text:
What are pyramid games?
I wondered if someone could explain what properties define "pyramid games"?  Someone suggested that I have a look at icehousegames.org but it's not clear to me from that site what are the the things that those games have in common.  (Obviously, I assume they involve at least some pieces that are shaped like pyramids, but there are lots of interesting features mentioned in the description of Icehouse and it's not clear to me which (if any) of these are to be found in other games of that type.)

The only true property that these games share are that they all use one or more "stashes" (set of 15) of pyramids sold by the game company Looney Labs.  Given that the pieces themselves come in three sizes, they can be stacked on top of each other or nested inside of each other.  This, along with the fact that they are pointed, gives rise to a weak theme of directionality through the games, but really any game that has been created using these pieces can call themselves a pyramid game.
There is a fertile area of game development surrounding these pieces, so there is a large number of official and unofficial games played using these rules. Icehouse was the original, but really isn't that strong of a game and isn't a good indicator of how the pieces are usually used. I would suggest looking at a few of the old favorites to get a feel for the type and style of games the the pieces are involved in:

Zendo - a game of inductive logic
Gnostica - a game played using a tarot deck for a board
Volcano - a game similar to Mancala


text:
Which member of the Icelandic national football team designed a board game?
I was just watching Argentina play Iceland in the football World Cup, and one of the ITV commentators mentioned as an aside that one of the players on the Iceland team had recently published a board game, but I didn't catch which player they were referring to. Does anyone know which player this was, and what the board game is?

Wow, down-voting this question is pretty harsh  It's absolutely on topic, surely.

It may have been downvoted due to lack of apparent research effort.

Which always seemed like a weird rationale to me because now Googling the question produces this question as the top result for me. The question was harder to Google before this question, and now it's easier to Google. It's a net win for the internet!

I loath football but this seemed googleable.  I got the list of players from wikipedia and searched each one with 'board game' until it turned up  this BGG thread.
The player is Jóhann Berg Guðmundsson who designed a trivia game called. Beint í Mark.

Thanks! (Looking at the timings, I think that BGG thread didn't exist when I was searching for an answer earlier...)

No problem,  I'd have asked here as well if I wanted to know something and google wasn't giving answer at the time.  I mean if I'd googled and found nothing i'd just not have posted an answer!

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What happens to "usable once only" cards when Illusion is played?
In a Munchkin game yesterday, a level 8 player (let's call her "Jennifer") was fighting a Hippogriff. After counting gear bonuses, Jennifer's combat strength was 15 and the Hippogriff's was 16.
If Jennifer won the combat, she would have won the game, so people started unloading cards that affect combat. The following cards were played:

Jennifer used a "+3 to either side, usable once only" (+3 UOO) card to help herself, making the fight 18/16 in her favor
Another player used a +3 UOO card to help the Hippogriff, making the fight 18/19.
Jennifer used a +2 UOO card on herself, and another player used a +2 UOO card for the Hippogriff (20/21)
Jennifer used a +5 UOO card on herself, and another player used a +5 UOO card for the Hippogriff (25/26)
Jennifer used a "-5 to monster" card on the Hippogriff, and another player used a +5 UOO card for the Hippogriff (25/26)
Jennifer used a +2 UOO card on herself, making the combat 27/26 in her favor

At this point, another player threw down Illusion and Plutonium Dragon to replace the Hippogriff. The relevant part of Illusion is

Discard any one monster in this combat, along with any cards that have been played to modify it, and replace with a monster card from your hand.

We then had a long argument about which cards remained in play.
All of us immediately agreed that the "-5 to monster" card was a modifier for the Hippogriff, and disappeared with the Hippogriff.
For UOO cards played to help Jennifer, half of us thought that they were gone, because they had already been "thrown," "fired," "drunk" or otherwise used up. The other half thought that the cards remained in play, because it was still the same combat and Illusion didn't explicitly say that anything should be done about cards played to help the munchkins' side.
Most of us argued that the UOO cards played to help the Hippogriff's side of the combat also went away. Some of us cited the wording of Illusion; others thought they too were used up. A few of us maintained that UOO cards are not technically "modifiers," and therefore should have remained in play.
What should have happened in this combat (assuming no further cards were played)?

I don't have an official ruling to cite, but my interpretation would be that Illusion only removes the monster and any Monster Enhancers specific to that monster, but does not affect any one-shot items or other "±X to either side" cards.
What's confusing here is that, instead of using the standard term "Monster Enhancer" (like, say, the Mate card does), the Illusion card text just says to discard "any cards that have been played to modify [the monster]".  However, as far as I can tell, these two terms as effectively synonymous; the rules essentially define a Monster Enhancer as any card played to modify an individual monster:

Monster Enhancers
Certain cards, called monster enhancers, raise or lower the combat strength of individual monsters. (Yes, you can have a negative enhancement.) Monster enhancers may be played by any player during any combat.
All enhancers on a single monster add together. If there are multiple monsters in a combat, the person who plays each enhancer must choose which monster it applies to. Exception: Anything that enhances a monster also enhances its Mate … if Ancient, Enraged, and Mate are played on a single monster, in any order, you are facing an Ancient Enraged monster and its Ancient Enraged Mate. Good luck …

(The Mate card text was changed to explicitly refer to Monster Enhancers in The Great 2010 Changeover; I suspect that the lack of a similar change to the Illusion card may have been an oversight.)
The essential difference between Monster Enhancers and one-shot items is that Monster Enchancers modify a specific monster (and possibly its Mate, per the explicit exception quoted above), whereas one-shot items add a bonus to a side in combat.
In particular, if there are multiple monsters involved in a combat (e.g. due to Wandering Monster cards being played), a one-shot item granting a bonus to the monsters' side will not be tied to any specific monster, and will not disappear even if some of the monsters are subsequently removed from combat by any means.
Of course, if all the monsters leave combat with no replacement (and no new wandering monsters appear within the rules-prescribed 2.6 seconds), then the combat is over and any bonuses of any kind become irrelevant.

The logic around how the items wouldn't apply to any particular monster if there were multiple monsters in the combat really sealed this for me.

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


text:
Do cavern edge tiles count as their own tile in the Legend of Drizzt board game?
In the Legend of Drizzt board game, cavern edge tiles contain two spaces where you could move.
Does the cavern edge tile count as its own tile, or does it count as part of the tile it is connected to?

Yes, they are their own tile.

The rule book defines Tiles and Squares in page 6:

A tile is the basic building block of the dungeon, drawn from the Cavern Tile stack.
A square is one of the spaces on a Cavern tile.

Unfortunately, this definition technically rules out the Cavern Edge Tiles, because the are not drawn from the stack. Still, on page 6, it still refers to them as tiles, just 1/4th the size.

Cavern Edge Tiles - Each of these tiles is about one-quarter the size of a regular Cavern tile. The most common use for Cavern Edge tiles is to create a cavern complex at the start of an adventure. See “Creating a Pre-Built Cavern Complex” on page 14.

Since the rules treat the Start Tile as two separate tiles that are already connected, I see no reason not to treat the Cavern Edge Tiles as separate tiles connected to normal Cavern tiles.

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


text:
What can dead Werewolves players be doing?
When you've been lynched by the villagers or ripped apart by the werewolves, I believe the rules say those players are completely out of the game and should not contribute in any way.
In the handful of Werewolves games I've played, some of those dead characters are put out that they aren't playing any more & decide they'll go and do something else, hence splitting up the party.
Do people have any house-rules or innovative ideas for what dead players can be doing within (or around) the game as it continues?

In the many Werewolf games I've played the dead usually enjoy watching the remaining players struggle. If the game proceeds at a decent pace, the wait won't be all that long, even with 20-30 players. A great moderator is key, though. When the game does run long it's not uncommon for the dead to move to another room for a while and talk.

Usually in long games the dead around here just kibitz. (It's quite easy to be entertaining and yet not "contribute". :) )

A simple game variant is that dead people can become ghosts.  This means that they still close their eyes, but do not vote.  During the day, they can still talk and participate in discussions.  Obviously, one's status is NOT revealed when one is killed.  It's up to the moderator to say when the game is over.
This changes the game, since it's not possible to eliminate 'leaders', but it can keep everyone engaged.

I do feel like it's a pretty crucial feature of Werewolves that you should be able to kill the most vocal/annoying players just to be able to shut them up.  Maybe that's just my group though.  (I usually get killed pretty early...)

Perhaps some ghosts have had their throats ripped out, so they can't talk!

@thesunneversets: I agree, that's a key point even in my sessions. Happens also if a player is too devious or smart: if you're in doubt, it's a wolf. That would be pointless if he was allowed to keep talking. Moreover, it would make being killed much less of an issue, spicing down the game. Finally, it would buff way too much the role of the Seer, making it less interesting.

Seems like an opportunity for further enhancement than a problem.  Consider (1) Exorcising the ghosts as a particular action to be taken in the day (or night), that either costs the villagers or the wolves extra time.  Consider also special role cards that could come into play ONLY if someone is a ghost...

@Neal: OMG, no way. One of the key points of this game it that it's extremely simple, it will never ever work if you mess it up like that.

@Lo'oris, there are several werewolf card decks being sold out there that significantly mess with the 'simple' game that work just fine and are quite fun.

A house rule I've played is that the first dead person becomes a ghost. They can keep their eyes open and watch the rest of the game, and cannot speak.
Every morning they may write a clue in the form of a single letter (not using the player's initials) to show the people who are still alive.
The reason it's only the first person to be killed is that they haven't had much of a chance to participate otherwise in the game, not even in the first round of lynching.
It can also be quite good if you have new players in the group, as it gives the people still alive a focus for their discussion.

While "the person killed the first night" is a nice idea, I cannot think of anything possibly useful to be "said" using just a single letter.

