text:
Are these the right search terms, to find all cards that have their costs reduced by Embalming Tools?
I'm using Embalmer's Tools, and want to find all (monoblue) cards that have their cost reduced by it.
I have this search term (fo:/{[cwubrg1-9]}.*: .*(this|~) .* from your graveyard/ or fo:/{[cwubrg1-9]}.*(this|~).* from your graveyard:/) and id:u and t:creature, which brings back 17 cards currently.
Is this a complete search term?

You said "blue cards", which generally includes multicolored cards but in the search you have "id:u", which includes only monocolored cards and artifacts. Which of those do you want?

@murgatroid99 I'm after monoblue, but that's not really the important part in my search.

I have an alternate search that finds a few more cards. It looks like the main error in yours, and this is very minor, is putting a space both before and after the .* clause after (this|~) in the first regular expression. The result is that it misses the simple phrase "Return ~ from your graveyard to the battlefield" because there is no word in between the card's name and "from".

(fo:/{\d+}.*:.*(this card|~).*(in|from) your graveyard/ or fo:/{\d+}.*(this card|~).*from your graveyard.*:/) and t:creature and id:u

There are a couple of refinements here. First, I searched for only generic mana costs, because those are the only ones affected by Embalmer's Tools. Second, I fixed the spacing issue I mentioned. Interestingly, if I add the option of the word "in" instead of from in the first regular expression, and remove the color restriction, this would also find cards such as Carrionette, which has an activated ability with the restriction

Activate this ability only if Carrionette is in your graveyard.

My search does find Startled Awake as a false positive because only one of its faces is a creature, and that face is not the one with the activated ability.


text:
What model is this, that represents Enslavers?
I spotted this model on a Bell of Souls article about Enslavers.

But when googling, I can't find the model, and I don't think the article says.
I'm also not sure Enslavers ever had models, so I don't know what else to Google?
What is this model?

That pic/those models first appeared on BoS back in 2007 under the "Warhammer 30,000 League – Week 3" report. Other pictures in that report also show those figures.

With the description:

Balkus
Alpha Legion, Enslavers
The Alpha Legion under the command of Master Arkos, scored a hard fought victory for the Imperium upon the lost empire of Balkus. With its fate unknown for over 5000 years, the vile warp-spawned Enslavers have been cast out of this world forever. Captain Arkos has yet again done a service for the Imperium!
World Status: Compliance

The White Dwarf article in your link is apparently the only source for those rules. The models in the picture seem to have been original/custom.

I could definitely imagine these are custom models!

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How are vehicles costed, and how do I tell if the crew cost is worth it?
The Kaladesh expansion vehicle cards are artifacts that have a cost to turn them from artifacts into artifact creatures.
I'm trying to understand how to factor in the crew cost with the converted mana cost, when deciding if the card is good or not.
For instance, Irontread Crusher is 4 colourless, 3 to crew and is a 6/6, whereas Consulate Dreadnought is 1 colourless, 6 to crew and is 7/11!
That last one seems unbelievably cheap. How do I figure out if it's a great card or if I've underestimated the cost of crewing?
How does crew cost affect CMC?

Your title sort of sounds like you're asking how the costs were chosen as the sets were designed or possibly how to think of them when building a deck, while the body just refers to specific game rules - I answered assuming you meant the latter. Please do clarify if I misunderstood!

@jefromi,  much more the former I'm afraid. I'll try to make that clearer

This sounds like the answer is going to depend a lot on your deck and how many creatures you can get out.

@JoeW, MonoRed's answer fits though. He's explained it in those terms, and implies if I can get enough creatures out that using this costs less, it might be worth it, otherwise it's not.

Evaluating the vehicles like they're creatures is a mistake. As @JonTheMon says, vehicles are very analogous to equipment; they're worthless without creatures (or one of the other, fringe-ier enablers), and they can be "moved around". A good first step is then comparing the statline to the crew cost.
Another major consideration is the crew cost, just on its own. A Crew 1 vehicle will almost always have a creature capable of crewing it alone. A Crew 2 vehicle is usually safe too, but Crew 3 and above gets difficult. Crewing vehicles with multiple smaller creatures is ill-advised, as now you're tapping out a lot of your board for smaller gain. The best vehicles printed in Kaladesh block are Heart of Kiran and Smuggler's Copter (the latter being strong and pervasive enough to be banned). Copter had crew 1, which made it very good. Heart of Kiran is much harder to crew, but it makes up for it by being able to use planeswalkers as crew instead.
When a vehicle has a high crew cost, you need a larger creature to use it effectively. If you have such a huge creature (for example, one with 6 power to crew Consulate Dreadnought), you are in a strong position anyway, and the 7/11 is likely not that much stronger (we call cards like this "win-more" cards, and they're generally bad). Again, maybe you crew it with a bunch of small creatures, maybe tokens, but this is bad; a major source of value from tokens is their ability to clog up the board, and tapping a bunch of them down for one large creature is very unappealing, unless that card literally wins the game.
To properly evaluate vehicles, you have to do a little more than look at their statlines. Instead consider this; when does having this card on the board, or in my hand, help me? If a card is at its most useful when you're already winning, like Consulate Dreadnought, it is probably not a good card; the Dreadnought comes down on turn 1, but you're unlikely to be able to crew it until turn 4 or 5 at the earliest, and you're either tapping down an already large creature, or giving up on your entire board to do it. It lacks trample or any evasion, so it can be stopped by 1/1s, and on top of all that it adds only 1 power on top of what damage your crew could do normally. It is at its best when the board is clogged with large creatures, so it's 11 toughness can shine. This is a very specific situation that is not even likely to come up most games. Comparatively, see limited all-star Renegade Freighter. At Crew 2, it's likely that by turn 4, when it's able to attack, you'll have one or more creatures capable of operating it on its own. Landing on turn 3 means that it arrives early enough to be relevant, but it has an aggressive enough statline to remain useful late in the game, if that comes to it. It's great at developing your board, it closes out games that you're already winning, and it is beefy enough to block for you if you're losing.
This idea of evaluating when cards are useful, instead of just looking at their stats, is a very good philosophy for evaluating magic cards in general, but it's particularly useful for weird, newer types of cards like vehicles.

This is a really good answer. Covers sequencing, synergy, the importance of evasion when "putting all your eggs in one basket." Hints at both the concept of tempo and the "big turn." Niiiiiice.

So it sounds like... the dreadnought is designed for a  6+ monster that it's easy to get out but struggles to attack as a drawback. As for not wasting token creatures it makes sense. This is an excellent answer - answers the questions I really had not just the ones I asked.

One way to view how vehicles are costed is to liken them to equipment.
For Irontread Crusher, for a vanilla 3/3 creature to crew it, it essentially gives +3/+3 for 4 mana.
For the Dreadnaught, for two vanilla 3/3 creatures, it essentially gives +1/+5 for 1 mana.
So, it seems like you're getting a fair bit of bang out of the Crusher, but that's offset by the higher mana cost.  Whereas the Dreadnaught doesn't give much to an already high power, but it has a low mana cost.

How do I judge this, if I'm using 6 1/1 token creatures for the dreadnought, for instance ? I guess this becomes very deck dependant when you start crew crewing with different combinations. Is there a balanced way to say  +1/+5 for 1 mana is a good card  if I'm using xyz to crew it? How is that determined when these cards were designed? BTW,  looking at these as an enchantment really helps me understand them.

It doesn't really matter a whole lot what you crew it with, since you still need to put in 6 points of power. One exception would be if you have creatures with imbalanced P/T, like a 4/1 for example. You can consider high power, low toughness creatures more "efficient" crew, since you won't have to pay for toughness you're not using.

Converted mana cost (CMC) is only determined by the mana cost in the top right; there's nothing special going on with vehicles. Irontread Crusher has a CMC of 4, and Consulate Dreadnought has a CMC of 1. But that's just a rules term, with essentially no bearing on how good the cards are.
As you've noticed, the mana cost of a vehicle is generally drastically less than the mana cost of a similar actual creature. This is because crewing generally not only requires spending more mana on one or more creatures, but spending another card. For example, maybe you spend five or six mana on two creatures with a total power of 6, and then also cast the Consulate Dreadnought. That's less like a 7/11 for one mana and one card, and more like a 7/11 for six or seven mana and three cards.
Some other factors:

The vehicle can sort of grant haste to another creature: you play the vehicle first, then the other creature the next turn, and immediately attack with the vehicle. This increases the average value slightly.
You can use the vehicle aggressively, since if it dies, you keep the creatures. This increases the average value.
You may not always be able to crew the vehicle, e.g. if you need your creatures to block or your opponent removes them. This reduces the average value.

Tying this all together is naturally a bit fuzzy, and depends a lot on the context of the deck. In a deck that makes 1/1 tokens all the time, a crew cost of 1 is almost free. But a crew cost of 6 is pretty much never free. It also depends a lot on what you're playing against. For example, against a deck that can easily remove key creatures or sweep the board, vehicles are at risk of getting stranded uncrewed.
If you want a really really rough rule of thumb, just look at the average size and cost of creatures in your deck. If you have a lot of 3/1s for two mana each, then a crew cost of 6 is, a bit pessimistically, roughly two extra cards and four extra mana.

You come close to what I'm after.  You mention pretty big discount vs crew costs, but I know that for 'plain' cards the CMC is always roughly the same as the power/toughness of the creature (give or take differences due to colour) but sometimes you get cards that are just... Worse. Having a vehicle with a crew cost makes it harder to figure this out. Is there a well defined way to judge the balance of these new cards?

