. I searched a lot in dice shops but found nothing...

Maybe contact the manufacturer, sometimes they sell replacement parts.

@8odoros What exactly is it about the dice that you want? The shape? Some combination of symbols?

On the BoardGameGeek Store, they sell an item called "Rattlebones" Prototyping Dice. These dice have snap-on faces so you can changes how many times a given colour face appears on each, and in addition you can draw symbols on those faces.

There are several ways to obtain the dice. To name a few:

The easiest way is to buy the game.
If you want the same dice but you don't want to buy the game you can contact the manufacturer. Sometimes, they sell replacement parts.
You can make custom dice, which is probably expensive.

Any dice with battle/unit symbols may do, I'm not picky. I don't necessarily want to get the same dice.

You could just get blank dice and draw on them. If you google "blank dice" you should get tons of offers for quite cheap.

You can get Chessex.com to make custom Risk dice for you as I have.


text:
Settlers of Catan - What counts as longest road?
My friends and I are new to Settlers of Catan. We had a dispute over what counts as the longest road. Suppose we have a road that is 8 segments long. Between the 4th and 5th segment we have a road coming off it that is 2 segments long, does this count as that person's road being 10 segments long?
Pictured: For the Longest Road, does this count as 8 segments long, or 10?
S           S — — S
 \         /
  \       /
   S — — S
          \
           \
            S

Assuming all roads and settlements are from the same player, where:
S : Settlement
\ : Road
/ : Road
— : Road

The Argument: One friend was arguing that because the road is not broken by another player, it is 10 segments long while another was arguing that the longest road should be able to be taken in 1 trip, so it is 8 segments long. We know that the rule is given as

"The Longest Road is a continuous road connecting two intersections, which consists     of at least 5 individual road pieces and is not interrupted by game pieces belonging to other players. It has more individual road pieces than any other connecting road of this type."

But we were unable to determine which it should be.

"The Longest Road is a continuous road connecting two intersections," To count 10 segments, you'd be connecting three intersections instead of two, which isn't allowed.

It's 8 segments. The game rules say:

The first player to build a continuous road (not counting forks) of at least 5 road segments, receives the Special Card “Longest Road”. [...]

so you don't get to count the two-segment fork.

If your road makes a lariat (a closed loop with a single branch) would the entire road count?

Yes.  The rule is "not counting forks".

@Cascabel :  Concerning "The first player to build a continuous road...".I would add that the next player to build a longer road takes the "Longest Road" Special Card away from the previous owner.

The way I look at it is as if you where drawing a path between two points on the board with your finger. In order to determine the longest path it would be how far you can move your finger between points without lifting it (break in path) or moving over the same path again.
 S ___ ___ S ___ ___ S ___ ___ S ___ ___ S
(A)                  |                  (B)
                     |
                     S
                    (C)

In the example you gave I could move over 6 roads going from point A->C(C->A) or B->C(C->B) and over 8 going from A->B(B-A) and if I attempted to include all 3 points I would have to include 2 sections of road in my path twice which breaks the path.


text:
Is having the Mask Omen Card stolen from you have the same effect as taking it off?
Let's say an explorer is wearing the Mask Omen Card that has an effect causing you to gain two knowledge and lose two sanity when you put it on. It says when you take off the mask, the effect of the mask is reverted. But that is what happens when you manually take off the mask.
Then let's say someone steals the mask from the explorer that is wearing it during the haunt. When the item is stolen, would you agree that you lose the effect of the item?
My mates argued that the card didn't say you lose the effect when it is stolen (it didn't say a thing about being stolen at all). My logic was the effect the mask is caused by wearing the mask. If the mask is stolen it is the same as taking it off, and you lose the effect.
I could be crazy but I think my logic is a slam dunk.  As it is two against one I thought I would see if there is consensus one way or the other amongst gamers here.

I'm going to point out that this scenario is UNIQUE to the Mask Omen Card, as all other items (and Omen Items) explicitly cover the case of the item being lost. Also, why do I keep finding the House-on-the-Hill questions that aren't covered by the rules OR errata?

I'm finding this game frustrating that way ;). Do you have a solid pointer to where some of these types of queries have been clarified?  I haven't yet gone to the game makers site.

Update - Found it. http://media.wizards.com/2015/downloads/ah/FAQ_BHotH_102605-2.pdf

Found another instance of this question, with one response
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1181493/mask-omen-card

While it's true it doesn't cover the "stolen" scenario in the text on the card unlike other item omen cards like The Holy Symbol. And it's not in the Errata. There are others like me who believe that if it's removed for any reason (theft included) then it's the same as taking it off.