It's a single letter per morning, so you can start to build up a word, but the game is usually over before the word spelt out makes it definite who one of the werewolves are. Like I say, the main thing I like about it is that it can help focus the discussion a little. What does g mean? Glasses? Gloves? Gambling?

You mean I've been lying on the floor with my limbs twisted and an expression of ghastly terror frozen on my face all these times, and I didn't have to?  Man!
I wonder if perhaps people bitten by werewolves should become junior werewolves - or at least ghosts, who can silently haunt people they feel helped stitch them up, and perhaps suggest future victims to the werewolves by pointing?
EDIT - I didn't really mean that death should involve promotion to full werewolf status.  See my comment below for what was actually going through my mind when I typed that those bitten by werewolves should become a werewolf.  Whoops!

ROFL. I don't like this idea, though: this would take away a lot from the actual werewolves, and could also be an incentive to die! Yeah kill me np I'll be a wolf! Nonsense.

@lo'oris - I phrased it pretty badly.  I meant someone who could make suggestions (by pointing I guess) for the werewolves' next kill, rather than a fully participating werewolf.  I totally agree with you that dying in this game needs to have pretty big negative consequences, or else it'd be, to use a currently topical analogy, like poker without the bidding!

but the wolves are already "just pointing" and it is very difficult for them to actually communicate. Adding other guys that point to random people would be kind of pointless: it wouldn't enrich the game.

@lo'oris: I thought the point was not necessarily so much to "enrich" the game as to create some sense of continued participation in the knocked-out players.  But I guess if someone does come up with an insanely brilliant way to use dead people then I will take my hat off to them :D

yeah yeah, I understand your point and I appreciate your effort. I still think that the best thing to do with dead players is to let them watch, which is pretty fun anyway. DISCLAIMER: I only played with groups of more or less 8-9 people.

I've always played with just 8-9 people, so the dead just wait for the next turn, which is going to happen in a matter of minutes (and it's fun).

One of the "official" game rules actually have a role for dead people too, but I fear that it would make the game needlessly complex.
update: I kind of found out. Those rules had people during the day first chose to nominees to be burnt, then everyone could vote which one to burn between those two: this last vote could be cast by ghosts too, which anyway could not talk.
This is an extremely lame and boring rule:

it adds unnecessary complexity
it either forces the ghosts to keep the eyes closed during the night (lame: it's fun to see what's going on!) or it makes them way too powerful (just terrible)

@Lo'oris - Can you say what the official game rule is that you mentioned? I'm very interested in knowing.

@xiaohouzi: I don't remember it, but a link to the complete official rules has been posted in this site...  somewhere.

@xiohouzi79 : http://www.wunderland.com/LooneyLabs/Werewolf/Rules.html ; but it states : Nothing Means Nothing: If you can't keep quiet when you're dead, leave the room.

@Joe: I read different rules. Moreover, from those you linked "The moderator points at the victim, who reveals his or her card" This is extremely lame: it is much better not to reveal the role of the dead.

@Lo'oris : it's the only 'official' rules I know of ... of course, due to the history of the game there are going to be more than one set of even 'official' rules.

@xiao: I've updated the post @Joe: sure, I'm not saying you said anything wrong, I just state that whatever those rules are, they suck.

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


text:
Catan starting strategies -- actual data?
I'm new to Settlers of Catan, and I quickly learned the importance of having a source of Brick and Lumber at the start of the game. And some googling showed that others agree ... and others disagree.
Whatever you value most at the start ... brick, wood, grain, ore, (ok, not wool so much), diversity of resources, diversity of numbers, access to ports, etc., you can find a blog post confirming your belief.
What is much harder to find is actual data. Has there been any significant study of competitive games and/or computer simulations that give substantial support to a particular initial placement strategy?

Experience mostly. I'm more of a fan of good numbers at the beginning, then expanding into number diversity. It really depends on the board setup and your starting position. Not just having a source of brick and lumber, but GOOD sources. If you value particular resources but can't get good numbers for them, take a number diversity strategy into the game.

And there is also this post:http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/2877/settlers-of-catan-data

Just saw that one. Pretty much guarantees that there will be no good answer to this one. (No data => No opening data)

Another potential issue is that people often take pity on those who get a bad initial position, offering them favorable trades, or taking action (such as Robber) against players with better initial setup. This would likely skew the data some, if it even existed. If you are in first place, it's better to "hurt" the player in 2nd then the player in 4th.

Flagging as duplicate, this question is hopeless. Catan isn't chess after all (with an easy standard way to record games) or poker (with significant study via simulation and probability). If a source of Catan data emerges, it can be supplied to the other question.

Although I wouldn't call it a "significant study" as far as initial placement strategies, there is a blog that I found a while ago which gets into an analysis of playing (and winning) SoC from a mathematical perspective.
The blog is called "Developing Catan", and includes the application of several types of mathematical analysis to the game based on the writer's personal experience playing SoC on a frequent basis, both in person and online. In particular, some of the analysis in this pdf discusses probabilities of winning without starting on any particular resource, which answers at least part of your question.

In my experience as a board game enthusiast/collector I find that many players of varying experience levels will first access the board from a statistical standpoint. The tiles that hold numbers 5 to 9 are the most likely to generate the greatest amount of resources over the course of the game and therefore are the most desirable. Ergo a good starting position would be on the intersection of as many of these numbers as possible such as 8-5-9. If you prefer the "port" strategy look for these numbers (especially 6 and 8) that are adjacent to a port and attempt to work around that. Remember you also gain resources from your second placement. Even if the most desirable spaces have been taken, you may be able to get a quintessential resource from a starting village. Looking at resources, wood and brick are typically essential to winning, however wheat is the most diverse because it is used for 3 of 4 developments. With that said, through observation, I have found that a port strategy works the best, when there is a title adjacent to a resource of its type along with another one of those tiles holding a "desirable" number. Other than that I would say a solid placement regardless of strategy would be to place adjacent to as many desirable numbers (worst case scenario, you have allot of goods you don't need) and if needed using your second placement to gain resources you deem "hard to get".

You have failed to answer the question. The OP wants actual data, not opinion on strategy.


text:
How many squares is this rectangle on the Clue board?
See the photo for context. My boys had a dispute about moving through this rectangle, whether it counts as one square or whether it should be thought of as containing smaller squares.
Do the rules address this?

Going by graphics alone, I'd argue that if no grid is drawn inside the area then it should be considered a single square. If the rules intended that the room be made of squares, I would have expected them to draw such squares in.

I would argue that it ought to be treated like a room, given it has the graphical characteristics of a room - the orange-ish walls, the openings, the top-down 3d look.

Judging by your diagram this appears to be the room in the center of the board.  The envelope with the correct solution is supposed to be placed there.  This room is not accessible.

Really? Quote the rules on this, and make your comment an answer.

Movement occurs between rooms, not across them. As soon as you reach a room, the movement phase ends. As soon as you start to move, you must leave the room to do so.
The rules don't address this directly, but there are clear implications that a room is considered a single location (not a square, but similar) when it comes to movement. For example:

It is possible that your opponents might block any and all doors and trap you in a room. If this happens, you must wait for someone to move and unblock a door so you can leave!

Also,

You may not forfeit a turn to remain in a particular Room.

If a room constitutes of multiple squares, it's possible to move your character without leaving the room. It seems to me that this is not in the spirit of the game.

The biggest question this raises is this: If a room is a single square, how can multiple players be in the same room simultaneously?

I would argue that it apparently is a lot bigger than the squares, but you raise a valid point. Allow me to write some addendum to my answer.


text:
Does the longest road need to have settlements/cities at endpoints?
The questions is, in the following setup:
--S--S---C-

where - represents roads, S settlements, C cities, is the 'longest road' at 5, or 8?
I had originally thought 8, but as I read the FAQ:

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

I'm a bit unsure what is meant by connecting road.
I'm probably a bit hopeful that my original thought is incorrect, as I find it annoying when extra road segments are built, sometimes without even a possibility of a future settlement, for the hope of two points.

Related curiosity: would this stricter definition be better for the game?

It is 8, the relevant rules are exactly what you quoted.

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

The bolded part tells you what "connecting road" refers to, in this case 2 intersections. It doesn't matter if they have settlements/cities or not.

Key to this is the definition of an intersection. It's the intersection of the hex pieces, not the intersection of the road with something else.


text:
How should we setup Settlers of Catan for three players?
Settlers of Catan for three players suffers slightly from too much space. I find the four player game much more enjoyable because of the tense competetion for places to settle.
It seems that this could be easily solved, though, by using fewer hexes. I can replace some resource hexes with ocean hexes from my Seafarers game. Of course, it could take some experimenting to figure out what works well, and I'm wondering if others have gone down this road:

How many hexes should be used?
What combination of resources is best?
Is it better to vary in a different way, say, starting with three settlements, and playing to a higher number of victory points?

Looks like there are some good options on this chat: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/4883/3-player-rules

You could start with removing one of each resource type and replacing it with a sea hex around the edge. That would give you 5 more sea hexes. You could also throw in the extra desert and remove a forest hex (or whichever is the most plentiful resource in a 3-player game) if you REALLY want to reduce the amount of "settle-able" spots

Don't forget that the rules explicitly say that in a 3 player game, you have to take out the red pieces! If you take out any other color, you are breaking the rules :-p

There are some good suggestions all over the internet for making a three-player board more competetive in the early game. They all boil down to either removing hexes, or replacing them with desert pieces.
The amount of hexes you replace/remove depends on preference, but I'd recommend either removing three or five total hexes. When removing five, just remove one of each resource type. When removing three, remove one wood, grain and lumber (since brick and ore have one less hex to start with).