General rules of thumb in magic are that creatures have similar power and toughness and that each combined point of power and toughness costs roughly one mana.  Obviously this is color dependent, set dependent, ability dependent, and there are hundreds of exceptions, but we need a baseline and Grizzly Bears is it.  A 2/2 for 2 mana.
As JonTheMon suggests, we can assume that all of your creatures are equal power and toughness and follow the Grizzly Bears cost scheme to get an initial approximation for the value of a vehicle: subtract the crew cost from the power and toughness of the vehicle.  Thus, a 6/6 vehicle with crew 3 for 4 mana is essentially a movable +3/+3 bonus for 4 mana.
Now grizzly bears tells us this is weak because 3 power and toughness should cost 3 mana, not 4.  But they printed Irontread Crusher despite this, so we must be missing something.  This is a decent first approximation, but vehicles must be somewhat more valuable than that at baseline.  Here's how:

Not all creatures have equal power and toughness.  While power usually costs more than toughness when they are imbalanced (compare Incurable Ogre to Indomitable Ancients), low toughness creatures can still give you more power per mana than creatures with equal power and toughness.  Vehicles then negate the combat downside of the low toughness (you are still vulnerable to direct damage spells and abilities).  A great creature to exploit with vehicles is Rakka Mar.
You can crew a large vehicle with lots of small creatures.  Let's say you have some planeswalker churning out 1/1's.  If your opponent has some mid-sized blockers, you can't attack with these 1/1's because half of them will get slaughtered with minimal effect to your opponent.  Meanwhile, if you have half of them crew a vehicle, leaving the other half to block, your opponent must now take casualties to block you.  It's like banding from the "good old days".
Unlike equipment, vehicles can be crewed by creatures that can't attack.  This makes creatures like Cinder Wall and Slumbering Dragon crazy in their ability to crew vehicles efficiently.  These add a lot to the value of the vehicle.

As a result of these, the value of a vehicle is going to depend on the creatures you are running it with or the purpose it fills in your deck.  Irontread Crusher in a deck with Cinder Wall and Slumbering Dragon is now a +3/+3 bonus as well as Animate Wall.  The Crusher with one of Rakka Mar's elementals is a +3/+5 bonus.  And this could all be the same deck, so the vehicle has versatility to boot.

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/


text:
Can Voodoo dolls be moved?
In one of the haunts (25/26?) the traitor has hidden several Voodoo dolls about the house. When we played I had the dog and found my fellow explorers doll. I tried to use the dog to move it (to take it to the other player) but we eventually reasoned that the rules don't say anything about moving the dolls (they aren't items that can be picked up, stolen etc), so even I couldn't have moved them.
Were we right, or could I have collected the dolls whilst the other explorer tied up the traitor?

From a strict reading of the rules, I would say no. Presumably, the dolls still do damage to you until they are destroyed. It wouldn't make much sense if you could remove them from their precarious positions and still take damage.

Then you must find the dolls in the room and destroy them.
Once you find a doll, you can automatically destroy it if it corresponds to you. You can find the location of any doll, but you can only safely destroy your own doll.

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


text:
How can I make alternative characters for BatHotH?
The people who I play Betrayal at the House on the Hill with are also the same groups that share my love of Supernatural. We'd love to make some Dean, Sam and John Winchester characters as well as some for Bobby, Jo etc...
How can I best do this? I found this article on Board Game Geek but it doesn't give me much of an idea as to how to make them on the pentagons (one aspect of the game I find very cool), just on how to replace the current ones with cards and paper clips (ugh!).
Is there a website/service where I can print cards or some such?

Getting custom printing of arbitrary shapes on arbitrary materials is hard to do, even in this internet age of CafePress and print-on-demand book publishing.
One thing that's easy, though, is making custom stickers: go and Google "sticker maker", and it will show you sticker-making machines. Those machines take any shape of cut-out paper, and make the back sticky. Print out your own custom character card with your favorite image-editing software (possibly scanning in the Betrayal at House on the Hill character boards first for a template?), cut it into a pentagon, cut out a pentagon of tagboard, then use the sticker-maker to make your print sticky and stick it to the tagboard. (For a better fit, make the sticker bigger than it needs to be, and don't cut the tagboard until you've put the sticker on it.)
This is morally equivalent to getting a Glue Stick and making the sticker yourself, but I've found that the glue in sticker makers is generally better than glue sticks, and sticker makers will apply the glue precisely to the edge of the paper. Depending on exactly what thickness of tagboard you find in your local art supply shop, you may need to layer them to get the right thickness for the clips that come with Betrayal at House on the Hill.

authors: Ηλίας Μπουρίκας


text:
How long does the copyright for a game last, after it is out of print?
I was digging round trying to see if the copyright for Warhammer Fantasy Quest was still held by Games workshop who stopped producing the game 14 years ago. I don't know how long the copyright would last even if it was still held, in the UK.
Who owns the copyright for a boardgame that is out of print?
How long will copyright last for?

possible duplicate of What is the duration of copyright on a board game map?

The duplicate question doesn't answer who owns the IP for WFQ, but since Games Workshop still exists, it is they. Even if GW went bankrupt, or an individual was sold the rights to it and they died, someone else would own it for 70+ years. It would be retained the estate of the deceased, or would be distributed to the creditors of the defunct business.

@user1873 is that not just copy write on film and books?

copyright protects any artistic work. You might want to read the FAQ at the US Copyright Office http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#protect

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf

This question appears to be off-topic because it is about legal advice.

As previously pointed out, just because a copyright holder has stopped producing a game doesn't mean they stop owning it.  GW still own the rights (unless they have sold them; you could write and ask them if this is more than curiosity).  Games are usually covered by copyright in the rules, characters and concepts though there may be patents on mechanics; whichever feature you are specifically interested in, there will be a law stopping casual copying unless GW's lawyers were totally incompetent, which seems unlikely.

Patents are extremely rare for board games.

The in/out of print status has no bearing on ownership of copyright for a work. Since you modified the question to be about the UK, the governing authority is the Intellectual Property Office. IANAL, this does not constitute legal advice.

The term of protection or duration of copyright varies depending on the type of copyright work. The term of protection in the UK for an original written (literary), theatrical (dramatic) musical or artistic work lasts for the life of the creator plus 70 years from the end of the year in which he/she died.  ...
You should also note that. for copyright works originating outside the UK or another country of the European Economic Area (EEA), the term of protection may be shorter if it is shorter in the country of origin. There may also be variations in the term where a work was created before 1 January 1996.

Additional, since many works might be owned by a company, the IPO says:

An employer should keep careful records of which person(s) created the work for them which they own. The period of copyright protection may still be linked to the date of the death of the creator(s) - that is the employee(s).


text:
I've massively over-sprayed my models! Help!
I foolishly over-sprayed some of my Warhammer models. They are now have a thick coat that obscures some details and has cracked in places.

Can I remove this coat at all? Do I use chemicals? Do I just sand them down?

To late to help with these models, but hobby primer such as that produced by GW and other modeling companies is designed to be less obscuring of details. Car Primer and other primers you'll find art the hardware store are designed to fill small gaps and cover up "tiny imperfections"... these can work but really are not a good idea.

There are some other things you can do to prevent this from happening again.  Wash your models before priming.  Sometimes the paint can react to anti-mold coatings that companies spray their sprues with.  Before using the spray shake well and then turn the can upside down.  Hold down the nozzle until only air comes out.  This will remove thickened paint from the nozzle.   Then spray using short 1-2 second burst from 1-2 feet from the model while moving the can left to right at a steady pace.  I recommend Privateer's P3 primer.  It's thin and forgiving with good coverage.

Yes, acrylic paint can be safely removed, and quite simply too. The basic process is to dunk your models in a solution of household cleaner, watered down if you like, and leave them in the bath for a few hours. The paint turns into a kind of slimy goo, which you can then scrub off with a toothbrush and toothpicks.
In the US, Simple Green All-Purpose Cleaner is the standard recommendation. In the UK, diluted Dettol (a common disinfectant), has been shown to be effective.
Somebody actually did a comparison of different cleaners for this very purpose. He actually found that oven cleaner worked best of all (easy removal after an hour), but also reported positive results with Simply Green (although interestingly, not 409, which serves a similar purpose).
Degreaser or brake fluid are other possibilities, but these are nastier and harder to assess, since they come in many variants. For safety, I'd stick to surface cleaner, or oven cleaner if you have a test model you are willing to potentially sacrifice (if you've ever cleaned an oven, you'll be well aware that oven cleaner is viscous stuff!).
Methylated spirits and so on are best avoided, as these can erode your models over time.

Two questions, I being a cheapskate used car body spray paint (from someone who assured me it would work), is this going to come off as easily? Also will joints that have been glued with plastic glue, will Dettol take that off?

Ouch. 1) Not sure if anything less than paint stripper is going to work on car paint (the stuff is designed to be much more durable/weatherproof than acrylic). No harm trying the dettol and seeing though. If it's not fully dry yet you may see better results. 2) Are your models fully plastic, and did you use polystyrene cement? If so, they should be fine (the bond is permanent). Superglue may loosen over time, but this is minor anyway, since it's easy to re-glue.

I'll check the can tomorrow. I used GW plastic glue. I'll try the dettol tomorrow too. And no, the paint is 2+ years old (this was the reason I stopped painting for 'a while')

Be careful stripping plastics.  Some cleaners will soften the plastic and even melt it.

@CaulynDarr careful how?

@Pureferret Don't leave them in the solution too long.  Leave them in for 10-20 minutes at a time.  Also try it out on a test model first.

Dettol works. But @CaulynDarr advice about not leaving models in the solution too long goes for your hands too.

I used brown Dettol recently and it worked a treat.
Leave the model in there (be sure to wear gloves) for half an hour/forty minutes and then scrub off with a DRY toothbrush. Don't use water - it makes this weird gunk stuff that gets everywhere. Just scrub off with the Dettol. I recently cleaned a ridiculously over-painted model with it in no time.
Best of luck!