I'm of this mindset as well because the alternative opens potential for either abuse or completely unprecedented item behavior: Either the Mask Omen ends up being unique in that it has a memory of who is wearing it (which goes against, among other things, common sense) or the Mask Omen becomes abusable prior to the Haunt being revealed in pumping up Knowledge by a loop of pick up->Attempt to use->drop->End Turn (yes, this can all be done once per turn according to the rules as written).

While that type of abuse is certainly limited because of the -2 Sanity with each "On" it's certainly open to other types of abuse. Such as the merry go round of Masking. Where I wear it, then you wear it, then she wears it. etc. More importantly you bring up a good point. It say nothing about stealing but it also says nothing about dropping even though that's fairly obviously a "Off" condition.

Note that I said "Prior to the Haunt", which means the -2 Sanity would be reduced (possibly negated) if it would kill the explorer (the rules as written explicitly prevent a protagonist from dying due to stat loss prior to the Haunt, but once the haunt starts, death is possible).

@Wolfkin Except dropping it being an "off" condition means there's no point having to make the sanity roll to take it off. I see 2 ways of solving this. 1) each player can, independently, be wearing the mask or not, with possession making no difference. 2) you can't drop or give away the mask while wearing it, but it can be ripped off of you and removed. I like 2.

that's a great catch @Samthere. I agree with you. Ahh betrayal. you could write a Wheel of Time book on the gaps in the instruction manual and texts.


text:
Trick Joseki? Shoulder hit after keima to 3-4-stone
In a game I played, the following "Joseki" occurred:
I played the low keima against the 3-4-point, and Black responded with a shoulder hit. This move is not in the book by Takao Shinji.
In the game I attached under the 3-4 stone and created a living corner group, but Black's influence was tremendous. What should White do in this situation:
$$B
$$ ---------------------
$$ |..................|
$$ |..................|
$$ |..............1...|
$$ |..................|
$$ |...............2..|
$$ |..............3...|
$$ |..................|
$$ |..................|

Black's pincer is too close to White's stone (it should be at least one space lower). (This variation is not in the joseki books because it is not joseki.) That means that White can "lean on it while indirectly attacking Black's corner stone.
White should play Q15,Black plays p15, White cuts with P14, threatening to make a ladder to capture stone 3, Black extends from this stone, White ataris with P16, and quashes the corner stone with P17.
$$B
$$ ---------------------
$$ |..................|
$$ |..................|
$$ |..............1...|
$$ |.............8....|
$$ |.............542..|
$$ |.............637..|
$$ |..................|
$$ |..................|

Take a look at Kogo's Joseki Dictionary. It has several variations for this move - too many to show them here.

Links to two or three of the common variations would be much more useful than a link to the KJD main page.

@PieterGeerkens There are two main variations. You can take a look online at http://eidogo.com/ if you don't want to download full dictionary in sgf format.


text:
Identify this board and card game relating to 19th century race horses
Does anyone know the name of the board game in the picture below please?

Orme, Sceptre, Ladas, Jeddah and Hermit appear to be famous horses from the end of the 19th Century.

Yep it's an old board game we found while going through old boxes of my grandad.

Is it bad that most things I search for take me right back here, including links to your pic?

For what it's worth, I skimmed through boardgamegeek's listings for things tagged animals or racing, or with betting mechanics, from before 1930, and didn't find anything promising. There are plenty without pictures or obvious names, though, so could be I missed something. (Also, wow, there are a lot of old steeplechase games!)

It looks like a very early Ascot game..

This very much reminds me of the playing card based drinking game Race Horses which uses all the same components.

I think this looks like a version of Minoru. Seems like a very old 19th century board. It would very difficult to actually identify it.

Based on the images at boardgamegeek it looks like Minoru is also a horse racing game but it's not the same.

I wasn't the down-voter, but I assume the reason for the down-vote is because this answer should have been posted as a comment on the question rather than as a full answer, particularly because it is speculation.

It's close enough to Minoru that it could just be a different publisher's take on the same game.


text:
Can I play Dominion: Hinterlands by itself?
The clerk at the game shop assured me I could play Hinterlands Dominion by itself. Alas, everywhere online claims a standalone version of Dominion is required.
Is there anyway to play Hinterland Dominion by itself? Or will I need to seek restitution from the clerk?