When removing three hexes, take one of each number token 3 and 11 and remove them from the game. Then take one of each number token 4 and 10, choose one at random and remove it from the game.
When removing five hexes, take one of each number token 3-4-10-11 and remove them from the game. Then take one of each number token 5 and 9, pick one at random and remove it from the game.

Substituting hexes with deserts means there's still plenty of room for long roads and it puts some distance between viable resources. Also, it allows you to maintain the regular board size. Removing hexes altogether can lead to challenging board shapes, but if you remove exactly five hexes you can still create a hexagonal board:
  X X
 X X X
X X X X
 X X X
  X X

The best way to get a hexagon with 3 hexes removed is if you make it asymmetrical across one diagonal:
  X X X
 X X X X
X X X X X
 X X X X

A third option found online is increasing the VP requirement. This doesn't match your criteria since you're looking to increase tension in the early game (instead you'll find yourself using more of the board late game) but it's still worth mentioning.

why not remove 2 & 12?

There is only one of each 2/12 in the game. I wanted every dice roll to have at least one matching hex on the board. But I suppose you could. In the five hex example, removing a 2 or 12 instead of removing a 5 or 9 sounds like a good alternative path.

I find that putting the desert hex in the middle of the board goes a long way in intensifying the competition for high-yield positions, both in the early game but also in the late game because more roads are required.

I mostly play with three players. I really recommend Cities and Knights, but besides that;

Make a mainland and a sea with islands. (force people of the mainland for the discovery point per island and the longest road) Make the island tiles a random of undiscoverd gold and desert so there is a chance of rags or riches for the discoverers.
Make one big map with area's of a certain resource so players will have to trade and focus their strategy on the land they chose to exploit while trying to expand. (Make sure the harbors are on the "wrong side" of the map.


text:
Do Sidekicks have a level?
Do the Sidekick dice (NPCs in D&D) have a level? They don't have a card, and only one character face. Some actions and cards target characters but only of a certain level.

Side kicks only have one level and can not be spun up or down. It is in the official rules:

Sidekicks are the .... character side. Sidekick characters have no powers, and only the one level.

(edited one word)

This is correct. Thus sidekicks are affected by anything that affects level one character. They cannot be spun up or down a level.


text:
How can I keep track of which outbreaks I've resolved?
In a situation where outbreaks chain into other cities, how can I manage cube placement so that I know which cities I've resolved? If I just place the cubes into the city, it's easy to lose track of which cities still need cubes.

We use either a player's finger, or a coin

I normally place the 4th cube on top of a triangle of the three existing cubes in the infected city. Then, place a cube in all it's neighbours and move the outbreak meter up 1. Move the 4th cube off the stack of three and place it on the board (making a square) to show you've resolved that outbreak. Repeat for any other cities which just received a 4th cube (which is on top of the pile of 3). Once you have finished, remove all the 4th cubes which are on the board.

That works until you start getting near the limit of cubes for the outbreak's color.  Unfortunately, if you're chaining that many outbreaks, that is likely to occur.

True, in that case you can use something else other than a 4th cube to mark the ones you've already resolved the outbreak from.

The first outbreak is easy to track, because it is the green card that you are currently resolving.  It is very rare for outbreaks to chain more than 2 deep, but if you find yourself in that situation, you could use a cube of a color that the city is not adjacent to and place it in the city to temporarily mark that you have already resolved outbreaks there this turn.  Just remember to pick those "wrong color" cubes up afterwards, or you will be shorting your supply.


text:
Must a Boss use their Level Up ability?
Most Level Up abilities clearly benefit the Boss, but Robobo's is:

Each opponent mush choose and destroy one Room in his or her Dungeon.

The opponents get to destroy a room (often quite beneficial), and Robobo doesn't!
Is there any way - short of only building a four room dungeon - that Robobo can avoid using this ability? What play strategies can Robobo use to maximize his Level Up ability?

According to the rules, your boss's "Level Up" ability is triggered when your dungeon is 5 rooms in size. "Triggering" implies necessity. So yes, the only way to avoid levelling up is by not building a fifth room.
Secondly, and more to your concern... according to the Advanced Rules (see the entry for Robobo in the glossary using the link above), using Robobo's level up does not trigger the "destroy this Room" ability for the destroyed room.


text:
When can I destroy a room?
Only some of the room cards say "Destory this room (and other stuff happens)" on them. But when can I destroy a room? Does it have to be on my turn, or can I do it when heroes are in walking through another player's dungeon?

I don't have the rulebook in front of me, but I'm pretty sure you can destroy a room at any point during your turn.

I took a deeper dive into the full rules and some Room cards, and uncovered some relevant snippets.
Under "Build Phase":

Once each player has had the chance to place a Room during the end of the Build Phase ... "when you build this Room" abilities take effect.

Under "Sequence of Play":

At the End of the Build phase, any Level Up or "when you build this room" effects trigger...

Under "Sequence of Play, cont'd" > "Rooms Deal Damage":

As the Hero enters each room, any Room ability takes effect, then the Room deals its damage.

Glossary:

You many only destroy a Room if it is active, and if a card specifically allows you to do so.

Zombie Prison (Room):

Destroy this room: Choose a dead Hero in an opponent's scorekeeping area. Send it back to the entrance of that player's dungeon.

The Crushinator (Room):

Destroy another Room in your Dungeon: Until end of turn, your Rooms have +2 damage.

Jackpot Stash (Room):

Destroy this room: Double the treasure value of your dungeon's Rooms until end of turn.

Bottomless Pit (Room):

Destroy this Room: Kill a Hero in this Room.

Thus:

You can't destroy rooms at any time; only if some card allows it.
If room destruction is time dependent (such as during the Adventure Phase), you can destroy the room at that time. (This is because of the "Room abilty takes effect" clause under "Rooms Deal Damage".)
Otherwise, Rooms must be destroyed at End of the Build phase so that their "Until the end of this turn" effects apply.

I disagree with most of your conclusions.  You definitely can't destroy a room without a card that allows it, but your other points seem to suggest much more limitation on when you can destroy rooms than there actually is.

This "Detailed Play Sequence" helps clarify this.
Destroying a room isn't something you can just "do".  During the build and adventure phases you can take actions either through playing a spell or using a room's ability, and the cost for those actions might involve destroying a room.  This means that any time you can take an action, you might end up destroying a room.  This "Detailed Play Sequence" helps clarify this.

You may play a Spell or Room Ability when another player is active,
  but they can react with their own Spells and Room Abilities, and those
  resolve before your effect.
The Build phase ends when Rooms are revealed. Build effects ("When you
  build this Room...") and Level Up powers take place immediately, in XP
  order. No Spells or activated abilities may be played until the
  Adventure Phase begins.

Actions can be used on any player's turn during the build or adventure phases. If multiple players want to take an action at the same time, the current player always has their actions take priority, and then the rest are resolved in XP order.
In the build phase, you generally take actions when it is your turn to select a room.  At this point you are the current player, so nobody else can interrupt your action (except to counter it).  You are not allowed to use build phase actions after rooms are revealed, so you can't play a room and then immediately destroy it before the bait phase.  The only thing that happens after rooms are revealed is "Level Up" and "When you build this room" effects, followed immediately by the bait phase.
In the adventure phase, each time the heroes move to a different room, there is an opportunity for any player to use an action. The player that owns the dungeon the heroes are in is the current player, so their actions will have priority.


text:
Does the Traitor automatically get all items that a dead Hero had?
I'm the Traitor and I've just killed a Hero who had two Items and an Omen card. Do I get to immediately pick up and use both the Items and the Omen?

If you kill the Hero on the Hero's turn (or during your monsters' turn), then you don't get to do anything with the items; you can only pick up items on your own turn. (Though you can steal an item on your opponent's turn in lieu of inflicting at least 2 points of damage, as normal. But then you didn't kill the Hero.)
If you killed the Hero on your turn, then the answer is both yes and no; per the official errata, an item can only be picked up or used on a given turn. You can pick up all of the items immediately, but you can't use any of them until a future turn. (This also prevents abuse from the Heroes; if there's an item you need to hold in order to make a Haunt-related roll, you can't pass around the item and make a Haunt-related roll with the item in the same turn.)
On a future turn, you can use all of the items. For items like the Armor that have a passive effect, they are effective immediately; it's only the items that you use during a turn (like the Bell or Medical Kit) that cannot be used during the turn you pick them up.


text:
When an explorer lands in a barrier room from above, which side do they end up on?
For example, an explorer discovers the Coal Chute, and the Coal Chute leads into the Chasm. So which side of the Chasm does the explorer land on? Do they then have to cross the Chasm to get back to the rest of the house?

If it is the Vault you always appear on the outside, otherwise it is your choice as to which half of a barrier room you appear on.
From the official errata & FAQ:

Collapsed Room -- If you land in a room with two parts, such as the Chasm, which half do you land in?
If anything transports you to a barrier room, you decide which side of the room to end up in. If the arrival causes a counter to be created, as with the Collapsed Room or the Secret Passage, then that counter is permanently on the side of the room you choose. Anything that takes you to the Vault, however, always leaves you outside the door.


text:
Do I lose the "High" or "Dark" modifer if I gain a race?
The Reloaded expansion for standard Munchkin adds High and Dark modifiers to your class. If I get the High card without already having a race, I become a High Human. If I then get a Race card such as Elf, do I become a Dark Elf? Or do I lose the High card because I changed races?

Both High and Dark say: "Add this card to a race card". In my reading this means that you can't be a High Human, and so the question is not applicable.

Hmm, you start out as a Human, but you're saying it's about having a race card?