Welcome to Board and Card games.
This suggestion is already given in the accepted answer.


text:
How could I augment my Tau army with Necrons?
I'm planning on using the 6th edition Allies rules to add some Necrons to my tau army. As a novice player I'd like to know which units would best suit this mix?
I only barely know my Tau army, and I know nothing of Necrons. Where do I start filling the holes in my Tau army? Why those pieces?

While Tau finally got some flyers of their own, the Necron flyers are still cheaper and better.  I would suggest using two squads of warriors in Nightscythes.  You should also run an Overlord.  He won't do much for you, but he unlocks a Royal Court.  Take one of those with a few Storm Crypteks.  Give the crypteks Voltaic staffs to shred hull points off vehicles.  Round it all out with a Doomscythe or an Annihilation Barge.
Alternatively instead of an overlord take a Destroyer Lord with a warscythe and have him lead a unit of wraiths.  Very annoying to deal with.
This will give your Tau some mobile scoring units and a little more durability.

Sorry I'm a little unclear: What is an Overlord, and a court? What do the destruction crypteks do for me? Otherwise good answer.

Overlords are the generic Necron HQ Choice.  When you take an overlord you can build a special squad called a court.  Courts are made up of lords and Crypteks.  The models in the court can be assigned to other units at the start of the game.  Destruction Crypteks can take solar pulses that can turn on or off night fighting rules.

So you wouldn't recommend wraiths, canoptek spiders etc? The fun/cool/interesting models?

Those units are good and have their place, but when taking allies you need to have other considerations in mind.  Necrons as allies give you access to cheap, fast, and resilient scoring units.  Something that Tau lacks.  You need to take these first before worrying about other options.

Well, now Tau have fliers...


text:
How can I get the trait clips in Betrayal at House on the Hill to stay on?
Betrayal at House on the Hill features character pentagons with 4 traits that can increase or decrease and are marked by clips.

I find (at least with my copy) that the clips slip and slide too easily; we often lose track of our stats.
We've tried blu-tack but we aren't sure if that will damage the cardboard. We've tried writing them down but we still lose track as the stat tracker isn't always told/listening.
So is there a better way to keep track of traits? Preferably an improvement on the clips.

I have small shreds of paper in the box which you can slide the clips over for a tighter fit.

This is a common complaint. The sliders are just too big. Solutions that have worked for others include:

Using an alternative print-out, with washers for tracking
Wrapping each side of the character card with sticky tape, for thickness
Laminating the cards
Applying some PVA glue inside the sliders, and letting it dry before use

Reading the comments it seems like step one is call WotC and get free stuff to experiment with...

FWIW: Some of the clips in my copy (2nd edition) are too loose while others are in fact too tight and won't go on at all! I also have clips that fit snugly and don't slip around.

Using paper clips works great! The little loopy bit can frame the numbers. They stay in place, but can easily be moved and removed. They don't damage the cardboard, and you can use plain silver ones, or get colored plastic coated paperclips.

I use the mobile apps, they not only keep track of stats but help with the haunt scenarios. Here is the link for IOS and another for Android. I have only used the IOS one but it works well

There is a better app for android here - https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.ViktorDikov.BetrayalCharacterStats&hl=en_GB Me and my friends have used it and it's great.

Bite the plastic clip near the base. The clip will have a tighter hold on the character card.
We had the same problem and this method fixed all our plastic clips. No additional materials were required.

We used pliers... same effect, better taste.

@Gregor do pliers taste better than clips?

Not putting pliers in your mouth generally tastes better than putting clips in your mouth... depending on what the clips are made of and the available dipping sauces.

We had good success using sticky tape, but we put it on the sliders. Specifically, we stuck a piece of single sided tape on the inside of the slider, and then trimmed the excess tape off with small scissors. We might try packing tape next time because it's a wee bit thicker. An advantage to this solution is that it doesn't mess up the character tiles.

I'd use electrical tape -- it's already black, and just a hair thicker than normal scotch tape.

@CraigTrader it does have the smoothest surface of any tape ive dealt with, that can be a downside when wanting tgings to not slide off.

The goal isn't to make the clips stickier, but instead to increase friction by reducing the size of the gap itself. In that case, using a slightly thicker tape would help, without leaving any sticky residue.

Just looking on the net and came across this on a 3D printing site.
https://www.shapeways.com/model/1577319/replacement-clips-betrayal-at-house-on-the-hill.html
I have not used these, nor was there any comments on them, but I am considering getting it.
If they do what they should do, they would fix the issue.

Welcome to B&CG!  Please report back on how well they work if you decide to purchase.

I used a pair of pliers to gently crimp each clip near the base and now they cling tightly. I should note that it took a little trial and error to find the optimal pressure because the first clip became too tight, but this was easily remedied by gently spreading the clip using a butter knife.
Naturally, I would prefer more precisely machined parts, but today I have had no complaints with my modified clips.

My friend inserted a small slither of black electrical tape inside the slider. This tightened the grip when applied and was invisible to the eye. I still find the sliders too short to align with the number, but this at least keeps them attached firmly!

We would just set the trackers down on top of the character cards pointed at the proper numbers. This works for us, but there's still a good chance someone could knock the table or roll the dice onto your character tile and mess it all up.
I think the best advice on this page is the paper clips. Second, would be biting them.

Another way to do it is to boil water and then dump the clips in. Leave them for ten to fifteen seconds, then pull them out and let them clamp around a dime while running cold water over them. Run the water until they are completely cool. I had the ability to do them all at once, but you probably want to do them one at a time.

Check out this short vid for an easy fix for those slippery stat tracker clips.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTsm2tNuTw8&feature=youtu.be
Video summary:

Place a piece of tape on the inside of one side of the slider.
Trim the edges with scissors
Add another piece if it is not tight enough

YouTube videos have a habit of getting removed, one way or another. Can you summarize the important bits here in text and/or images?

I use 8 sided dice by each trait. It's easy to see and keep track, but I like the paper clip suggestion.

we just took a few post-it notes, cut them into thinner strips with a point on the sticky end...


text:
Should dying have won us the game when playing the voodoo haunt?
We were playing the voodoo haunt in Betrayal at the house on the hill and a few factors came into play, to paraphrase the rules of that haunt:

...You win if all the dolls are destroyed and at least half of the explorers don't die.

And,

...If you die your doll is automagically destroyed...

We played with three explorers (one traitor, two heroes). After my friend destroyed his doll I ended up succumbing to the voodoo doll and died, thus my doll was destroyed. Half of the heroes still lived (as did the traitor), and all the dolls were destroyed. We won.
It seems a little odd that the heroes won by one of them dying. In fact had he been more ruthless, my partner may have killed me to win. It was bit of a let down. Should he have had to fight the traitor still? Or was this a legit win?

Sounds to me like you met the victory conditions: not too many people dead, and all the dolls gone. (Unless there's a "you can't win by dying" clause; I don't own the game.) True, it's not the best rules writing - the victory condition is basically equivalent to at least half the heroes destroying their dolls while still alive. But here's a lot of badly written rules text in the haunts in Betrayal; at least in this case it's still clear enough.
In terms of feeling let down: would it have bothered you as much if you'd died first, then your friend destroyed his doll? Probably not. But of course, it's silly for that to be a win and your game not to be.

We played this haunt a while back, and this is a legit way to win. It's sacrifice, and while it doesn't make sense, neither does sneaking into an old house, placing dolls of people you don't even know, finding all these people, setting up an "accident" so they all happen to meet at this specific haunted house, then revealing yourself.


text:
Is the zombie lord a zombie?
We played the Zombie haunt (21) last night and found a hitch. The rules say the Heros win if they

...kill the zombie lord or all the zombies...

I went on an axe murdering spree and nailed all but one of the zombies before dying (such a good game!)
But at as my sole other companion ran the spear through the last zombie (with the zombie lord in the next room over!) and declared we had one, the traitor cried foul. They said that the zombie lord was a zombie, and 'Killing all the Zombies' meant they had to be vanquished too.
We argued that if the zombie lord had to be killed regardless it would have simply said 'Kill the Zombie Lord'. Eventually they relented.
What is the logic behind not having to kill the zombie lord? Was our decision right?

The logic behind it is that with no minions to control, the zombie lord is useless.

@Samthere but he's not, he's prety good at attacking people.

Well, he can still function, but his life goals have been crushed :P

No, the Zombie Lord is not a zombie.
As you said, logically he wouldn't be a zombie, because if he was they would just say kill the zombie lord for the requirements for winning the game (page 25)
Additionally, the rules for that haunt remind you that the Holy Symbol that affects all Zombies, doesn't affect the Zombie Lord:

If you have the Holy Symbol, all Zombies who make Might attacks against you roll two fewer dice. (This doesn't affect the Zombie Lord.)

It hasn't been confusion for many other players, so no additional information appears in the FAQ, or on BGG regarding the Zombie Lord.

The confusing thing for me, was that he's the Zombie lord...

@Pureferret So was Jackie Chan was playing a dragon in Dragon Lord? :)

@Tacroy, yes. Yes he was.


text:
How can we stop the same person being the traitor each time?
I recently received Betrayal at House on the Hill. The last and only three times we've played it the same person/player has been the traitor. I know this is unlikely, but we've started joking that the haunt text says "Player X is the traitor". They don't seem to mind ("is the game trying to tell us something?").
I know there are rules for skipping haunts you've already played. Are there rules for skipping traitors that have gotten sick of being traitors?

There aren't any rules for it. If you're getting tired of the same person being the traitor, then make a house rule based loosely on the rules for skipping haunts, and you can go back to having fun again.
Or you can just keep playing; it's only been three games so far.  What are the odds that the same person is the traitor again?
Edit: Yes, I realize the odds are the same each time.  But even with just 3 players, it's less than 50% each time.  The traitor should be a different player after just one or two more games.
And here are a few quick-and-dirty ways to select a different player:

Select the next-most-appropriate player.