You should ask for a refund

Unfortunately, the clerk was mistaken. From Rio Grande Games' website:

Dominion: Hinterlands is an expansion, and cannot be played by itself; to play with it, you need Dominion, or a standalone expansion to Dominion (e.g., Dominion: Intrigue). Those provide the Basic cards you need to play (Treasure, Victory, and Curse cards), as well as the full rules for setup and gameplay.

So your options are:

Buy the original Dominion
Buy Dominion: Intrigue
Buy Dominion: Base Cards (for the base cards) and download the game rules from their website

NB: Rio Grande Games' website says that the base cards are coming soon, but the set has actually been out since 2012

Ask for a refund

But in an alternate universe, it might have been a standalone…
The Secret History of Dominion, written by Dominion creator Donald X. Vaccarino, mentions that during the development of Hinterlands, they considered making it a standalone game:

Hinterlands flirted with being a standalone. Intrigue was a standalone; Seaside had playmats and tokens; Prosperity had playmats and tokens.  Hinterlands and Dark Ages had no playmats or tokens. Would they just be slightly cheaper? Would what the price would have to be look attractive? That had been an issue before. I figured hey, one of the sets could be a standalone, let’s say Hinterlands, and the other could be a full 500 cards – no playmats, not a standalone, just gigantic. I had two solutions that let the sets be 500 cards.
There were certain pros and cons to having Hinterlands be a standalone. In the end Jay decided against it. For a while I was trying to make the set simpler though, to make it function better as a standalone.

No, the clerk was wrong and you cannot play Hinterlands with just what comes in that box. You will need  what are referred to as the Base Cards in order to play. These come with the original Dominion, they also come with Dominion: Intrigue (perhaps your clerk confused Hinterlands and Intrigue), or they can be purchased on their own.


text:
What is this kind of card shuffling called?
What is this kind of card shuffling called?
Its a grid of cards where you take 1 card at a time to create a grid of say 2 wide and 2 tall, (although it could be any number wide/tall)
ASCII Drawing;
[[Deck]] -> Add one card to create 4 stacks and repeat the process over & over.

[Card] [Card]
[Card] [Card]

As you take cards you add it to a random stack thus creating (in the above example) 4 stacks (or decks) of cards
What is this shuffle called?

I've always called it pile shuffling, but I don't know if that is its real name.

As noted by official Magic The Gathering tournament rules, this type of shuffling is, simply put: inadequate.

This is called random pile shuffling. Wikipedia defines pile shuffling as:

Cards are simply dealt out into a number of piles, then the piles are stacked on top of each other.

Here is a YouTube video demonstrating pile shuffling.
Trivia
At a Magic: the Gathering tournament, pile shuffling by itself is not a sufficient means of randomization.
Two others popular types of shuffling are (warning, these are video links) mash shuffling and riffle shuffling.


text:
If I escape and give my die to an adventurer, can he use the rolled value immediately?
Rules say, for a player who escape,

...he can give one of his dice to any adventurer still inside the temple. This adventurer may use the die immediately.

Does this mean the person can use the face value of the die and use it for that current turn, then continue to use that die to roll future turns?
Edit: the best link to the rules I could find here.

I'm going to have to check my physical copy of the rules, because I've always played it as "it's a new die, it needs to be rolled before it can be used" but then I'm not sure where I picked that up from.

I will update the question with a link to the rules.

The question is a bit old but I think I have an answer to it (sort of).  The rules state:
After a player has performed one action, he must re-roll all dice used for this action.

There's room for interpretation but I'd say that you could pass a die you didn't use for the escape action and they could use the face value.  However, the rules pretty much state that you can't pass a key you used to escape to someone such that they can use it as a key to escape.  As per the wording in the rulebook under the escape action:
 Each player must roll the required number of key icons by himself!

The wording that 'This adventurer may use the die immediately' also seems to suggest the face value passed can be used for an action but I wonder if that is a case of slightly imprecise wording.
I strongly suspect the intent of the rules is that the passed die must be rolled before its face value can be used but they don't explicitly state that or the opposite, except for the case of keys in an escape action, which seems fairly clear to me.  Whenever I've played the game it has always been considered a new die that you must roll in order to use it and that is the simplest interpretation of the rules, in my opinion, and how I am likely to always play it.
I think the issue is a minor one that is best to house rule as you see fit but I definitely wouldn't allow people to pass keys they rolled for an escape action for others to use as a key, that definitely seems wrong to me and would reduce the tension at the end of the game too much.


text:
Do players make rolls with the dice simultaneously or just make a mad dash of individual rolls?
When the players begin rolling in Escape: The Curse of the Temple, do they all pick up the dice they want to roll and roll all at once, then wait for everyone to be ready to roll before all rolling again, or does everyone just roll as fast as they can on their own?