Agreed. If the card says "Add this card to a race card", you can't be a High or Dark human. Similarly, you can't be a Super Munchkin with no class.


text:
How many times per turn can a thief steal?
Assume I'm a level 1 Thief. Is there a limit to the number of times I attempt to steal something? Can I just attempt over and over again until I get the thing? Does it even have to be on my turn?

There's no limit on attempts per turn, but you do have to discard a card to attempt it, so you can't just attempt forever. From the FAQ:

Q. How often can a Thief steal?
A. As long as he has cards to discard.
Q. What happens to a Level 1 Thief who fails an attempt to steal? Does he die?
A. Nothing happens to him. You can't go below Level 1. (Beware the Level 1 Thief – he literally has nothing to lose!)


text:
Can I roll more than 5 dice in Combat?
Suppose that my investigator currently has a fight of 4, and a Rifle (Combat +5).  Is the number of dice I get to roll during combat limited by the in-box equipment (5), or can I roll 9 dice (5 dice + 4 dice)?

Roll as many dice as you need to (nine, in your case). The relevant bit in the rules, I suppose, is:

When making a skill check, a player always rolls a number of dice equal to his investigator’s value in the appropriate skill.

There's also an example, under Weapon and Skill Limits, saying:

... He then accounts for the Star Spawn’s combat rating (–3), leaving him with 13 dice with which to roll 3 successes (as the Star Spawn’s toughness is 3)

There are so many things that wouldn't make sense if you were limited to five dice. There are investigators with a skill that goes up to 6, items like the Tommy Gun that give +6 to something. And there's the bit where skill checks requiring 3 successes would be pretty much impossible, and even two would be hard. Combat should often involve more than five dice, and it's quite possible to get yourself up past ten dice - I think they just figured it wasn't really feasible to give you enough dice for any possible situation.

They do sell several nice sets of dice to add on to your collection.

@Pat and who doesn't love more dice? For everything? :-)


text:
What tools exist to manage an M:TG tournament?
I work in an office with a good number of Magic players. I'd like to try and organize some sort of pauper cube style tournament that could be run like a "season" over the course of a couple months. With people meeting once for a long time for a draft and then having games against each other as they have time for the tournament. Maybe with a small buy in for a prize at the end. Are there any tools to manage that kind of thing?
Ideally something to take a lot of the paperwork off of my hands.

I am pretty sure that the Wizards Event Reporter can handle casual events. I don't have access to a machine where I can test this though.

That seems pretty focused on store owners.

So this is a bit of an outside idea, but this website:
https://us.leaguerepublic.com/gaming.html
is what our local store uses for their MTG leagues, and it works pretty well. Its also free (to a point) but looks like what you're looking for.
Otherwise, a whiteboard displayed in a publicly visible place can work great too.


text:
How do we speed things up in Bohnanza?
Whenever I have a one hour window to play, I try this game, and it tends to take more like 2 hours. So far, I find the negotiating really entertaining - so I'm not sure if I want to go crazy trying to enforce time constraints on play.
The box says a game takes 45 minutes. Does that hold true for anyone? Are there things you do that speed up the game that don't feel heavy handed?

I've played a lot of Bohnanza with ~6 players and I am amazed and a little horrified that you say it takes 2 hours. I'd say, yes, 45 minutes is much closer to how long it takes us to get through a game. Is there really that much haggling that it's possible to do?  Either you're willing to trade a valuable bean for a less valuable one at a given time or you're not, I can't see any decision being much more complicated than that...?

Are you remembering to adjust the deck for the number of players?

This isn't a real answer, so I won't submit it as one, but play with different people. I've noticed that game length often depends on who is playing just as much as the game itself. With the right people a game like Bohnanza can take 30 minutes. With the wrong people it can take many hours. We have a saying in my group. "Take your turn, or we will hit you." We play fast, if you haven't guessed.

Thanks for all the replies. There is too much analyzing in our group, but for some reason I find it immensely entertaining. So it's not like I'm bored, but I bought it so we would have something shorter so 2-3 hour games (like Puerto Rico, Agricola, etc) weren't our only option. Think I might try drawing an extra card as the first step to speeding it up.

I've never had it take more than an hour, even with 6 people. Odds are you guys are analyzing the trades too much.
There's a variant I always play with that I think improves the game immensely, and that's play with everyone's hand face-up in front of them. This makes it easy to see who has what, so you won't have to ask 'does anyone have a blue bean?' because you can just look around the table and see for yourself. If anything, this actually adds more strategy to the game as you can use what other players have more to your advantage: "Normally this wouldn't be a good trade, but since you're going to have to plant that next turn and prematurely harvest one of your valuable fields why don't you do it anyway?"
If you still find this doesn't speed things up, you can try one of these variants to adjust when the end of the game arrives:

Have everyone draw one more card per turn, 4 instead of 3 in a 3-5 player game and 5 instead of 4 in a 6-7 player game. This is probably the least intrusive as just gives you more trading options.
Only go through the deck 2 times instead of 3. This will make for a shorter game, but IMHO it's a little less interesting.
Put a timer on 45 minutes and stop at the end of the players turn when it goes off. This should only be an absolute last resort, but it will make people play a bit faster since they know that they only have a limited amount of time. Of course, you'll have to be careful people don't purposely waste time to deny their left-hand opponent that last turn he needs to plant his cocoa been before time runs out...

Upvoted, I really like the idea of face-up Bohnanza, if only because I could finally be cured of my paranoia that other people may be rearranging their hands in the course of play :D

Oooo, I like the idea of taking an extra card. Great suggestion!

(tldnr: use a timer when trading)
I will assume 6 players, so all cards are used.
There are 151 cards in the deck.  30 are dealt out at the start leaving us with 121.
Each turn 5 cards are draw, meaning before the first reshuffle there will be 24 turns.
You can't use simple math to show how long the other 2 reshuffles will take, but in my experience the last 2 put together are about as long as the first.
So now all that we need to do is use a timer and give players 1 min to trade.  48 turns at most a min but often less+ some book keeping and shuffling, comes out to about a 45 min game.

A drastic variant would be to make the last two phases of a turn simultaneous after a whole round of everyone doing the first couple.
So:

Player A plants 1, turns up 2 trades
Player B plants 2, turns up 2 trades
Player C plants 1, turns up 2 trades
Everyone trades at once until all beans have been traded or planted.
Everyone draws three cards
Resume with the next 1st player (1st player rotates)

However, in general, I agree with the other advice that simply more experience should hasten the game.

One obvious route would be to run through the deck only twice instead of three times.
It's probably not ideal, but it would keep your games down to a manageable length of time while people get to grips with the trading aspect.  I do think, as I said in my comment, that 2 hours is an excessive amount of time for a game of Bohnanza to take, and I suspect that as you get a bit more comfortable with how it works, trading options/decisions will become more obvious, and you'll definitely get it down to below an hour.  (If you can't, then identify the biggest slowcoaches and just refuse to trade with them unless they speed up their play!)

People often forget the rule that non-active players may not trade amongst themselves which could slow down the game.


text:
How much should the University cost?
I once read that the main regret in the design of Puerto Rico was over-pricing the University. Anyone have any guesses (or statistical analysis) as to the "correct" price?

Do you have a link where you read that? Would be useful context.

Where I read that. Still, not the original source :-(

Here's a quote from Andreas Seyfarth, the designer: Andreas confessed to me that today, he would indeed decrease the cost of the university by 1 doubloon and increase the cost of the factory by 1 doubloon. Hence, he would exchange the positions of both buildings on the Puerto Rico board. Also linked under "balance fixes" at BGG-Peurto Rico. Perhaps that was the original source?

Wow, thanks for that. My guess is that it might still be overpriced at 7!

Having been a big PR enthusiast, and having played 75+ games, it is good to know that the designer and I came to the same conclusion. After playing 10+ games or so, our group decided to make the university cost 7, and finally 6. Only then would people buy it, and only for the VP when they couldn't afford a big building.

Wouldn't it be cool if the game included some mechanism for adding bribes to buildings, in the same way it does for roles?  Then the costs would naturally balance depending on how the group plays.

I've read many people saying the same thing - the university is overpriced.  I read one group who attempted to find the true value of the buildings by playing for two years and varying prices based on whether they were bought, and how well the people who bought them did.   The write up contains a downloadable copy of their results and final prices for all the buildings.
In their games, most of the prices have seemed to stay fairly close to the original prices.  A rough summary of the exceptions from the base game:
Small Market ~ 2 gold
Small Warehouse ~ 4 gold (with 3 players)
Office ~ 3/4 gold
Large Warehouse ~ 5 gold (with 4 players)
Factory ~ 8 gold
University ~ 7 gold
Harbor ~ 9/10 gold (with 3 players)

There's plenty more that could be drawn from their results too, I'd recommend giving it a read.
The results aren't perfect for a number of reasons.  Firstly they changed the rules to allow all buildings from the base game and first expansion to be available to them every game.  Secondly (as noted above) the power of some buildings vary with the number of players.  There are hardly any games played with two or five players, and not many more with four.  Thirdly, the same people play many of the games, and their preferences bias the results.
To go back to your question though.  If you're interested from a theoretical point of view then this data suggests the university should be about seven gold.  Personally I think that seems about right.
However if you're interested because you want to play with different prices then I suggest trying it!  I read somewhere of a variant where before the start of a game a few buildings are increased/decreased in price by players putting red/green counters on them.  If your group thinks the university is too expensive then it will get more green counters, and you should end up with more interesting in-game decisions.

Wow, many thanks for that. Someday I'm hoping to write up some code that will simulate thousands of games and see which buildings most frequently win. Then vary the building prices to see how that changes things. This will probably take a while, I might be in over my head! :-)

No need to code something - check this: http://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/8766/pr_030205-zip?. It runs in Excel. There are a few little bugs in it, but it'll get you in the ballpark.