If the traitor is the haunt revealer, select the next player to the left.  Give them the Omen that caused the haunt.  (I considered only giving them the Omen if it was relevant, but that could reveal some information about the haunt.  So give it to them regardless of whether it's relevant or not.)
If the traitor is the player with the highest [trait], select the player with the next-highest [trait].  If the stat is particularly relevant to the haunt (i.e., you need to beat the Traitor at that particular trait, or that trait is highly relevant to the Heroes' success and the haunt wanted to deny that advantage to the Heroes), select a different haunt using the standard rules.

Pick somebody else randomly.  Give them the Omen that caused the haunt, if the haunt revealer is supposed to be the Traitor.
Use the standard rules to select a different haunt, until the selected Traitor is someone else.

It is independent so they are always the same!

"Are there rules for it?" doesn't just mean in the rule booklet - it's asking if anyone has come up with any good ways to deal with this.

Usually when I play people want to be the traitor, but possibly that's just my friends.
There are a few simple things you can do to reduce the chances of a particular player always being the traitor:

Play with more people. In a 3 player game you're much more likely to be the traitor than in a 6 player game.
For some haunts the traitor is the player with the highest or lowest value in a particular trait (e.g. highest might, lowest sanity). Some of the characters are more balanced in traits than others, so if you choose one of those characters you're less likely to be the traitor.
For some haunts the traitor is the player to the left of the haunt revealer. If that player doesn't want to be the traitor then have them swap seats with someone else (not the haunt revealer though).


text:
How well do differently-sized units of Fire Warriors work?
I've heard varying opinions on the 'best' sizes for FW squads, mostly at 6 or 12 warriors to a unit. Pros and cons of that I've heard for each are:

A unit of 6

Smaller footprint - easier to hide
Large amounts of drawn fire is wasted on a smaller unit

A unit of 12

Benefits from fewer marker lights
May survive more gunfire

I'm not sure if that covers all of the advantages/disadvantages. How do different sized units of FW play out?
edit:
Has anything changed in 7th edition?

Six edition has had a big impact on fire warrior squads.  While some of the points in the article user1873 links to in his answer are still valid there are other factors that should be considered.
The short answer is you probably want to go either min or max on squad size.  Other numbers are acceptable but situational(like if you got some extra points and no better option to spend them on; going from 6 to 8 guys in a squad is OK to do).
Here's some changes in 6th edition that will have an effect on whether to go min or max.
Transports
Transports for units in the new edition have lost some usefulness. In 5th, taking a min squad to get a transport was often a no-brainer. Even a transport with as limited offensive punch like a Devilfish was worth it due to the overall strength of vehicles in the last edition.
Now transports are not scoring or denial units.  Even squads inside can't score or deny.  That means to take an objective, you will need to disembark.  That's a difficult thing to do effectively when you have a very fragile 6 man unit inside.
Overall the game is lighter on scoring units, so you can't treat them as transport upgrades anymore.  While the Devilish is one of the more survivable transports in the game right now, a Tau army needs to prioritize on high firepower and scoring units first.
Rapid Fire Weapons
The big change to rapid fire weapons is that they can fire up to their full range even when moving.  This gives Firewarriors a nice 36" reach on a given turn.  With this kind of range, Firewarriors don't have to rely on transport mobility to effectively engage targets.
Wound allocation
Wound allocation is now done against closest models.  This means you can use drones or attached battlesuit commanders(preferably with Iridium Armor and a pair of shield drones)  to soak incoming fire.  This is a big survivability boost, making large squads hard to kill and great at camping objectives.
Morale
Units can now almost always regroup.  This makes playing the morale numbers game much less important.   The new Cadre Fireblade and updated Ethereals also help keep your units around thanks to higher leadership and re-rolls.
Allies
Tau troops aren't great, but fortunately now you can bring someone else's much better troop options along to the party.  You'll get much better ROI for your points with a maxed out Marine tactical squad versus a maxed out Firewarrior squad.
Conclusion
Updated for the new Codex
The new codex does increase the play-ability of Fire Warriors, but they are still defensively a weak unit. With the slight points decrease and the extra shots you can get from Ethereals and Fireblades, there's more reason to max the squad size now than to minimize it.
I still think it is better to leverage ally troops to score and deny objectives.  That is if your ally's troops are better.  (Though you should pick an ally option with better troops IMHO.  Something like Space Marines, Grey Knights, Okrs, or Necrons.)
I would suggest going max on the squads.  Upgrading to the shas-ui is no longer necessary since you can stick an Ethereal of Fireblade to the unit and get a bigger efficiency boost. I could see the Devilfish having use in some list, but overall you should probably stick to foot squads.

This was the sort of response I was waiting for!

This article provides an in depth overview of all the strengths and disadvantages of the Fire Warrior units. It includes a summary of the most common squad sizes.

In general, there are 3 common sizes for units of Firewarriors:
12 Models: A full Firewarrior squad maximizes offensive potential. Whether deployed on foot or in a Devilfish, if you're looking for maximum shots, 12 Firewarriors is the way to go. A full squad of 12 is also best for taking advantage of Markerlight hits.
10 Models: A squad of 10 is the most efficient for Morale purposes without sacrificing any substantial shooting power. This squad requires the same number of casualties to force a Morale check as the 12-strong squad (3), but costs 20 points less. The squad of 10 is good for foot-mobile teams that are expecting to take casualties.
6 Models: This minimum sized squad is good for those looking to conserve points either because they're looking to cheaply fill the 1+ Firewarrior requirement in order to spend their points elsewhere, or because they're bringing the Firewarriors solely for their Devilfish option in which case they want as little overhead as possible tied up with the troops inside. 6 Firewarriors can be used to squeeze a few Markerlights into your list without having to bring a full-blown Pathfinder Squad and are also a cheap deployment step. In general, the minimum sized squad makes sense if your primary motivation is anything other than additional S5 shooting.

Honestly, if I was skimping on points but wanted to keep the Morale-check safety, 9 models is better than 10! Regardless of unit, the best squad sizes in that regard are 5, 9, 13, etc...


text:
Can I use the Idol during other player's turns?
If I have the Idol in Betrayal at House on the Hill, can I use it on someone else's turn, say in a defensive roll? Or is it just for your turn? If I used it on someone else's turn can I also use it on my turn?
The text states:

Once per turn...

And doesn't specify which turn. Should it say round?

No. Idol is an item, and may only be used on your own turn.
From the FAQ at wizards

Can you use an item card outside of your turn (for instance, when you were attacked)?
The only items you could use outside your own turn are the Angel Feather, the Lucky Stone, and the omen Skull.


text:
What is the Infinite Squirrel deck?
I've heard of the Infinite Squirrel Deck, and it looks as though it revolves around Earthcraft and Squirrel Nest.
Is this the only distinguishing feature of an Infinite Squirrel deck?

@Pat, I don't understand why you would use your mod powers to reopen a question that the community voted to close, and then use your mod powers to erase the comments explaining why. In any case, it was closed for good reasons and I have restarted the close vote.

@Rainbolt A lot of those comments were obsolete because of the question change. Granted mod reopens can be pretty unpleasant if you're on the closing side. But now I get to have an answer to a legitimate question I want to see answered, so I'm happy.

@Rainbolt It might've been better if there were an explanatory note after deleting the comments, but I think deleting them and reopening makes sense: the close votes and all that discussion were based on a different form of the question, and it's really hard to get enough votes to reopen things here whether or not they deserve it. If people still want to close it in this form, fair enough, but it does seem to be answerable if unexciting.

@doppelgreener Some comments were obsolete. Some still apply to the current form of the question.

@Rainbolt - I voted my conscience.  The question, in its current state is valid.  We should welcome questions that seek understanding and be eager to give it willingly.  It is not required that all questions be geared for an expert.  If you have questions about this, please take it to [meta]

Dead links. :(.

@Joshua undead links

Your assessment is correct.  The infinite squirrel deck revolves around the two card combo.  This leaves 52 cards of the deck open to design choices.  Consequently, there's a huge variety of infinite squirrel decks.  This variety is greatly affected by the local meta game.


text:
Do all the haunts in Betrayal at House on the Hill follow a pattern?
So, I've recently received Betrayal at House on the Hill, and I'm smitten. I'm also learning Java in my spare time. I thought it would be pretty cool to team up with my friend, who's had more experience with this, and make a very similar game in Java.
The issue we have is that we don't know all of the Haunts yet, so we can't program them either. My though was that all of the Haunts follow one of a set of patterns we could emulate:

Find items before X happens
Find items AND do Y before X happens
Kill Monsters X (and/or y)
Kill Monster X with Weapon Y
Destroy item

Granted I haven't played more than a handful of haunts, but they all seem to play along a pattern.
Is there a full list of all the ways haunts play out?

I think a full list might in some ways spoil things as much as reading through the haunts yourself...

@Jefromi if it's not much more than this, then it shouldn't. If it is much more, I agree.

I've also seen "Kill Monsters X (and/or Y) before Z happens."  (Still very similar to what you already have, of course.)

This is a little tough to answer without spoilers, but to put it simply, there are a lot of haunts with hero win conditions that are similar to the ones you mentioned, but subtly different, or where the lose condition varies, and some where it doesn't fit your options. The nature of Betrayal is that each haunt does change the rules of the game in a unique manner, and so after basic functionality the program would have to be deal with haunts on a per-case basis.

@Samthere that would make a fine answer!

@Pureferret I'll write up a proper answer when I can get to my haunt books and look through the ones I've played for reference :D

@Samthere: I quoted your answer, comment on it if you add your solution.

This is a little tough to answer without spoilers, but to put it simply, there are a lot of haunts with hero win conditions that are similar to the ones you mentioned, but subtly different, or where the lose condition varies, and some where it doesn't fit your options.
The nature of Betrayal is that each haunt does change the rules of the game in a unique manner, and so after basic functionality the program would have to be deal with haunts on a per-case basis.