The very first paragraph of the rules answers your question. [Emphasis in original]

Escape is a real-time board game. Instead of playing the game in rounds, each player rolls his five dice as quickly and as often as he can without waiting for his teammates!

You can see this in this game play video.
[I just picked the first video returned by Google. I haven't reviewed it for quality. I set the start time to a spot where the player on the right rolls dice twice in the time the player on the left rolls the dice once.]

Ah thanks, I was thrown by the audio intro segment where the narrator says "During the course of the game, you will roll your dice constantly and simultaneously...."


text:
What do you do when one or more adults is upset or acting inappropriately?
As a host (and as a guest) to a gaming session, I like to help make the experience as gratifying for as many people as possible. I sometimes run into certain types of people or behaviors that are sometimes, but never always, anticipated.
Sore Loser Crankiness:
gets increasingly irritable as the certainty of his failure to win approaches.
Self-Pitying: repeatedly moping sadly and verbally over how desperate, pathetic and impossible his situation is.
Vendetta-bound: out for blood beyond any intra- or inter-meta-game statistics or standing reason. Spouses, Significant others, Politically mis-aligned players, someone who took the last pizza roll.
There are more, and I listed these as behaviors, not so much as 'types of people', although we probably all know various people who tend to repeatedly show these behaviors. Some might be "tolerate" and others might be "kick to the curb", but do people have good approaches that help address these issues and in the end make their gaming sessions and gaming groups stronger?
I'd also like to add that I'm more interested in courses of action during the ongoing game session or social event (excluding something like pulling the person aside for a word).  I feel there are various common carefully thought out ways to confront or appeal to people after the fact and that these approaches (in person, calling, email, tone of appeal/confrontation) could easily be another question/topic.
I've edited the original question to specify adults as interacting with children adds in a whole extra complexity of boundaries especially when they aren't your children and you're then thinking about how to interact around or with the parents.

This is a broad question, but I think it could be answered well from a boardgamer's perspective.

I agree that the question is a little too broad to ask about like this here.

Any suggestions on improving the question? I'm driving at how people divert, lighten, intervene, or do whatever to increase the general enjoyment or reduce the potential awkwardness. I admit, maybe these answers would have nothing to do with gaming but perhaps they do involve how you handle the proceedings of the game session? I'm not certain.

@Joey For what it's worth, it seems okay to me. This is a specific enough situation, and while there are surely multiple possible answers, that doesn't necessarily mean it's too broad. The biggest improvements I can think of are avoiding the word "broader", and rephrasing to ask more clearly about general approaches, since the current formulation sounds like you might be asking for stories.

Great edit, I did not recognize your initial question until I read the revision history. You have my vote!

Voting to reopen since I think this is a useful question, much as the questions regarding cheating are valuable.  However, can you clarify what age range the players typical are?  It's likely you would need to treat a child, a teenager, and an adult differently in regards to this behavior.

moping sadly and verbally... - wait, you have to play board games with my mother-in-law too?!

Self-pitying, if done well, is a diplomacy tactic!  Especially in a game with an attack-the-leader mechanic.

It's usually easier to prevent these things than it is to fix them.
Set the mood
Make sure everyone's doing alright. Put on some music, get some food and drinks on the table (or a lot of drinks, if you really want to be sure).
Pick the right game
The type of games can also make a big difference. Some games are really harsh on those who fall behind. There's nothing that says 'get grumpy' like sitting at 3-5 VP during a 90 minute game of Settlers. If the skill levels in your game group are miles apart, try to level the playing field by picking games that require less skill, like Yahtzee or Pictionary.
Even when the whole group settles on a complex and long game, I find that it helps to throw short and simple games in between.
Invite the right people
The harshest truth is that some people just don't fit well with the rest of the group. You can't please everyone.

Thanks, perhaps an quiet assessment, informal vote, or formal vote as to the game can shed some light on what works well for certain people and some choices can simply be avoided, maybe even steered clear after realizing how things are progressing in game 1. We're gamers, dynamically adjusting to the situation is our strength, right? I like the reminder of the importance of music, food and drinks.

@Joey I would suggest that as the host, it's your responsibility to set the mood (picking the game, the players). I think that's a key part of being a good gamer, is collecting the right games appropriate for the right situation.