Regrading whether the factory should cost eight coins and the university seven, according to the wiki page "The designer Andreas Seyfarth has said that he would make this change if he were creating the game today."
Based on other things I've read, I agree with ths.

This seems more like a comment than an answer...

@TheChaz2.0: I consider this an answer and a fairly authoritative one. The designer himself says so. I would attach at least as much weight to this as a third party calculation. No one else cited this. And the (edited) answer may not be the worst answer in the group.

It may be better to cite the source directly, rather than the wiki page.

I think the university might be a reasonable strategy, but you have to save for it and buy it early.  I've tried this a couple of times, and never won with it though :(


text:
Dominion Seaside Treasure Map: do both copies activate?
The Treasure Map text says:

Trash this and another copy of Treasure Map from your hand. If you do trash two Treasure Maps, gain 4 Gold cards, putting them on top of your deck.

If I manage to play both Treasure Cards as actions, do they both activate their full effects? That is: do I get 8 Gold cards?
Or, the moment I play the first, I have to trash the other one so preventing it for being played as an action?

You play the first, performing its action of trashing itself and the second Treasure Map and gain 4 golds. You can't continue to play the second Treasure Map since it's no longer in your hand.
You also can't use Throne Room to gain more than 4 golds since the text states "If you do trash", and you can only trash a card once (I also tested on isotropic to make sure)

Thanks. That's was my impression too. Good catch about the Throne Room.

But, with three treasure maps and a throne room, you could throne the first and thrash the other two, gaining 8 golds?

@Konerak: No, because the "if" clause only triggers if you trash two Treasure Maps. The first time you play the original TM, you would be able to do so. The second time, though, the original TM has already been trashed; you would therefore trash the remaining TM from your hand but not gain the Golds, because you hadn't trashed two TMs during that play of the original TM.

There are other cards whose abilities aren't affected by Throne Room.  For example, Goons's +1 Victory token per card bought ability.

Now, if your hand is Village and 4x Treasure Map, then you can gain 8 Gold on top of your deck.

If your hand is Village and 4x Treasure Map, you're either doing something very wrong or very right.


text:
Best way to get into Pokemon?
So I'd like to introduce my son to a basic card game like Pokemon since he loves the creatures, etc. When I go to a store and look at all the 'starter' decks, and packs, etc I'm a little confused.
What's the best way to buy and start into the game with him? Just buy a basic starter kit at the store and go? I would need something with 'how-to-play' instructions as well as I've never played it before either.

The Pokemon Company did a great job with creating Starter Kits; you get two 30-card decks which are already arranged in an order to help explain how the game works and all the nuances of the rules you'll possibly need to know to start playing. It's as simple as opening it up, each of you taking a deck, and simply reading the rules and following along with them; it's pretty much a live tutorial.
Once you've got the hang of how to play the game, I'd highly recommend going with Rusher's advice in the answer above. Usually, your FLGS (Friendly Local Game Store) or Comics & Cards shop will be more than happy to let you know what's the best premade deck to continue playing and what to look out for in booster packs, as well as advice on how to construct a deck of your own.
You might also get him interested in Magic: the Gathering, as from what I've seen, the rules are only a little more complicated than Pokemon.

We have a fantastic LGS here and I play online CCG's games but have never touched Pokemon. I'll look and pick up 2 starter kits sometime and get my boy going :D

As a player of both games, I have to disagree- Magic is significantly more complicated than Pokemon.  Also, anyone interested in playing should check out the online tutorials. They are great at teaching the basics. By the time we had cards in our hands we understood what they all did & how to use them.

I want to give a more general answer that applies to all trading card games. Find a local store that specializes in selling the cards and, even better, hosts tournaments. The people running the shop:

Know exactly what you need.
Will teach you how to play.*
Will occasionally give new players free starter packs or cards (mine does).
Make far more money off of return customers than they ever will off of starter kits. They want you to come back, and so they generally won't try to screw you.

The point is that they want you to get into the game, and you want their instructions, guidance, and merchandise. Don't go to Walmart and leave wondering whether you bought the right thing for your kid.
*Unless a tournament is running (and if they are busy they will usually tell you when to come back and enjoy a quiet game)

That is very good advice.

Very true. We have a fantastic LGS here in town.

Pooka, from the Pokemon fan site The Top Cut.net, has been running a series called "building on a budget".  He creates realistic, competitive decks that will not cost too much money.  Even better, he takes the time to explain in a video why each card was included, the synergy between cards, and then he plays a game with his deck using Pokemon Online.
http://thetopcut.net
The pokemon community is awesome.

That is the definition of a starter kit, a kit used to start you playing the game. So yes get a starter kit. Get two. This way you have a decent card base and can play with him.
Also be aware that every good CCG these days has a good community behind it.
Furthermore the Pokemon CCG has a great website with rules downloads and other errata.


text:
In Dominion Intrigue does Bridge Stack with Itself
If I play the card "Bridge" twice, which says to reduce the cost of items by 1 (minimum of 0), does this reduce the cost of all items by 2?

Indeed it does.  From the rulebook:
The effect is cumulative; if you Throne Room a Bridge, all cards will cost 2 coins less this turn.
Obviously the effect will still be cumulative if you just play two Bridges in one turn!

And same with effects from Coppersmith, Quarry, Hoard, Goons, etc.

Goons doesn't perfectly stack with Throne Room and King's Court.  The money and buys stack, but the +VP per buy do not.

@Rob:  Really?  I guess my group has been playing it wrong.  I actually looked it up if you're right or not, and... indeed you are.  However, playing two Goons separately stacks the +VP.

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


text:
Precise rules for MTG
We recently picked up MTG to try out. It is fun but the rules are quite vague. It is not clear whether a player can attack more than once (with different cards) in a turn. It isn't clear how tap abilities of cards related to attacking (if one attacks does one also get the tap ability - if so can it be used without attacking, and can it be used if not ones own turn). It isn't clear when a card says "for each creature under your control" whether that count includes creature tokens (which are "creatures" but are often treated separately in the text of cards). Does life link only count damage to the other player or all damage to any creature? The list goes on.
Is there a more precise version of the general rules for MTG?

Which rules are you looking at right now? The Basic Rules? The one-page folding insert in the intro pack?

Also, did you in fact start with intro packs? If you dive straight into "expert" expansions you are indeed going to run into more things you need specific rules for.

@John, have you been reading random links from Google by searching for "mtg tutorial"?

No, we bought a box of MTG cards. It is a common starter type box. It came with a fold out set of rules. They were incredibly vague. It was what came with the game, so to speak.

It is fun but the rules are quite vague.

What have you been reading?
MTG has the most precise rules of any complex game. These are found in the Comprehensive Rules.
The Comprehensive Rules are far more detailed than what you need, though. You should start with the Basic Rules. These are still far from vague.

It is not clear whether a player can attack more than once (with different cards) in a turn.

You only have one combat phase per turn, but you can declare any number of attackers.
Declare attackers step: You decide which, if any, of your untapped creatures will attack
and which player or planeswalker they will attack. Then they do
so. This taps the attacking creatures. Players can then cast instants
and activate abilities.

It isn't clear how tap abilities of cards related to attacking (if one attacks does one also get the tap ability - if so can it be used without attacking, and can it be used if not ones own turn).

Attacking taps the creature.
Activating some abilities requires tapping the creature.
Unless there's an ability that says "Whenever [something] is tapped", tapping doesn't cause anything to happen.
An applicable metaphor is: You can't pay for two things using the same dollar.

It isn't clear when a card says "for each creature under your control" whether that count includes creature tokens (which are "creatures" but are often treated separately in the text of cards).

Creature tokens are creatures.
"Creature" not followed by "spell" or "card" means "creature permanent". A permanent is a card or token on the battlefield. So a creature is a creature card or token on the battlefield.
An applicable metaphor is: A square building is square. A square building is a building.

Does life link only count damage to the other player or all damage to any creature?

It doesn't matter to what the damage is dealt.
Lifelink: A keyword ability seen on permanents. Damage dealt by a
permanent with lifelink causes that permanent’s controller to
gain that much life, in addition to behaving like normal damage.

To clarify the attacking phase ("can a player attack more than once...") - you only get one attack phase, but you can attack with as many creatures as you wish and they can each target different opponents.  Unless some other ability modifies this, those creatures remain tapped until the beginning of your next turn - they cannot take any further action.  Obviously, you can reserve creatures to block attacks - if you have no untapped creatures when your opponent attacks, you can't block and you take the damage.

@GalacticCowboy, Attacking creatures don't target. s/they can each target/they can each attack/

@GalacticCowboy, Tapped creatures can "take actions". Being tapped simply prevents that creature from attacking and it prevents its abilities with {T} in their cost from being activated. Abilities without {T} in their cost can still be activated, and static and triggered ability continue to function.

(Thanks, StackExchange, for the short edit window... :|  )  Yeah, I should say, can't take any action that requires tapping, since it is already tapped.

@大师燈XiHuan, It's a pretty blanket statement that I would not recommend making, especially when there are a handful of vague corner cases in the CR (they get fixed up when possible, of course, but they exist). The CR is certainly very precise, but claiming it to be the "most precise" is an impressive declaration.

@Brian S, What does missing an odd corner case have to do with preciseness?!

@ikegami, I'm not saying there are missing corner cases (although there are probably those, too), I'm saying there are corner case interactions which result in vague rules in the CR -- thus, imprecise. In my experience, when such an interaction is found, a message is posted to the judges list, which gets an [O] ruling, which is then incorporated into the next CR update. Even without extant examples on-hand, though, an absolute claim such as "most precise" is dangerous to make.