Answer by proxy for Samthere's comment. Comment if he posts his own answer and I will delete.


text:
How should I plan for a VP win as Nurgle?
I played a game of Chaos in the Old world today and I came close to winning as Nurgle, whilst trying to win via ticks on my counter. The thing is, I only came close to winning via VPs, and my ticks were fairly bad. I also nearly won via VPs in another game as the Horned Rat.
Considering I seem to be doing something right to win that way (and I got some fairly solid advice about winning via ticks), how can I finish it off and assert my victory point victory?

Nurgle's general best winning strategy seems to be to go for VPs, not ticks. Khorne goes for ticks, and the other 3 go for either or depending. (This is actually suggested in the rules, near the end in a 2-page spread about strategy.)
In short: dominate all you can partake in every ruination. Those provide the big points.

Short but correct. By design, Nurgle has a very hard time winning on ticks; he wants them solely to upgrade his chances of VP win.


text:
40K: What are the disadvantages of playing Necrons?
I just picked up a 40K Necron codex today and I am rather astonished. They appear quite overpowered to me. Then again, I play Orks and Imperial Guard, so maybe that's why they appear so.
My question is for the experienced Necron players: what are the disadvantages in playing Necrons? There's the low initiative (offset by being reasonably tough and numerous), most of the armor values are relatively low (offset by vehicle abilities) and the weapon ranges seem to cluster around 24" (not so bad). So what do you have to watch out for or compensate for when playing your Necrons?

It's been a while since I saw a Necron codex (so leaving this for someone else to answer), but my recollection was they are expensive in points, and your army "fades away" when you drop below 25% strength, so it's somewhat easier to lose.

This is an extremely broad and subjective question.  I don't think this is the right venue for it.  You would be better served by searching the 40K blog community for reviews on the Necron codex.

@CaulynDarr Point taken, thank you. At the same time, the comment from ire_and_curses is exactly the sort of answer I was seeking.

@DavidPointer Unfortunately his comment is slightly inaccurate since Necrons got a points decrease and no longer fade out.

@CaulynDarr - Personally, I think this question is ok. Each 40K army has broad features which aren't subjective. For example, Tyranids excel at close combat, Tau are excellent ranged, Space Marines cost a lot but are tough. In that vein, I could imagine writing a general answer to this that would be useful - if I had a copy of the current codex. ;)

@ire_and_curses  This is a lot more complex than that.  There are sites that have entire series of blog post talking about the Necron codex.  It sounds like he's looking for a general Necron tactica.  Those exists and the Q&A format isn't the best format for creating a new one.  I'll put it up as a meta discussion.

@David Pointer - Thanks, but I'm confident you'll get a much better answer in due course. Don't worry about site acceptance. Challenging questions are much more valuable, IMHO. :)

Primary disadvantage is your friends will refuse to actually play games with you because, as you say, it's overpowered ... ;)

Does this answer need upgrading? I'm happy to provide the bounty to Make It Happen.

Necrons are a fairly solid codex right now.  They don't have any glaring issues like some of the older codexes do.  They come with very impressive shooting and decent resilience.  I would say they are a top-tier army this edition, but they aren't all-powerful.
They are not the greatest army in melee.  They have units that can be good at melee(Overlords, Wraiths, C'Tan, several of the elite choices), but the core of the army(Warriors and Immortals) won't stand up very well in assault.  And those units that are good tend to be fairly expensive.  Lynchgaurd and Pretorions cost the same as TH/SS Terminators but are just not quite as good.  6th edition is shaping up to have an even bigger emphasis on troops than 5th, so it's probably not wise to overpay for average quality assault units.  Wraiths and Command Barge Overlords tend to be the exception.  These are assault units that will find their way into most competitive Necron armies.  Scarabs are a special case since they are really only effective against vehicles, but, boy, are they effective:)
While the Necrons at first glance seem very resilient, a competent opponent that knows your codex can compensate for that advantage.  High strength/low AP weaponry can make short work of Necron vehicles even with their Quantum Shielding.  Since Necron vehicles are opened top any penetrating AP1 hit will destroy you on a 3+.   Reanimation protocols can also be overcome if your opponent focuses fire effectively.  If a whole unit is knocked down, no one can get up.  Plus the inclusion of precision shots could allow opponents to knock out your res-orbs at an inopportune time.
Necorns also don't have as wide a range of allies open to them as some other codexes.  Though they need them to be competitive a lot less than some others.  And they can ally with Grey Knighs...'nough said about that.
I had mentioned how many Necron assault units where expensive.  That's a trend with many of the options in the codex.  While there are many units that are cheep and effective(Warriors, Nightscythes, Annihilation Barges) there are others that can end up costing too much.  The special characters are all very expensive.  The rest of the HQs are decently priced, but you should be weary of giving them too many upgrades.  You won't get a good return on investment if you give them more that 2-3 options. Most of the Elite choices are expensive for what they do.  The efficiency of the cheaper options won't always compensate for the more costly ones.  Necrons are typical of xenos armies with the amount of dead entries present in the Codex.

I actually followed most of that! +1. But what's a dead entry?

@Pureferret a dead entry is an entry in a codex for a unit that won't see serious competitive use in an edition.  In other words a useless unit.

You're right; Necrons are awfully powerful.  WH:40K isn't as carefully balanced as it should be.  Their downsides are mainly high points-cost, but they also have less variety than other armies, and tend not to be terribly mobile (this may have changed in the 5th edition codex, but it was certainly the case before).  Their anti-vehicle options tend to be sub-par (and less varied) than other races.

The new codex has apparently changed a lot, so I'm not sure how much this still applies.  They still have a narrow range of anti-vehicle options, but the new scarabs definitely don't seem to be 'sub-par'.


text:
Is there a Warhammer 40K codex/proxy for the Interex?
The Interex appear in the first Horus Heresy book, Horus Rising as a branch of humanity heavily influenced by eldar.
I was forever saddened to hear they never made it.
Do any rules official and/or unofficial rules exist for playing as these? Also do any models/model making guides address making an army of Interex?
I would think either rules similar to the Eldar or Tau would fit, but I have no idea if that would work.

Pretty sure there are no official rules, but a couple of people have had a go at putting together an unofficial codex which looks interesting.
There are a number of intriguing modeling ideas, including conversions, for the Interex in this forum thread.

I've seen some people (online) that play with Imperial Guard models using the Tau rulebook as a stand-in for the Interex.


text:
What is the reasoning behind some of the allies, in 6th edition Warhammer?
I find some of the alliances in the new edition of Warhammer confusing.
Looking at Tau, for instance, they are Battle Brothers with Eldar and Spacemarines, although neither of these are, to my knowledge allies of the Tau in the fluff.
Likewise, I noticed that Eldar are Battle Brothers to Dark Eldar...hang on, I though that these were deadly enemies of one another?
Also we have the blood angels - necron pairing (fluff), and the Sisters of Battle - Grey Knights as allies of convienince only (anti-fluff).
Are these pairings in the rulebook based on fluff? On the mechanics of each army? Something else?

I'd say the reasoning behind the allies matrix is 60% fluff, 10% balance, and 30% Matt Ward lolz.
A lot of the matrix is what you would expect from reading the basic fluff.  Guard working with the other imperial factions and with a few of the others to represent renegades.  Tyranids can't ally with anyone because they would just eat them.  Tau will work with anybody if it will advance the greater good.  There's been some talk of the Emperor giving instructions to certain Marine legions to protect a certain alien race(hence the Marines and Tau being battle brothers).  And the Eldar/Dark Eldar works a little better if you consider one part of the pair to be Eldar Corsairs instead of true Craftworld or Commorragh Eldar.
The fluff is in a state of flux right now.  The Matt Ward authored codexes have done a number on established cannon.  This is behind some of the weirder combinations you see in the matrix.
I think game balance was secondary to fluff when deciding who gets to ally with whom.  Otherwise the Tyranids would have at least one ally option.

But the Tau/Eldar? I dunno, what other pairings in there don't make sense?

@Pureferret Tau and Eldar are the two "good guy" alien races, so I think it makes sense that they would ally.  Plus both those codexes are on deck for 2013 releases.  That may shed more light on their partnership.  But Necron/Orks is another weird combination.

The 'nids not being able to ally with ANYONE is kind of dumb, anyone remember Genestealer Cults?

@aslum I'm pretty sure Caiphas Cain has spent more time shooting Imperial Guard suborned by Tyranids than he's spent shooting actual Tyranids.

@CaulynDarr I've just read the Tau Codex, and the only mention of them is that the Tau destroyed a craftworld once and they've been at arms with each other since....hardly allies!

For example in the book Deathwatch 2: Warrior Coven, Space Marines ally with Eldar (unwilling but forced to). And I don't recall which book but at another a planetary governor allied with Tau (so we could say that Imperial Guard can ally with them). In any case, some of the alliances for me are so absurd (like space marines + necrons) it smells more like a way to sell more miniatures (so you can pick allies from more places for your army, except tyranids)


text:
How to build a multi-colour aggro deck to be more effective against control
I'm building a casual (anything goes, kitchen-table) deck for my friend, out of our combined pool of cards, which will have 3+ colours (atm it's three). She's a Vorthos/Timmy. She often builds her own deck out of the biggest/prettiest cards, but suffers/is frustrated when she plays against control style. I'm making it Red/Green/Blue, with as many elves/merfolk/faeries as possible for flavour reasons.
As a general question, how do you stop a deck with 3+ colours from being unfocused? That is to say, focus on a successful tactic (engines, brute force, lots of little creatures etc) whilst spanning the three colours. You need to juggle 3 types of land, which can end some games too early through having to mulligan/suffer the consequences. How can an aggro style, also be anti-control?
I'm sorry if this question is too localized/general. I'm really struggling to get my request into a SX style, but I do want a list of correct practices in making this deck, without a long list of good cards; chances are I won't have them, and can't afford to buy any more.