Agreed @dwjohnston, I'm hoping some of the ideas that surface will help deal with the situations where we don't know players' preferences or tendencies (as with guests of guests or simply newer invitees). Maybe having a game or two that fits certain fallback situations is a good idea, i.e. dial down the competitiveness, dial up the lightheartedness, steer clear of potential situations that lead to favoritism, etc.

I have hosted lots of board games for events and things, and I find myself in situations where I can't control who will show up, or even their skill/interest level. As you have less control you need to pick board games which are easy to learn, less skill-based, or even purposefully lowering the difficult by handicapping experienced players. If you want a challenge host your own events and make it clear you want those who are very interested. If you want to entertain, then several concessions on your part as a host need to be made to keep everyone happy.

Generally speaking, My preferred approach is to first make it clear to the "problem player" that the behavior can cause an unpleasant experience for other players.
If they present a potentially legitimate complaint, such as complaints that the game is unfairly difficult(perhaps specifically for them) or "impossible", I will generally offer to explain how the situation could have turned out differently or been handled differently.
If the behavior is habitual or repeated, I typically warn that there will be some kind of consequences of continuing it, depending on how much of a problem it is causing.
Edit: Fair points, I was approaching this from more of a long-term fix perspective than a short-term salvaging of the immediate atmosphere.
I would still suggest SOME form of alerting the problem player that they are causing a problem, because catering to their complaints or troublesome behavior just encourages more, in the long run.

I feel like once there has to be a confrontation, "the fun is over", so it becomes damage control and can spiral into an unpleasant (even if justifiable) result. I'd rather find ways around this and, if possible, delay such a conversation until after the social event and when it can be done privately with the appropriate distance. Some people respond better to emails where they have some distance, others maybe a face to face. My main interest, though, is what to do to best salvage the event itself.


text:
What has been the evolution or progression of traitor/betrayal/defector games?
What has been the evolution of games with a traitor/betrayal/defector element? I remember what seemed like decades ago mention of party games like Mafia, Assassin, and as I re-enter the tabletop arena, I see a number of games like Resistance, Werewolf, Battlestar Galactica, Dead of Winter.
Does someone have an interesting historical perspective on the evolution of these games and their mechanics starting from whenever they may have gained momentum, showed similar or copycat mechanics, started branching into different mutations of the mechanic?

This seems like a discussion topic rather than a question that will work well in this format.

I'm having trouble distinguishing the differences between what's Q/A versus discussion, or too broad for SE. How would asking for details on traitor games in the past and their differences be much different, than, say, a recent question asking what games end with some winning, some losing, and some neither at all? Both feel like they are grounded in a 'what kind of games are there that ___' sort of vein. If I can clarify or adjust this question in a helpful way or if you can explain the differences between these two questions, that'd be great.

For what its worth, I'm not a fan of that question either.  I feel like the only thing saving it right now is that the answer is "No", and even that seems like a weak argument for it.

I think the general problem with this question is that there is no problem you are trying to solve.  You're just looking for general thoughts on a wide range of topics.  I can't come up with a suggestion to adjust the question because I'm unsure what you're trying to get out of it.

These days Mafia is renowned as the worst game in the mafia genre.  The unifying element behind all of these is the hidden information about player allegiance.  It was an interesting mechanic in mafia, but the issue with mafia was that it had player elimination, so players spent a statistical third of the game sitting around doing nothing.  Another issue with mafia is that it was really only good with large numbers of players.  Board game designers being who they are adapted the hidden team mechanic to create better behaved versions of mafia, or include mafia like elements in various games.
Games like Resistance, Avalon, One Night Werewolf, Two Rooms and a Boom, etc. are all trying to address the fundamental problem that mafia had a great concept with a rather poor implementation of it.  (Werewolf proper is just a mafia reskin.)
Games like Battlestar the Boardgame and Shadows over Camelot are trying to include this in a set of broader mechanics to have the game have more intrigue than just a fully cooperative game (such as Pandemic) or a many vs. one game (such as Descent).


text:
Are the yellow roof buildings inns?
In the new 2015 edition of Carcassonne Inns and Cathedrals, there are yellow roof buildings on some of the road pieces. Are these inns?

No, that's just scenery. The inns all have lakes next to them.
This copy of the rules appears to be for the new edition (it says ©2002, 2015 and it doesn't look quite like my copy of the original edition) and the inns all have an obvious lake right next to them. For example:

I noticed in that particular example they give there is a lake next to that inn, but they don't mention in the rules that the inns are denoted by lakes, so how do you know for sure?