@Brian S, Re "absolute claim such as 'most precise' is dangerous to make". Poppycock. You don't seem to know the definition of danger. Or of "missing" for that matter. If something should be there (as evidenced by its addition after the [O] ruling) and it's not, it's missing.

You'll want to look at the MTG rules page.
It includes the following resources:

The Basic Rules: the most important game rules laid out as an introductory test. This text will cover the kinds of situations you've mentioned in your question.
The Comprehensive Rules: the rules, in their most precise, complete, and authoritative expression. These are not designed to teach you the game; you will probably not be able to figure it out by sitting down and trying to read the comp rules straight through.
Gatherer: a database of cards, including clarifications and rulings for individual cards. If you can't understand how to do what's written on the card, looking up the rulings on Gatherer will often tell you the answer.

As someone who only started recently: I strongly recommend only worrying about the Basic Rules, and reading them well. The Comprehensive Rules are far more than you need to worry about at the beginning (or possibly forever), and are for the most part just going to be very confusing.


text:
Advice on teaching Go to a kid
I am a 7k EGF. There is a 7 year old girl, that is a relative of my wife and lives next door. Once I managed to start her interest in Go by playing several Atari-Go games against her. I decided to move to territorial Go after an Atari-Go game where she didn't allow me to do any capture. But maybe this was premature. We play from time to time. She beats me on 9x9 5h, but mostly loses on 4h. If I correct some of her obvious mistakes (like putting herself in atari, missing an obvious way to capture a stone on 2nd line etc.) we can play quite evenly on 3h.
Some of my observations:

She wants to play and is happy to do it almost any time and doesn't get bored even after playing for about 45 minutes.
She doesn't show any signs of being discouraged by losing.
She plays very fast and often repeats the same mistakes.
I believe she wants to capture very much, not so much securing her territory.

My questions:

Should I correct and allow to undo bad moves or just exploit them?
Should I do some review of the game after it is finished? (this two questions have obvious answers for adults, but is it true for children as well?)
Is it a good idea to do simple tsumego with her or should we just play as much as possible?
What should be the sign, that it is possible to move to 13x13?
What else can I do to improve her strength without discouraging her?

N.B. The links to terms are for third parties, rather than the questioner, who as 7 kyu will already know them.
Where she is now
The best approach depends on the sort of person she is and what she hopes to get from playing go, so stay alert to any feelings, wishes and opinions she expresses. As Forget I was ever here’s answer says, I think you should find out what she thinks about your ideas by asking her as well as by staying alert.
It sounds a bit as though she is not too bothered (yet) about improving, given that she plays fast, repeats mistakes and does not mind losing. Perhaps at the moment she just enjoys the feeling of placing the stones, the patterns they make, capturing stones and maybe some simple problems. If that is the case, you should be patient; for now, I would keep the games fun and let her see she can learn more when she wants to.
Try not to be too disappointed if she does lose interest in what she enjoys now but does not get interested in improving. It would be great to have a go-playing neighbour, but it all depends how she develops personally.
Learning from mistakes
In friendly games (which they probably all are), when she makes a mistake for about the third time I would ask/tell her something like “are you sure you want to do that?”, “last time you did that it turned out badly!”, “do you remember what happened last time you did that?” or “can you see why that doesn’t work?” without saying what the mistake was. If she does not like that, you could try just saying “Aha!”.
As long as she just plays for the fun of it without really wanting to improve, I would be fairly easy-going about letting her take back moves, especially if you have pointed out the mistake. But if she starts showing off (too much) about how well plays against you, you could suggest a match on stricter terms, i.e. still with a handicap, but no taking back moves once she lets go of the stone, but probably not a clock unless she shows interest in trying it out.
Reviews
Given her current attitude, I would be surprised if she wanted to review an entire game. What you could try is to analyse the last mistake she makes, especially if it causes her to lost the game. Perhaps “Do you want to see how you could have won if you had played your (e.g. third last) move differently?”
Other skills
I would not expect her to be very interested in joseki, but you might be able to work in a little tsumego if you do review a game, by asking her to find a better move in a position from the game, and if that interests here, changing the position and see if she can spot a geta or a snap-back.
If you want to move her on from capturing, I wonder if it might help to show her a throw-in; it is still about capturing, but letting your opponent capture first shows that capturing is not always a good move. A next step, if you can manage it, might be to engineer a situation at the end of a close game where she can win by making a big move instead of capturing.
See also
You may want to check out the Teaching Methods page in Sensei’s Library, though the section on teaching children does not seem to provide much specific help.

My recommendation is to:

Introduce recording of the games. This would allow her to study her own games offline, and come back with questions. The habit of recording one's own games is a gift beyond price, and the sooner introduced the stronger the habit will be.
Ask this young girl her own opinion on these questions. A sense of control I believe is vital, and she may well have different choices each meeting. In presenting these choices try to describe them in purely factual terms - just the data without any bias you may have. For the 13x13 board, describe how the balance between corner-play and centre-play will change for example, and ask her when she thinks she is ready for that. Avoid presenting it as a "promotion", so there is no shame in going backwards. Just present it as two different variations that will practice different skills.
In regards tsumego, I would introduce the various types of study, joseki and others, and show her that these are specialty skills that can be practiced and studied on their own. Then let her choose.

I was just two yeas older when I learned chess. Every Thursday evening at 7:00 my dad and I would setup the board under his favourite chair, and I would lose. I bought a book on Openings and another on Combinations and studied those  during the week. I found a couple of friends to play against as well. Eight months in I got my first draw against my Dad, and a couple of weeks later my first win. One of my fondest memories.

To record the games one could of course play them in a computer. That would also give the option of mailing her a review later, though I suspect that would not interest her as much.

@PJTraill: Not only would it be less interesting, I firmly believe it would be far less valuable. A key aspect of the practice is the discipline of doing so. From my experience playing Bridge, it also enhances long-term memory of the play.

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


text:
Playing duplicate bridge against players from some event
I am organizing a Bridge club in my workplace and I want it to be Duplicate Bridge one, but currently sometimes we don't get 8 people to join the meeting (I hope, in the future the club will grow).
So I had an idea, that if there are 4 people beside me, I could duplicate deals from some international event (without saying what event it would be) and make them play these deals.
My questions are:

Is the idea fair and will it help players learn?
How should it be scored (is it OK e.g. to score always against open room or do I have to use some other way)
Do you know of any other people that utilized this way?

There was formerly a product called Doop (which as far as I can tell is no longer printed) that used a similar idea. They would provide hand records from old regional tournaments along with the scores produced for those hands. It would operate like so:
Each player is given a deck of cards and the list of hands for their seat (so e.g. North gets a list of the North hands). At hand 1, each player makes the first hand for their direction out of their deck of cards. The hand is played (duplicate style, with each player keeping their own cards after playing them), and the score recorded. Then hand 2 is played, etc. At the end of play, compare the recorded scores with those recorded for the earlier tournament and record the match point score.
You have some choices with regard to movement. If you have exactly four players, you might choose to play with the same partner throughout. You might also rotate players so that each player plays a set number of hands with each other player.
You can find hand records and scores for tournaments in a number of places. For example, you can find results from recent Allendale, NJ sectional tournaments at http://www.bridge-njba.org/, or from a regional played in New York City in December 2013 at http://gnyba.org/PILOT/wordpress/?p=2596.


text:
The belt in Munchkin Quest
Is the belt in Munchkin Quest the hand, or is it a pile of cards face up on the table? Which cards counts to your hand?

From the rules, p16:

Your Belt
If an Item is not worn and does not require Hands, then it is carried
  “on your belt.” Typical belt items are one-shots, mostly Scrolls and
  Potions. You may have any number of Items on your belt.

To be explicit: items in your belt are in play and on the table in front of you.


text:
Multi-monster fights in Munchkin Quest
I've read the manual but don't fully get multi-monster fights. It says you can't chose to fight one, and flee from others. But do you sum up all the monster points and try to beat that in one single combat, or do you fight one monster at a time?

And, wait, you are fighting one monster and other ones are noble and don't take part in the duel? :-)

The monsters combine their strengths: you don't fight them one at a time.
This was confirmed by the "Munchkin Czar" at the Steve Jackson Games Forums, and who would dare to argue with a Munchkin Czar?  (You may find extra clarification of how multi-monster fighting works by reading through the thread, if you're still at all confused.)

You sum their levels, bonuses, and dice, correct?

@Peeja, exactly.

Agreed here, however:

Monsters combine their strengths for a combat score.
Buffs and weaknesses apply to one monster at a time.
You can only interfere with up to one monster at a time, unless you have a card that says otherwise.

Example: You can only make one monster humongous. However, a thief's backstab ability applies to the sum of all combat strength.

You must run away from each monster if you lose separately. Damage is taken from each monster, and "bad stuff" can happen to you multiple times.


text:
Can stations be used to traverse empty routes in Ticket to Ride Europe?
Ticket to Ride Europe introduces train stations to connect cities through routes that belong to other players. It recently became a point of debate whether stations can be used to connect cities over empty routes. Upon reviewing the rules I found them to be somewhat ambiguous.
The rules state that a station allows its owner "to use one ... of the routes belonging to another player."

Building a train station
A Train Station allows its owner to use one, and only one, of the routes belonging to another player, into (or out of) that city to help him connect the cities on his Destination Tickets.

Further along the rules state that stations can be built on a city even if it currently has no claimed routes into it.

Stations may be built on any unoccupied city, even if it currently has no claimed routes into it.

To me belonging to another player means the route must be occupied by another player. Yet stations can be built on cities that have no routes built into them.
I think the entire point of stations is to give players an opportunity to complete routes that have been taken by other players; otherwise, there should be nothing to prevent the player from building into their destinations. Allowing players to build stations on cities with no routes built into them opens the possibility to easily complete routes by placing a station without having to pay the cost of the route. This could prove decisive at the end of the game.