What type is this for?  Standard, Modern, Vintage...it changes the answer pretty drastically.

@IanPugsley It's just for casual play. I'm not even sure what those terms mean...

@Pureferret those are some of the constructed formats for magic.  check this out to get info on them: http://www.wizards.com/Magic/TCG/Resources.aspx?x=mtg/tcg/resources/formats-sanctioned

@DForck42 We play Vintage.

@Pureferret I rather suspect you play Casual, or Kitchen Table. :) Although you may abide by the construction rules of Vintage, you're not using the most powerful cards available throughout the game's history, nor are you making use of proxies to fill in the gaps.

Or even restaurant table, once.

@Pureferret Like "Use any card that you like" Vintage or like "We all have playsets of Beta dual lands" Vintage?

@AlexP no offense to Pureferret, but if it was the second, I doubt he'd be asking this question.

@IanPugsley That's why I didn't include "Mox, Lotus, Ritual, 20 cantrips, Tendrils you for 46, done" Vintage in the question? But there are some folks who have a ton of the original cards but still play "kitchen table" Magic with them.

@AlexP I choose to pretend that's not real life, so that I don't have to cry about it.

@AlexP Any card you like. I'm guessing beta is from a long time ago? I have no idea how many, how old or what sort my cards are...

This other question might be somewhat relevant to the 3-color aspect, although it's not anti-control specifically.

You've stated that your card pool is limited, and your ability to buy more cards is even more so.  This restricts specific card advice significantly, so I'm going to give some general advice on the process of tuning the deck.
Running a 3 color deck is difficult, as you've already noticed.  Without some specialized cards which are in many cases quite expensive to obtain, it is hard to be competitive.  Here's what I would do:

Ensure the deck is 60 cards, you can go a little higher if you need to.  In no case should you be anywhere near 80+ cards though!  The more cards you add, the more likely you are to get some really weird mana fluctuations.  It's also difficult to sufficiently randomize a larger deck.
Make sure you have enough land!  For a 3 color deck, I'd want probably 24 land and a couple mana producers.  Upwards of 26 land if you have no other mana producers (artifacts/birds of paradise) to include.
Proxy some dual-lands.  Take 4 swamps and write "Red/Green" on them, take 4 plains and write "green/blue".  They are land that can generate either color as necessary (but only 1 mana a turn from each land).  When you are playing with friends, I think a little proxying is fine, but be sure to let them know about it before hand.  Encourage them to try out a few cool old cards as well!  Just because you didn't spend $2000 in 1996 on cards doesn't mean you shouldn't experience those cards every so often.
As you play the new tuned/proxied deck try to figure out which colors are most important.  Shift things around to try to favor 2 colors, focus the third color on being the "finishing" color.  This will allow you to decrease the mana supply for that third color and will make your deck run smoother.  An example would be just including a few mountains and a couple fireballs.  In other words, try to move your color mix from 40%/30%/30% to 40%/40%/20% or even 50%/40$/10%

That is excellent advice. I think I can do at least 3 out of those 4 with ease!

On the subject of managing "focus" (i.e. color distribution), what you'll really need to worry about is lands.  With three colors, mana fixing can become incredibly important.  You'll want to play dual and tri-color lands and maybe some mana-generating creatures (what's a multicolor green deck without Birds of Paradise?) or "mana rocks" (mana-generating artifacts), to lessen your changes of getting mana screwed.  On that same note, I'd recommend a lot of the hybrid-color spells from the Ravnica and Shadowmoor blocks - they're fairly versatile and see quite a bit of play (e.g. Kitchen Finks, probably not for your deck but just as an example).
One of the better resources I've found for mana fixing is intended for Commander, but is great for deckbuilding of any kind (link is noncommercial, and I am not affiliated in any way): McGee's Commander App.
Secondarily, there's the issue of "how can aggro be anti-control."  The answer to that question is and always has been speed.  You're racing to see what happens first - you winning, or the control deck hitting its stride (which usually means a loss for you).  There's always certain cards that are going to help (e.g. Autumn's Veil - in fact, see What are good strategies against counterspell decks? for specifically counter hate, though it's specific to Standard) - try to find the right balance of speed to evasion.
I'd look around for what other RUG aggro decks are doing - you'll see some commonly-run cards (Tarmogoyf, Vendilion Clique, Spellstutter Sprite, etc.). It really depends on how competitive (read: expensive) you want this to be.  I'd also recommend tossing in Kird Ape, Trygon Predator, and/or Bloodbraid Elf.
Lastly, running blue usually means running counters.  In Vintage this means you've got the fun stuff (Force of Will, actual Counterspell, etc.) - it's also an answer to control, but be careful not to accidentally build a slower deck that ends up in the midrange (between aggro and control).

Unfortunately I can't afford to buy anything new. So special lands and some anti-counter specific cards? Thanks.

If you're looking at only using your existing card base, I'd say the biggest pieces of advice are the mana fixing and trying to stay as fast as possible.

If you're using the Red-Green-Blue "wedge" and you're playing "casual," you might find some use in one of the Commander decks produced by Wizards of the Coast: the "Mirror Mastery" deck, in particular. It includes a number of tools to help smooth out the mana in a deck with three colors — multi-lands and artifact mana sources among them.

A lot of choice Commander cards are slow as heck in regular 20-life Magic, though. E.g. even in 20-life multiplayer, actually getting to use Riku's copy-effect shenanigans is tough.

Conceded. However, the circumstance in the OP says that she's facing off against control -- which means she may have time to set up those slow effects. More importantly, it gives access to a lot of mana fixers, which will reduce the mulligans which are frustrating to her. (And she'll get a Sol Ring. Who doesn't love a Sol Ring?)

I might have some of those cards! But otherwise I'm at a loss. What's a 'wedge'? What techniques make those particularly good?

I don't know that the advice for a tri-color aggro deck looking to beat a control deck is "run these slower cards" - rather the opposite.  At the same time, this is good advice - I'd just be careful to stick with the faster stuff (i.e. dual and fetch lands, filter lands, etc.).

A "wedge" is a color triad made of two allied colors and one enemy color. If you look at the five-point pentad on the back of each card, you'll see that they form a thin triangle: a wedge.

Pat and Ian have covered the three-color angle pretty thoroughly, so this
answer focuses on aggro-vs.-control.
Aggro-vs.-control matchups tend to revolve around board presence. I
look at it this way:
The aggro deck is trying to put a lot of threats on the board, and the
control deck is trying to remove them or build his own board. Every
turn that the aggro player has a stronger board presence brings her
closer to victory, because she gets additional incremental value from
each of her threats.
For example, any turn that it's on the field and your opponent doesn't
have a blocker, Goblin Guide gets to do 2 more damage.
At the beginning of the game, the control player's immediate priority is to
"stabilize", usually by getting to a sweeper like Day of Judgment.
We often talk about the "card advantage" build into a many-for-one spell like
that, but the momentum swing it provides is usually more decisive.
I think your priority as the aggro deck isn't so much avoiding card
disadvantage as it is maintaining pressure, through a mix of two strategies:

"Be fast": play an all-in game where you dump your hand out as fast
as possible and try to get your opponent to 0 life (or 10 poison)
before he has a chance to play many cards. During deckbuilding, this
means prioritizing low-curve, cost-efficient threats like Goblin
Guide and Wild Nacatl, and packing in "guaranteed" damage
like Lightning Bolt to get in that final blow after you've lost
control of the field.
"Be tough": develop a respectable board position to create
pressure, then maintain it despite removal and disruption; you're
still playing aggressively, because your opponent's "endgame" probably
trumps yours, but the idea here is to deny your opponent the ability to
stabilize early and easily. During deckbuilding, this involve persistent
threats like Doomed Traveler, Chandra's Phoenix, and
Thrun the Last Troll, or alternate lines of attack like
Shrine of Burning Rage.

Note that these aren't so much competing gameplans as two facets of
the same goal: getting your opponent to 0 life quickly and consistently.
A good aggro player will
tailor her current approach to the strengths and weaknesses of her
opponent's deck, so it's valuable to build decks that can play both "fast"
and "tough" (and are, ideally, at least a bit of both at the same time).
If your deck is running blue, you also have recourse to countermagic
-- which you'll often see used in tournament "Bant" (green-white-blue)
and "RUG" (red-blue-green) list. This is the basis for the
"aggro-control" style of deck, which uses control cards to protect its
board position. Forcing your opponent to wait until he has enough mana
to play Day of Judgment with counterspell backup is often
backbreaking against straight-up control decks. Generally, though,
avoid running specific answer cards unless they are also threats, so that they don't
just languish uselessly in your hand while you wait for the right
moment; e.g. Qasali Pridemage is a better aggro choice than
Disenchant because a 2/2 exalted is always useful even if you
don't have an enchantment or artifact that you need to blow up.


text:
Opening strategies in Chess 960 (Fisher Random Chess)
I had a go at Chess 960 the other day, but whereas I thought I might do better against the computer as it didn't have an opening book, in fact the opposite happened as it quickly found holes in my position. Are there any good opening strategies? Is it best to try to massage your position into classical chess positions or to try to build a fortress around the castled king?

The value of castling would seem to go down sharply if the king starts somewhere other than mid-board.

In Silman's book How to reassess your chess, it's said that it's the position which tell us what moves we have to play. I guess in 960 chess, more than in classical chess, the most important move is the first (maybe it would be better to take more time before playing it, except in a fast game).
Even if the initial position are symmetrical, Whites have an advantage which may be great in function of the initial position. So first look at the weaknesses of the opponent's and yours position (for example, in the classical position, f7 (respectively f2) is weak), if you bishops (which are necessary in square of different colors) already attack a weak square after moving a pawn, but overall if your king is safe. If there is a square which is only protected by the king, maybe it would be better to defend it quickly, or if you have Whites, try to attack it or at least put pressure on the Blacks.