@spacetyper Those rules give at least five examples of tiles with inns, and they look the same every time: red roof, inn on the top side of the lake. They're also essentially the same in the old edition as well, different art style but still always red roof and lake. And the old edition of the rules actually referred to it as an "Inn on the Lake".

@Cascabel Not every inn has a red roof, for example one of the tiles in River II (2E). See my question about it: https://boardgames.stackexchange.com/q/59653/30400


text:
How does this Interaction between Lifeline and Lethal Vapors work?
In Magic: The Gathering, Lethal Vapors will Destroy a creature when it enters the battlefield.  And Lifeline reads:

Whenever a creature dies, if another creature is on the battlefield,
  return the first card to the battlefield under its owner's control at
  the beginning of the next end step.

So, if a creature dies while these two cards are in play and at least one other creature is on the battlefield when that happens, what happens at the end of the current turn?
The creature that died will return to the battlefield from the graveyard, and then be destroyed, again.  But then what?  Since it's the end of the turn, does he immediately return, triggering an infinite loop?

No, there will not be an infinite loop. The card will not return to the battlefield until the following turn.
Once the end step has begun, and Lifeline's delayed trigger is put on the stack, it is too late for more “beginning of the next end step” stuff to happen during that end step.

513.2. If a permanent with an ability that triggers “at the beginning of the end step” enters the battlefield during this step, that ability won’t trigger until the next turn’s end step. Likewise, if a delayed triggered ability that triggers “at the beginning of the next end step” is created during this step, that ability won’t trigger until the next turn’s end step. In other words, the step doesn’t “back up” so those abilities can go on the stack. This rule applies only to triggered abilities; it doesn’t apply to continuous effects whose durations say “until end of turn” or “this turn.” (See rule 514, “Cleanup Step.”)

So what will happen is that every end step, the card will return and then be destroyed right after (assuming no one responds to either ability). This will repeat every turn, but only once each turn.
If instead of Lifeline, you have something that brings the creatures back immediately (such as an undying creature with Solemnity on the battlefield), then it would be an infinite loop, and the game will end in a draw unless one player chooses to respond by breaking the loop (such as activating Lethal Vapr's other ability).

I find the wording on Lethal Vapors interesting. The ability lets you skip any number of your future turns. Mindslaver, anyone?

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


text:
Tarot card game strategies
I love this game and play quite regularly. Yet I don't seem to be able to advance my strategy level. Does anyone know of any decent resources that could help me here? I can handle it written in French.

Would you be more specific about the game you are talking about?

The game: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_tarot. My question... well I know the rules but I'd really like to read a guide that's more strategy based (advice on internet sites, books, etc). But it seems this kind of question is too "broad".


text:
What is the meaning of the starting player rules in Tzolk'in?
The rules of the board game Tzolk'in state (page 4, bottom left): "Give the Starting Player Marker to the player who most recently sacrificed something.  In case of a tie, give the Starting Player Marker to the player who volunteers for the next sacrifice."
My question: What does this mean?
Probably this is a joke?  (But then, who starts the game?)  Or does this refer to some part of the game which I haven't discovered yet?

As a general rule, the method for determining the start player in most games is a pointless rule that won't necessarily be obeyed depending on the play group.

"I should start, but I'm sacrificing my place for this time, which means I shouldn't start, which means I should, which means I shouldn't, ..."

Tzolk'in disappoints me that the initial resource tiles don't have numbers on them that would force turn order. Also i think going 2nd or 3rd is the best

It's a joke, referencing the fact that many games these days have means of determining a starting player that are somewhat arbitrarily related to the theme of the game but where there's nothing stopping you from choosing the starting player however you like. For example, the player with the pointiest ears is meant to be the start player for Small World, while Chrononauts has everyone guess the time and the person closest to the truth gets to start.

In some of my social circles we always say it is the person who has the least experience with the game; as one can imagine this then starts a fight because of who was nominated.

My general rule is (unless there's a HUGE advantage to going first) have new players go last so they can see what's going on... If everyone's played, winner of previous game goes last (assuming first is advantageous!)

I've also seen "Most recently visited an island" (Forbidden Island) and "Most recently sequenced insect DNA" (Dinosaur Island).  Oddly enough, we actually had a winner for the DNA sequencing one.