I don't actually see any ambiguity here. You've quoted the rule saying a Station allows you to use someone else's route. I don't see how that could imply that a Station can complete a route that hasn't yet been filled in by anyone.
The reason you are allowed to place Stations on any city, including currently unlinked cities, is to allow you to place a Station strategically, before anyone else. This is important, because only one player can control a Station in any given city. If you suspect that in the late game you will need a Station in a city, or you would like to block other players from placing a Station, then this could be a smart move.
The purpose of Stations is to give you the possibility of still completing routes, albeit at some cost (since you don't get your four points at the end for the unused Station). As you point out, if you could use them to effectively 'jump' the last leg of a route, then that would change the entire dynamic, and would indeed make Stations much more powerful.
So based on the rules, and the intended use of Stations, I'm quite confident that completing empty routes using Stations is not intended, or legal. Someone that's played the online version of the game could confirm this, though.

I don't think the rules are ambiguous. The first rule says that a station may be used to share another player's claimed route. The second rule says that a station can be built even if there are no claimed routes into that city. The second rule doesn't mean that you are using one of those empty routes, it means you can build a station and then wait until one of the routes is claimed. Then you can use that route by using the station that you had already put there. The station enables you to share one route with another player, so that the route counts for both players at the same time.


text:
If I wanted to buy a card protector for every card in Arkham Horror (and expansions), how many would I need of each type?
I've been considering purchasing a whack of Fantasy Flight Supply board game sleeves for my Arkham Horror game and expansions.  Does anyone know how many of each type of sleeve I would need to purchase to cover the various cards in the main box and all of the expansions to date?  Thanks!

You will need:

Set                     Investigator   Ancient One
Arkham Horror              189             179
Curse of the Dark Pharoah   76              90
Dunwich Horror             152             180
The King in Yellow          76              90
Kingsport Horror           112             207
Black Goat of the Woods     90              88
Innsmouth Horror            96             176
Lurker at the Threshold     56             110
Miskatonic Horror          112             336

Total                      959            1456

According to the Fantasy Flight Sleeve Guide, that equates to 20 packs of Mini American Board Game Sleeves and 30 packs of Standard American Board Game Sleeves if you have everything.

Answer updated for Miskatonic Horror and Revised Curse of the Dark Pharaoh. Based on Pat Ludwig's answer. You will need:
Set                                   Investigator   Ancient One
Arkham Horror                             189             179
Curse of the Dark Pharaoh (revised)        76              90
Dunwich Horror                            152             180
The King in Yellow                         76              90
Kingsport Horror                          112             207
Black Goat of the Woods                    90              88
Innsmouth Horror                           96             176
Lurker at the Threshold                    56             110
Miskatonic Horror                         112             336

Total                                     959            1456

According to the Fantasy Flight Sleeve Guide, that equates to 20 packs of Mini American Board Game Sleeves and 30 packs of Standard American Board Game Sleeves if you have everything. Fantasy Flight lists the Mini Americans at $2.49, and the Standard American at $2.99, so the total cost would be about $139.50 + tax.

in general you should favor editing an answer to update it instead of posting a new one.  Also, accepting your answer to your question doesn't award rep or guarantee that it will be the first answer.  (It would be, if it had the highest votes.

@Pat Ludwig - I should have just responded to you with the updates, my apologies!


text:
Is it a bad idea to to run 24 tap and shock lands in standard
I am trying to figure out a good 3 color mana base in a standard constructed deck. It seems like there is a pretty straight forward answer if your wallet agrees.
4 shock lands of each of 3 colors=12
4 check lands of each of 3 colors=12
there are your 24 lands.
The shock lands work for the check lands so it's not an issue
Any deck running 3 colors would most likely be mid or control, so let's assume that we are not thinking about agro here.
Are there any disadvantages with doing this? Would a loadout like this affect pacing or become too much of a toll on the life total?
The only other problem I can think of is not being able to benefit from cards like Assassin's Trophy or Settle the Wreckage. Should these cards be a consideration when creating my mana base?

It real depends on the deck you are thinking about running.  Also consider that you will most likely need more of one mana color then the other.

Yes, going all shock and check lands has disadvantages. Running one to three basic lands is recommendable for any 3 color deck.
As you already noted, the lack of basic lands can be punished by certain powerful cards that are balanced by allowing the opponent to search a basic land. In Standard, these are Settle the Wreckage, Assassin's Trophy, and Field of Ruin. In fact, 3 color decks are so common that dedicated land destruction decks have sprung up that look to punish the extreme cases of decks running only non-basic lands. The latter 2 cards mentioned above are cornerstones of that deck, together with Casualties of War.
Another problematic aspect to the approach is inherent and largely independent of the specific meta:
To use shock lands immediately, you have to "shock" yourself, which can put you in a precarious situation against any form of aggro deck.
To use check lands immediately, you have to have a shock land in play already. With 50% check lands, it is not uncommon to have a starting hand with all lands being check lands, which means your mana base will be a full turn behind the curve, which is a great tempo disadvantage in almost any matchup.
To alleviate these problems, it is worth considering to replace some of the check lands with basics of the type you need the most. One to three basic lands can greatly reduce 2 of the 3 mentioned problems. Typically, running shock lands is preferrable to running check lands, because having the choice between a tapped land and 2 life loss is typically better than running the risk of being forced to play a land tapped.
Example: at 24 lands total, with 12 shock and 12 check lands, you have the following probabilities that all the lands in your starting hand are check lands:

1 land: 50%
2 lands: 24.5%
3 lands: 11.7%
4 lands: 5.5%

If you run 24 lands total but only 9 check lands and 3 basics, the probabilities to get all check lands in the starting hand are reduced to:

1 land: 43.7%
2 lands: 18.6%
3 lands: 7.7%
4 lands: 3.1%

The exact number of basics to run entirely depends on how color-hungry your specific deck is, but if your deck in its current form cannot afford to run basic lands at all, you should probably adjust the spells of your deck rather than run the risk of all non-basic lands.


text:
The board game from *The Book*
In The Book, a fictional “Guide to Rebuilding Civilization”, which freely mixes factual and imaginary concepts and objects, one double page is a devoted to a board game.
I have only access to the Italian translation; here the game is described on pages 372-3 and is called La griglia (literally, “The grid”). It is a 2-player game on a 5×8 board with ten tokens for each player, five initially on the board and five to be added in later moves. Enemy pieces are captured by creating a row of own pieces, that allows one to “shoot” at an enemy piece as far as the row is long (if I understand correctly). The goal is to be the first to take five enemy tokens.
Does anyone know more details about this game? Is it an existing game or was it invented for the book? (Of course, it has in any case elements of many historical board games.)

is this the game in question? https://howtorebuildcivilization.com/cdn/shop/files/10_642d4d84-4495-42de-9c45-ad434cfeca9f.png?v=1667567291

@KMR That looks like chess (it is actually even written there above the paragraph) and it is as well not a 5x8 board

@KMR Thanks, but not: it's a double page with a rectangular board displayed as if to play on it, with explanations and smaller drawings around it.


text:
What is a good way to store multiple expansions of Dominion?
At the moment I just have the base set of Dominion and Dominion-Intrigue, each of which are a full set so currently I'm storing each per the in-the-box organizers in their original boxes.
But when we buy another expansion (and more after that) I'm starting to wonder how we can best store all of these expansions. I've seen (but don't recall exactly where) various solutions for storing Dominion cards.
For us I think the following features would be needed:

easy and rapid setup (so no need to resort piles beyond counting out the numbers of some cards per the number of players - which in our case is usually two)
easy to clean up when the game is over and/or set up another game with a different set of cards
consistency in how the cards are organized - I've noticed that the default organization structure changed between the Base set's layout and Intrigue (the base set alpha sorted while Intrigue sorted the cards into more categories before alpha sorting)
Ideally space efficient so we can more easily travel with our games

I've actually seem some rather nice setups for storing Dominion cards on BoardGameGeek.  The standard I've seen is using card dividers and storing the cards in one of the original boxes with the insert removed.  Here are a few of the examples I've seen of what that looks like.

One Game box containing multiple sets:  Example Picture 1, 2, 3 and 4
Alternative Example with One Game Box:  Example Picture
Using two game boxes:  Example Picture 1 and 2
Everything in one box, and a box for 5-6 player Example Picture
Using just a what appears to be a random box:  Picture 1 and 2

Depending how many expansions you have, will depend on how big a box you end up needing.  If you're planning to get all of the current expansions, it looks like you'll run out of room if you're using just one game box.

I got a 3,000 card box from the local gaming store and then printed off a cardstock set of tab dividers from Board Game Geek (I use the Sumpfork tabs). All cards go alphabetically instead of by set, except for the cards common to all games. Prizes are stored with Tournament, because that's the only scenario in which you would need them.
To simplify setup of Victory/Curse cards, I change the direction of the cards. For Victory cards, the first 8 face forward and the second 4 face backwards so I can easily separate out the cards not needed for a 2 player game. I do the same with Curses: 10 forward, next 10 backwards, final 10 forwards. Estates get complicated; I do 8 forward, 4 back, then 4 sets of 3 alternating forward and back (for starting hands). I could do alternating sets of 7 Coppers as well, but I haven't gotten around to it.

+1 for storing them in TCG boxes.  Mine are in two long boxes (although I need a third for Prosperity + Cornucopia), organized by set and then alphabetically.  WAY easier to carry, and easy to setup and cleanup too.

Thank you for the pointer to Sumpfork tabs.  I just moved to long boxes myself (one longbox for Dominion Big Box, another for Intrigue with room for more expansions), and I'm currently using poker cards for separators.  Sumpfork tabs will save me a lot of time designing my own.