I am not an expert at 960 Chess, but the same basic rules apply: develop your pieces, take control of the center, and bring your king to safety as quickly as possible.

how do you know they apply, you just say so? Give some example games or arguments. Also, it's 960 not 360.

The standard arguments apply as in classic chess. Developed pieces and control of the center give you influence over more squares on the board and more legal moves. Getting your king to safety speaks for itself.

I agree with that, but sometimes even if there is an argument, the empirical route could demonstrate to say something different. I believe what you say, but it is needed better more stronger proofs.

Look where his Rooks are, and see if they're unprotected.  Often they are.  So aim to get your Bishops attacking the pawn, then that would get his Rook.


text:
Computer Go algorithms applied to other games?
Fairly recently, Computer Go programs became able to compete with humans using Monte-Carlo Search trees:

A Monte Carlo (MC) go program plays random games and easily evaluates the terminal position (win or loss). A MC program searches for moves that have high win rates, calculated from playing out at least a few hundred random games.

(This is a very simplified description. In practice one want to explore interesting branches with higher priority, so the randomness has to be controlled in some way using collected results. To play go at a reasonable level several millions of random games still have to be played out. But, hopefully it's quite fast to play randomly…)
I feel like a lot more games could be “addressed” using this method, and that could include maybe a vast majority of board games…
Two questions:

Has the Monte Carlo method already been applied to other games? (Are there concrete implementations available?)
For which kind of games, among those that have clearly stated rules and won't rely on complex communication between players, this method can be expected to fail?

Has the Monte Carlo method already been applied to other games? (Are there concrete implementations available?
Yes. This Grad paper might be of interest to you. It covers Backgammon, Bridge, Go, Scrabble, and Clobber.

Backgammon, implementation TD-gammon.
Bridge, implementation Bridge Barron. Probably outclassed these days by other computer implementations.
Scrabble, implementation MAVEN.

For which kind of games, among those that have clearly stated rules and won't rely on complex communication between players, this method can be expected to fail?
Actually, Monte Carlo methods don't do very well with end games in general. You will find that many computer implementations that use Monte Carlo methods employ different algorithms when playing the endgame.

MAVEN uses B* search algorithms during the endgame (no more tile to draw).
MoGo uses 3x3 patterns to help identify "interesting" moves, and Upper Confidence applied to Trees (UCT) to help prune less optimal random moves from consideration and speed up searching.

While Monte Carlo methods are a useful tool in playing board games, they aren't a perfect solution. Computer Go programs using MCTS, are still unable to beat the best players on 19x19 boards without significant handicaps. Computer Bridge programs are no match for expert players. Monte Carlo methods will only approach perfect game with infinite time/space.

+1 with extra props for covering a range of games. I'm impressed Monte Carlo search worked well for TD-Gammon.

In all honesty, I don't know if Monte Carlo method is well defined enough that one could distinguish a MCTS algorithm, from a rollout algorithm, from a neural network, etc. I think the list of games could even be much longer, but the OP only wanted to know if they exist.

Where did you get that MoGo use databases of endgames? There is no such a thing in Go. You mean databases for opening moves (which indeed where added in some other MC AIs)?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhal.inria.fr%2Fdocs%2F00%2F11%2F72%2F66%2FPDF%2FMoGoReport.pdf&ei=ds6IT6z-N4vciQL0qZmgBA&usg=AFQjCNHHbRhK_xR9gn7KvTbJpLZbg7BxUw Oops, you are right. MoGo uses 3x3 Patterns to make more interesting moves in general instead of the MC random approach, this isn't specifically for endgames. My overall point still stands, MC methods are not good at end games.

First, one needs to understand the differences between Chess and Go from a game complexity standpoint.  Next, one must understand the differences between the two types of AI algorithms, and why one works for Chess and the other doesn't.
Both chess and Go are perfect information games with no stochastic elements.  This means you can always see the full state of the game, and there is no chance or luck involved (no dice to roll, no unlucky card draws).
The difference between the games can thus be distilled to the number of possible moves each turn (# of decisions or choices) and the length of the game.  I'm skipping a more formal analysis of search tree sizes, state space sizes, etc., in order to provide a more intuitive understanding of the differences.
For chess, the average number of possible moves at a typical point in the game is about 30 different moves.  A typical game lasts about 40 moves.   For Go, there are about 250 choices per move and the game lasts about 150 moves.
What this means is that there is much, much more evaluation of possible moves, far farther into the future with Go than with Chess.
However, what makes it possible for human to play is that in Go the pieces are all alike, we can target patterns instead of positions.
A traditional chess AI uses something called an Evaluation Function which uses shortcuts (like assigning more points for queens than for pawns) to evaluate a board and say that a state of the game is better or worse for one player than the other.  With Go, it's very difficult to come up with an evaluation function, since the pieces are the same and territory is not set in stone until nearly the end of the game.  This is why the traditional chess-AI approach to Go has failed, the larger decision and state spaces are impossible to prune, so the search is ineffective.
Now, let's flip the problem and see why using Monte Carlo on chess might be a bad idea.  Since random play doesn't distinguish between 'good moves' and 'bad moves', a large majority of the random plays will be exploring obviously bad game trees.  For example, sacrificing your queen for no advantage, or making it vulnerable and having the opponent not exploit it.   Little information is gained by averaging in the results of individual bad moves.  This type of AI will work, but it would require much more computation than the usual evaluative approach.
In short, much more of the winning/losing is evident by looking at the pieces in Chess than it is by Go.
So, why does Monte Carlo work for Go (i.e. can beat humans)?  It works because both humans and computers are very bad at playing Go (compared to theoretical perfect play).  Monte Carlo random play sampling works because no higher-level of understanding of patterns is necessary than can be obtained in a computationally efficient manner.
So, how do other board games compare?  Let's ask ourselves these questions:

Can the board situation be easily evaluated?
How many decisions/moves are possible each turn?
How many decisions need to be made in a typical game?
How predictable are the outcomes of each move?

Most board games will show characteristics that make them far closer to chess than Go for the first 3 questions.  This is highly suggestive that a chess style-AI will be easier, faster, and more effective.
Since #4 is different for both Chess and Go, let's see how it affects the two algorithms.
If we had a random factor, let's say, drawing a card from a stack of 60, each decision to draw a card will branch the game into 60 possible outcomes.  Depending on what other players draw, their choices will change, which again puts us in the position of sampling many states are are highly unlikely or impossible (arguing against Monte Carlo).  Meanwhile, an evaluation function can easily be written to give values to each card (combined with the state of the board).
I have not seen Monte Carlo applied to other board game AIs, and the above are some of the reasons why.  Those are also the reasons why it's expected to fail.  When it fails it can fail spectacularly in that it's doing boneheaded, obvious bad moves because the 'random' outcomes from the samples just happened to be irrational far down the future random choices.
If you want to read more, I suggest these sites:
http://aaai.org/AITopics/
http://beej.us/blog/data/monte-carlo-method-game-ai/
http://www.aihorizon.com/essays/chessai/intro.htm

I think the original question presupposes that you're using some kind of static evaluation function to prune the (incomplete) search tree used by the Monte Carlo method , just like you do with a more conventional search (per the clause about "interesting" branches). So the main issue for a game like chess becomes "How much does the AI's play deteriorate when you take a Monte Carlo sample instead of exploring all branches in a deterministic fashion?"

Sorry, I disagree with most of the things you claim, and your second link (the only one which seems relevant to this question) don't consider Monte Carlo search trees (see the last paragraph).

By the way, is your conclusion that MC search trees does not fit to Chess and to most board games?

@StéphaneGimenez "I disagree with most of the things you claim" is rather unhelpfully vague, in my opinion.

@NealTibrewala You card-drawing example doesn't make sense to me. You can factor in probabilistic events when doing a tree-based search. (Although, to the best of my slightly-dated undergrad knowledge, the most successful AI for a game incorporating an element of chance is still based on machine learning.)

@Alex, I know, I would like to add explicit comments soon and try to find some references for backing them up, but it would take some space.

I did some edits (mostly typos and formatting). Your point about board evaluation is nice and makes sense, but I don't see how the problem of exploring "boneheaded obvious bad move" trees is any better in Go than in chess. Proportionally, I'd wager that there are more bad moves at any given point in a Go game than in a chess game. Though maybe in chess the consequences of a single somewhat bad move can be more immediate and irreversible than in Go.

All, great comments.  @shujaa, for example, once you are down a certain number of pieces, loss is almost inevitable.  However, random play won't show that, as it's likely the other side will lose two 'randomly'.  These certainties are enough so that Chess is being 'solved' because of the near certainty of certain evaluations.  "http://games.slashdot.org/story/12/04/02/2043240/rybka-solves-the-kings-gambit-chess-opening"

@StéphaneGimenez Sorry you disagree.  My claim is that MC Search is only necessary in Go because of the difficulty in creating a useful evaluation function.  Most other board games do not have the complexity of Go, and are easy to write evaluation functions.  Therefore, it's not necessary to create an MC-based AI, and doing so would be needlessly long and expensive to run (though they would be easier to 'write').

...why does this answer talk so much about chess?  Who said anything about chess?

@Neal. With MC you can improve any good or partially accurate evaluation function. In Go, it happens that you don't need any evaluation function at all (just finishing randomly is good enough). But nothing prevents one to use an evaluation function after some depth in the MC search tree (example: queen + rook against nothing is a win). The algorithm can then converge faster, but nothing guaranties it will converge to the perfect play anymore.

@NealTibrewala That makes sense, maybe you could edit your answer so that the evaluation problems of Go come across as a main point. As is, you don't mention that until the 6th paragraph.

@BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft: The question does ask (1) if MC has been done with other games & (2) where it would fail. So it is fine for this answer to consider chess.

Ok, I did a little bit of research. Quoting this paper:

In the last few years, several Monte-Carlo based techniques emerged in the ﬁeld of computer games. They have
  already been applied successfully to many games, including POKER (Billings et al. 2002) and SCRABBLE (Sheppard 2002). Monte-Carlo Tree Search (MCTS), a Monte-Carlo
  based technique that was ﬁrst established in 2006, is implemented in top-rated GO programs. These programs defeated
  for the ﬁrst time professional GO players on the 9 × 9 board.
  However, the technique is not speciﬁc to GO or classical-board games, but can be generalized easily to modern board-games or video games. Furthermore, its implementation is
  quite straightforward. In the proposed demonstration, we
  will illustrate that MCTS can be applied effectively to

classic board-games (such as GO)
modern board-games (such as SETTLERS OF CATAN), and
video games (such as the SPRING RTS game).

So, it seems that it was already applied to some other games. And they mention explicit implementations, but don't provide links to them.

I'd call 9 x 9 a very limited success. You're severely reducing the branching factor associated with each move compared to the full 19 x 19 board.

I was present in the room for the first official 9x9 win agaist a pro by MoGo, and it was like 3 or 4 years ago. Now they are just 4 or 5 stones away from highest professionals in 19x19. In turn, one professional claimed once to be something like 3 stones away from perfect play (and from a go player point of view it is plausible).

Some of this comes down to the definition of "fail".  The MC Catan AI will play 'well', and may beat other AIs, but they claim it is only a "Challenging Opponent" implying it's still possible for humans to win.  In general, any MC search  requires that the good moves and bad moves are in a fairly reasonable ratio.  Put another way, there's an upper bound on how good an MC-based AI can be, which a classical pruning AI can beat (in non-degenerate cases).

@Neal: Of course it's still possible for humans to win Catan.  Even if the computer could play absolutely perfectly, humans, even beginners, could beat it a decent percentage of the time.  This is due to the large amount of chance inherent in Catan.  The exact same goes for poker, bridge, cribbage, etc.  The same is not true of perfect-information games like chess or go; a computer who played perfectly would always be able to guarantee a win/draw playing as the advantageous side.


text:
Are Summon - [insert-creature-type-here] cards creatures?
Back in the day we didn't have Creature - Name card types, instead we had Summon - Name card types. Long ago in magic, cards were printed entirely differently, and this actually creates some interesting situations with the present day rulings. For example, in the past the Defender ability was non-existent. There were instead creatures printed Summon - Wall and such creatures with the Wall subtype were ruled to not be able to attack.
It's supposedly possible now with the introduction of Defender that such old walls without Defender can actually attack, drastically changing how some cards have been used.
My question is, if my opponent has such a card, Summon - Wall, or perhaps Summon - Goblin, etc., does that count in the present rulings as a Creature Card? Can I target it with "destroy non-black creature", or perhaps "return target creature to opponent's hand"? The confusion between my group of players is the word Creature is actually not on these cards, and it is on every other creature card that's out in this time and age.

Comprehensive rules glossary: Wall: A creature type with no particular rules meaning. Older cards with the Wall creature type but without defender had an unwritten ability that precluded them from attacking. Those cards have received errata in the Oracle card reference to have defender. Some older cards that referenced the Wall creature type have also received errata. See Defender.

A bit of nitpickery: while these permanents can be destroyed by 'destroy target creature'-type spells, there's actually a salient difference between a creature, a creature card and a creature spell.  Doom Blade can't 'destroy' e.g. a non-black creature card in your graveyard, but it can destroy a green Beast token like the ones created by various instances of Garruk.

Yes, these cards are MtG cards with the type Creature. A cards official wording is what currently appears in the Oracle Online reference.
From the Comprehensive Rules

108.1. Use the Oracle card reference when determining a card’s wording. A card’s Oracle text can be found using the Gatherer card database at http://gatherer.wizards.com.

Summon (Obsolete)
  Older creature cards were printed with “Summon [creature type]” on their type lines. All such cards have received errata in the Oracle card reference to say “Creature — [creature type].” (Many of these cards’ creature types have also been updated.) See Creature.

All of those cards have received errata in the official Oracle. If you visit Gatherer and look up any of those old cards, you can see the new wording for it. Many creatures gained subtypes, so it's worth checking into. For example, Llanowar Elves went from "Summon Elves" to "Creature - Elf Druid". Also, all Interrupts becames Instants.
Also, you'll find that all those walls will likely have Defender in the Oracle ruling :-)
Hope this helps!

Possibly not, if and only if R&D's Secret Lair is in play:

P.S. I was just about to correct "in play" to "on the battlefield" there, but actually I don't have to, since I have R&D's Secret Lair in play :P

In the old rules, a "Summon" card on the battlefield was still called a "creature".

Yeah, this answer's definitely a bit (a lot) tongue-in-cheek - but I can see trying to argue a fine distinction between old Summon cards and new Creature cards as the sort of thing that can and should happen in an Unglued environment...


text:
How does the full-size board change the game of Go?
My Go board has two playing surfaces, one big and the other small. As a Go beginner, I have been playing on the reduced size board. I assume this is recommended because it makes games shorter, and there is less to keep track of. But as a beginner, I'm having trouble seeing what benefits playing on a larger board might bring.
Why would I want to play on a bigger board? How does the game change? Or another way of putting this - why doesn't everyone play on the smaller board size?

Could you please specify the board size, rather than just "small and big"? The three most-common sizes are 9x9, 13x13, 19x19. In Asia the size 6x6 is also pretty common for children.

The small board focuses on close fighting. You're right; it is recommended for beginners for developing fighting skill and tactics, but the strategy component is lacking--at least when compared to a 19x19 board.
The big board is not just like playing 4 small board games next to each other. Through ladders and potential escape routes, the stones on one side of the board interact with the stones on the other side. When you start playing on big boards this is a very hard part of the transition because on a 9x9 or even 13x13 board you don't have to keep thinking about stones that seem to be far away. This is related to the concept of "influence", which is largely absent on smaller boards, but is of great strategic importance on the bigger board.
A Go teacher in my area likes to say that what makes professional Go games really interesting is the trades. You see professionals let massive groups die yet come out ahead, because in so doing they gain forcing moves that make up for it elsewhere. A popular example is the Yi Sedol ladder game. These sorts of trades are nearly impossible on a small board, and the game is much more exciting with them.
Overall, on a big board Go

is more complex, which many would argue means more interesting
uses both tactics and strategy
for an amateur, allows for more mistakes. You can mess up in one area, but still come back, playing better elsewhere and using leftover aji
allows for more varied games. There are many different opening styles on a full size board, and they will lead to games that feel very different.
is more fun!

It is also different from "playing 4 small board games next to each other" because there aren't as many places to play where you're close to an edge of the board, which affects strategy (and tactics!) in many ways. I like to refer to those effects collectively as "surface tension".

Great answer.  Also remember that there is relatively more territory in the center than the edges on 19x19 where the cornors and edges matter more on smaller boards.

To use a metaphor, what's the difference between a barroom brawl and a full-scale war?  The brawl is faster and just as decisive at the end, but if you rush the front lines of an opposing army swinging a barstool, you'll probably not get very far.  You need to rely on your commanders and your fellow soldiers to get you close enough that your barstool will actually connect.
In other words, a 9x9 game is tactical whereas a 19x19 game is strategic.  Consider the following Go proverb:

The third line is for territory, the fourth line is for influence

This is the fundamental difference between a high move (fourth line or higher) and a low move (third line or lower).  Territory is valuable for obvious reasons: that's where you get your score from.  Influence is also valuable, but for less obvious reasons: you use influence to fight and either secure more territory, or destroy your opponent's territory.
Now, on a 9x9 board, the ratio between influence and territory is heavily biased towards the territory side; almost the entire board is on the third line or lower, and the only space above the fourth line is the center point.  This makes a game on the smaller board faster, but focuses very much on close-range tactics rather than wide-scale strategy.  Usually it's one quick but brutal fight which ultimately determines the winner of the game.
On a 19x19 board, however, roughly half the board is "territory" and half the board is "influence".  Rather than one short but violent fight, the game focuses just as much on deploying your troops and fortifying your defenses.  You'll often end up with a series of skirmishes, none of which necessarily decide the game on their own.  You may lose a battle, or even many battles, yet you can still win the war.
On the larger board, playing for influence is can be just as important as playing for territory; very often a move that secures territory for yourself will allow the opponent to gain influence, and vice versa.  Whether you decide to play a territory-heavy or an influence-oriented style, understanding this balance becomes essential to victory.
This subtlety is almost entirely missing on a 9x9 board.
Now whether you prefer to while away your idle hours with the occasional drunken fistfight, or you'd rather start up World War III, that's very much up to you.  At my local go club, it is not uncommon to see people playing nothing but 9x9 games all day long, and other people breaking out the 19x19 board and nothing else.  Often players will switch between the two boards from game to game.  Both board sizes allow for enjoyable and viable games, but even with the exact same rules the games will be completely different.

I disagree with your division of the board between "territory" and "influence" intersections. The "3rd line is for territory, 4th line is for influence" proverb refers to the position of the stone, not to the positions of the empty intersections it is trying to control. When I play a stone on the 9x9 board, it influences the whole board. If I play a stone "on the 4th line" on a 9x9 board, then I'm also playing a stone "on the 6th line" viewed from the other side of the board.

Early in my Go education I played black with a 4 stone handicap on a 13x13 board. My opponent invaded the 3,3 point in all four corners, and I played the Joseki perfectly - but lost miserably.
On a 19x19 board I would have been in healthy shape with tremendous influence into the centre, as well as 4 half-sides, instead of owning a tiny area barely half what my opponent had carved out in 4 corners.