I can only speak for Germany, but I assume it is or was similar in other countries.
In the good bad old days when gaming was considered something for children, and adults would not play any games (except maybe parents playing with their children), it was natural occurrence that older players were more experienced. Therefore many games from the 70's and 80's had rules like "the oldest player starts" or "the youngest player starts", which gives a hint that the starting player has a little (dis-)advantage.
Practically all other rules defining the starting player - especially nowadays - are humorous paraphrases of "randomly select a starting player", often in a more or less funny way related to the theme of the game. Fearsome Floors for example says that the player should start, who looks most similar to the monster.


text:
What are the differences between various versions of Citadels
I'm shocked by the amount of rule differences between the US English version of Citadels (by Fantasy Flight) and the various European (non-English) versions.
I'm looking for a complete list of the differences between:

Citadels (US, Fantasy Flight Games)
Ohne Furcht und Adel (Germany, Hans im Glueck)
Machiavelli (Netherlands, 999 Games)
Citadelles (France, Millennium)

The inconsistency seems to be mostly between US and EU, even though there are so many different publishers. Presumably this is because most EU versions are directly based on the German version.

Took some time to compare the rules, but man there's more than I thought. Some are more subtle, others are complete game changers. Here's a complete list (unless I missed any):

Poor House

US: costs 5 gold to build.
EU: costs 0 gold to build.

Removing characters

US: First put down the face-down card, then the face-up cards. If needed, replace the king from the face-up cards. The starting player can not look at the face-down card.
EU: First put down the face-up card, then replace the king if necessary, then play the face-down card. The starting player can look at the face-down card.

End of turn

US: After all the characters have been called, each player returns his character card to the Character Deck.
EU: At the end of your turn, place your character card at the center of the table.

Discarded cards

US: Face-down at the bottom of the deck
EU: Face-up discard pile

Character abilities

US: Used after performing an action (choosing gold or cards)
EU: Can be used before or after performing an action

Queen ability

US: Receives three gold if you are sitting next to the King or the Emperor (eg the person with the King/Emperor card).
EU: Receives three gold if she sits next to the player with the wooden king piece.

Warlord ability (in combination with Bell Tower)

US: May not destroy a district in a city that is already completed by having eight districts.
EU: May not destroy districts from cities that already has eight districts.
receive any gold from the Poor House or from their Alchemist ability.

Emperor ability

US: The player who receives the Crown chooses to give you either one gold or one district card from his hand.
EU: (no such rule exists)

Diplomat ability

US: Used at end of turn. Can not exchange with a completed city.
EU: Used at any time during your turn. Can exchange with a completed city.

Identical districts

US: You may not build a district such that you have two identical districts in your city.
EU: (no such rule exists)

Bell Tower

US: Bonuses are awarded for seven districts instead of eight.
EU: (no such rule exists) bonuses are awarded for eight districts.

Cemetery

US: If you are using the Diplomat you must remove the Cemetery.
EU: If you are using the Diplomat, the Cemetery loses its function.

End of game scoring (in case of tie)

US: Most points wins. In case of a tie, only look at points from district cards. If there's still a tie, whoever has the most gold wins.
EU: Most points wins. In case of a tie, only look at points from district cards.

Everything on the list is based on these documents

English
German
Dutch
French

I haven't found any differences between the German, Dutch and French versions, they seem to be mutually consistent.


text:
Do you restock hand cards at the end of each turn? Different language editions seem to have different rulings
Do you restock hand cards at the end of each turn, yes or no?
We've always played it so you restock your hand to four cards, as is explicitly stated in the Dutch rules. Other languages aren't as specific.
The English rules for Alhambra, by Queen, describe the actions at the end of a turn as follows:

English
  When your turn is over it is the next player's turn. Before the next player decides what to do, any money cards or building tiles which have been removed are replaced with new ones so that there are four of each again.

Now, if I look at the Dutch rules (also by Queen) and translate them, there's a significant difference.

Dutch
  When your turn is over it is the next player's turn. Now all money cards and missing building tiles are supplemented until every player once again has 4 cards.

Normally I would look to the German rules (also by Queen) for an answer, since the game is made in Germany. This one reads:

German
  After you end your turn, the next player is up. For that, missing money cards and missing building tiles are restocked to four each.

The French rules say "It is then the next player's turn. Beforehand, you must fill the money cards and the building tiles necessary to each reach four."

You don't restock your hand of cards, you restock the four money cards on the board which are available to take, the same way you restock the tiles available to buy. That looks consistent with the English and German rules; I would assume the Dutch is the mistake, that they meant until each supply has four cards/tiles.
I would say the English and German rules are fairly specific about that, and it takes some substantial stretching to get them to mean anything else. And the Dutch sounds like fairly awkward phrasing for restocking the supply on the table, which surely must be done.