I've been using one of those boxes, along with the sumpfork tabs for several years now, and it has worked out excellently. I currently have the following stored in the box:
Base Game,
Intrigue,
Prosperity,
Seaside,
Cornucopia,
Hinterlands,
2nd Edition Upgrade Pack for Base Game,
and all rulebooks, mats and tokens for the mentioned games.
I figure I have enough space left for probably three more full size expansions. That's with all cards sleeved with Mayday standard sleeves (not premiums).

Go here for the divider cards for all the sets: http://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/73412/double-sided-horizontal-dividers-for-dominion-hint
and for the perfect carrying case that you see in the first links picture: go to http://www.sciplus.com/p/STOREITALL-BOX_4254 - the STORE IT ALL BOX with removable dividers.
We currently have the cards to: Dominion, Intruigue, Cornucopia, Seaside, Hinterlands, and Prosperity all in one case, but I think it's going to be too tight to get our Dark Ages set in there.  Will probably buy another case to space things out a bit.  The divider cards are great as they are double sides, so you can arrange your tabs anyway you like.  All the rules are printed on them too for easy reference.

I pulled the insert from one box, and put each set of 10 cards into a snack sized ziplock. My dominion box holds Dominion and Intrigue this way; I could probably fit a third if I got more card-sized baggies. Since this makes for easily grabbed sleeved cardsets, I can simply random grab-n-go for play.

I bought a 1000 card box and used index card halves for dividers (longer than the card length). I have like 5-6 sets. I combined all the sets together and then separated first by purchase cost (6+ as one grouping) then by alphabet groupings like A-M, N-Z, etc. In this manner it cuts down on the time it takes to put cards away since you don't have to find things alphabetically, just by alphabet group. Plus if you know you want a certain cost card, the groupings are already separated by cost.
Coins/VPs/Curses/Prizes/Alchemy cards have their own groupings.

I used a set of transparent wallet-size photo holders that I bought at the local pharmacy (which is an American notion of a store that sells everything from medications to cigarettes to food to school supplies). Each sleeve has 7 sections, and 10 cards fit almost OK into one section, but it is too tight for the green 12 card decks. I got 7 sleeves for my Basic + Intrigue sets, put the 49 stacks in, and the Gardens have to roam around with just the rubber band around it. The money and VP stacks are also in the rubber band format. That takes about half of the volume of one box. The photo holders are worn out after about 3-4 years of biweekly or so use, I have to say.

My friends use binders with card sleeves.  Each page holds 9 sets of kingdom cards, and the only slightly fussy thing is splitting the money/curses/victory into piles of 10-15 cards to fit the sleeves.
I guess resorting the selector cards may be a pain if you have many sets, but it has mostly been a non-issue for us.  Additionally, you can store separated starting decks with little worry that they will get unsorted.


text:
When are you allowed to play monster boosters in Munchkin Quest?
Several cards beef up monsters (such as "...with Eyes In the Back of Its Head").  These cards do not say "Play at any time" on them, so according to my reading of the rules they should only be playable during your own turn, but people I've played with claim you can play them when a opponent is facing a monster.
What's correct?

I agree with Pat I think, but it was a different section of the rules that caught my eye:

Certain cards, called monster
  enhancers, raise or lower the combat
  strength of individual monsters. (Yes,
  you can have a negative enhancement.)
  Monster enhancers may be played by any
  player during any combat.

I don't know if we're looking at the same version of the rules or different ones, but the general facts of the case seem clear!

same section.  The part you quoted is the start of the paragraph.  Mine is the end of it :)

remember though that potions and scrolls can only be used if you are in the same room or in an adjacent room.

Check out the side bar entitled, "Non-Helpers in Combat" on page 10 of the rules for the explanation of when you can play monster boosters.

Play a Monster Enhancer on one of the monsters in the
  fight
...
You can play these at any time, not just during combat


text:
How is the current format for an MTG booster draft calculated?
I know that once all three sets in a block are out, a draft consists of one pack of each; and I know that when only the first set is out, a draft consists of three packs of that set.
What's the format when only two sets are out? Does the format change depending on which sets are large and which are small? And what happened to draft during Lorwyn–Shadowmoor?

Not always one of each when third set is out. What packs are used is determined by Wizard on a set-by-set basis. I think the "default" is 1,1,2. The base set tends to have more cards and provides a more solid base.

Wizards of the Coast designs sets for specific Limited environments.
The intended draft format for Lorwyn/Shadowmoor block was:

Lorwyn draft: 3x Lorwyn
Morningtide draft: 2x Lorwyn, 1x Morningtide
Shadowmoor draft: 3x Shadowmoor
Eventide draft: 2x Shadowmoor, 1x Eventide

Cards from the two halves of the set were not intended to be drafted together.
The MTG Tournament Rules specify the officially-recommended booster mix for current sets (see Appendix D).

(Also, note that the order has changed; at the time it was Lorwyn-Lorwyn-Morningtide, but now the order would be reversed.)

As an update to demonstrate that there is no fixed rule for how drafts are constructed, Khans of Tarkir block will will have three very different draft structures. Khans-Khans-Khans to start, Fate Reforged-Khans-Khans when Fate Reforged is released, and finally Louie-Louie-Fate Reforged when the third set (codenamed "Louie") is released.


text:
Pandemic - how many epidemic cards?
We've got the 2013 edition of Pandemic, and the four of us are struggling! For instance, it says to prepare the Player Deck by using 4, 5, or 6 Epidemic cards for an Introductory, Standard, or Heroic game. We keep losing on 4.
To get some help, I watched the Youtube video from Tabletop Episode 14 for  Pandemic - which uses the older version - and they seemed to suggest starting with just 2 Epidemic cards. I know I'm an adult, so I can do what I want really - but is the 4 Epidemic cards in 2013 too hard for newbies?

Note that 4 player is harder than 3 player, which is harder than 2 player.

4 epidemics is usually pretty easy. Read the rules carefully and check you haven't missed something important. Trying to eradicate all 4 diseases is a common misunderstanding, you only have to find the cures to win the game.

I think 4 is a great number for an easy game. If you find yourself running out of cards in the player deck, then you should really evaluate how you use those cards during the game. Discarding cards to take a flight shouldn't be done too frequently since that depletes that resource used to cure the disease. Also, work together to Share Knowledge, even though it can be challenging since you have to be in the same city as the card. Hopefully, you are playing with roles that negate some of the drawbacks I described above. If you are still having trouble, try playing with 3 and see what that does for you. After while, you'll start to get the hang of the game, and will look forward to the challenge that 4, 5, or 6 epidemic cards adds to the game.

I just played that a couple days ago, and it wasn't too hard. What causes you to lose the game most often?
Are you running out of cubes of 1 color? Try to get someone there are soon as possible (even burning a card), maybe dropping a research station so others can come as well.
Are you running out of cards? Try to wait on disease cubes until 2-3 on a city and focus on getting the cure/cards to a curer.

The best we've done - in about 5 plays - is to find the cure for two diseases, but it's running out of cards in the Player Deck that finishes us off.

@PeterSchofield Assuming you're curing not eradicating, the next most common mistake might be trying to treat diseases too much, instead of letting them spread a bit while you exchange cards. As long as you're not risking outbreaks or running out of cubes, you can get away with leaving some cubes on the board.

This does not appear to answer the question and just appears to ask questions about how the OP is playing the game.


text:
Does bypassing an ICE trigger Chum's subroutine?
If the runner bypasses an ICE behind a Chum (subroutine not broken) with Femme Fatale, does Chum's subroutine trigger and deal three netdamage to the runner?

Yes, you have encountered the next ice and so you will take 3 net damage if you don't break its subroutines. As you are bypassing the ice you will not have a chance to break the subroutines and so will take the 3 net damage as soon as the encounter ends.
This is explained the FAQ From FFG

So when you bypass an ICE you still encounter it? So the When the runner encounters ...-abilities (Pop-up window, Data Raven, etc.) still trigger?

Well all current bypass methods are worded so you encounter the ice before you bypass it. However, the FAQ states under bypass that any unresolved triggered conditional abilities from "When encounters..." the bypassed ice are not resolved. So the Dataraven triggers, but since the Femme is resolved first the DataRaven on encounter is left unresolved.


text:
If Realmwright is removed from the battlefield, do the changed lands remain dual colored?
I just came by Realmwright and it didn't give any discussion on whether the changed lands are permanently changed or not if the creature leaves the battlefield.
Does anyone have any info on this?

Realmwright doesn't change any land's color. They remain colorless.

The short answer is no, they'll lose whatever type they're given when Realmwright leaves the battlefield. The reason is that Realmwright has a static ability that creates a continuous effect that dictates that the lands are of the given type:

112.3d Static abilities are written as statements. They're simply true. Static abilities create continuous effects which are active
  while the permanent with the ability is on the battlefield and has the
  ability, or while the object with the ability is in the appropriate
  zone. See rule 604, "Handling Static Abilities."

Since Realmwright's ability is the source of the continuous effect giving the lands the specified type, the effect will end as soon as Realmwright leaves the battlefield.

But what verbiage am I looking for to see that its a static ability?

The text 'Lands you control are the chosen type in addition to their other types' is the static ability text.  It's a static ability 'by default': because it doesn't use the phrase 'when', it isn't a triggered ability; because it doesn't have the colon it's not an activated ability; and abilities that last 'forever' (i.e., that aren't tied to a permanent being in the appropriate zone) are (generally) expressed with emblems now.  For more information on how to identify abilities, I suggest reading the rest of section 112 in the comprehensive rules.

You might want to look at a card like Obsidian Fireheart (http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=192224) for an example of how a Magic card needs to specifically clarify that an effect continues even after the generating permanent has left play.