Assuming everything else in the rules is the same as the English translation (i.e. you adding cards to your hand ends your turn), it would make no sense to also "restock your hand to four cards from the supply". So, in agreement with others, I think the Dutch must have a mistranslation.


text:
How to beat Ill-Gotten Gains?
I find Ill-Gotten Gains in Dominion Hinterland to be such a clogger, with all the curses and coppers it generates. How can I beat a player who keep getting the Ill-Gotten Gains when there are no trashing cards available?

If only the other player gains IGG then at least the Coppers should not be a problem for you since it only clogs up your opponent's deck.

Not sure which Dominion expansions are you running, but there are several cards that can counter this.
If you have prosperity, you can add the Watchtower to the kingdom cards which blocks curses gained in this manner, priced at only 3$. With Masquerade from Intrigue, or Ambassador from Seaside you can give those curses back to your opponent. Dark Ages has several cards which work with trashing.
On the other hand, if you put a more valuable 5$ card you can rush that instead of going for IGG. Embargo from Seaside also works wonders.
As the other poster states, if there is no counter focus on going for duchies as well as any other victory cards placed in the kingdom set.
Source: http://dominionstrategy.com/2012/02/06/hinterlands-ill-gotten-gains/

The major thing to understand about heavy ill-gotten gains strategies is that they rapidly deplete two piles: both ill-gotten gains itself and the curse pile.
This means that ill-gotten gains games tend to end based on a third pile running out rather than the province pile depleting, and so you need to adjust your strategy to compensate -- notably it makes duchies a lot more attractive, and all the extra junk in your deck makes the free copper you get from running ill-gotten gains' effect more attractive.
So, while this obviously varies from game to game, barring some more effective game specific strategy my usual answer is to take ill-gotten gains and duchies.

One thing to note is that if you can unbalance the Curse and IGG piles, perhaps with Ambassador or another curser, you can make the game go longer, since two piles won't run out at the same time.

Often it rapidly depletes 3 piles as buying Duchies often combines well with Ill-Gotten Gains.

if you add garden and start buying copper yourself, you can probably effectively counter this strategy.


text:
Struggle for Catan card sizes
Hi I'm looking to buy card sleeves as a surprise for a friend who has Struggle for Catan but can't seem to find the cards' dimensions. Please help.

Is this for the US or EU game? Mayfair and 999 Games use different card sizes.

It's the US version

FYI: some of the cards are double sided and are flipped throughout the game, so clear card sleeves may be appropriate.

According to this post on boardgamegeek.com:

SwanPanasia 'Standard USA' 57x90mm sleeves are reported to fit these cards perfectly. They are, however, larger than similarly-sized sleeves from other makers, so those other makers 'Standard USA' sleeves may or may not fit these cards.

Those card sleeves can be found for sale on SwanPanasia's site. Standard or Premium.

These fit perfectly, I bought them for a close friend who I play Catan with and he liked them so much he bought a whole bunch more.  They only fit the US regular size version not the hand painted wood version with small cards.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00A28RG5C?ref_=pe_623860_70668690

Thanks. Yeah we found Joe's suggestef card size fits US version perfectly. Good to know you can order via amazon.


text:
When do I lose 2 SO Points at the end of each day?
In Thunderbolt Apache Leader, the Artillery Unit (1S) notes say:

Lose 2 SO Points at the end of the Day.

Can the 2 SO points come from Daily SO Points that are awarded at the end of day? Or must I deduct the 2 SO points immediately upon entering End of Day and before receiving the Daily SO Points?
So for example, if I have 0 SO points when entering the End of Day phase, is that an immediate loss due to 1S?

You deduct the SO points from the Artillery Unit after you've collected your daily SO points.
In the rules on page 21, the order in which actions happen during the End of Day phase are pretty specific:

End of Day

No Fly Stress Recovery
Gain Special Option Points
Move Enemy Battalions
Lose Special Option Points (Map)
...

During the End of Day, you gain your daily SO points before losing any because of your current map configuration. This includes any points lost through unit effects. This is confirmed by user Walter Gagajewski on Board Game Geek, where he outlines a play session:

I gained 5 SO for 6 total and lost 3 for the Command units at full strength, 2 for a unit effect, and 1 for a unit in Friendly Rear.

His notation seems to be slightly out of order, showing SO gains and loses after the start of the next day, but his play flows in the same order as the rules indicate. The loss from a unit he is referencing in the above quote is from the Artillery Unit (1S), so that helps to verify how the Artillery Unit functions.

Full disclosure: I have never played the game, but I've just spent a significant portion of my life reading the rulebook and searching the internet for player logs of game sessions.