text:
How do the hand size rules interact with Share Your Nuts?
In the game of Nuts the rules state:
Drawing Cards
Whenever you play a card, whether on your turn or out of
turn, immediately draw a card from the deck.  You should
always have five cards in your hand.

There is an Antics card called 'Share Your Nuts' that reads:
Pass one card from your hand to the
player on your left, chosen at random.

Do the hand size rules make the person playing the card draw up to five cards and force the player on the left to discard down to five?

Yes to both. You quoted the answer You should always have five cards in your hand. You would draw a card to bring your hand size back to 5, and your opponent would have to discard a card to bring their hand back down to 5.


text:
Do I roll for reinforcements when I lose a Pygmy due to a Sorcerer taking control of it?
When Pygmies are killed the player can roll the die and get 0-3 new pygmies for his next turn. Does he get to do this if a sorcerer uses his special ability to take control of a lone pygmy?
My guess would be yes due to the way elves interact w/ sorcerers, but I couldn't find anything conclusive in the base set rules, and there is only a summery insert w/ the expansion!

Yes, you can roll for reinforcements.
The Rules for the expansion read:

Each time you lose a Pygmy token, roll a reinforcement die ...

The Sorcerer definitely causes you to lose a Pygmy token, it is not required to be killed.  Therefore you get to roll the reinforcement die to replace them.

Yes. The Sorcerer's substitution ability causes the Pygmy to lose a token. The Sorcerer's ability specifically states that the substitution causes a Loss (the example in the rule book uses Elves). The Pygmies ability allows them to roll the reinforcement die and get 0-3 Pygmies that are redeployed at the end of the current players turn.
The base game rule book says:

Sorcerers - Once per turn per opponent, your Sorcerers can conquer a Region by substituting one of
  your opponent's Active tokens with one of your own taken from the storage tray. If there are no more tokens in the storage tray, then you cannot conquer a new Region in this way. The token your Sorcerers replaces must be the only race token in its Region (A single Troll token with its Troll's Lair is considered alone for this purpose; likewise for a Race token in a Fortress or on a Mountain, these markers provide no protection to a lone Race token) and that Region must be adjacent to one of your Sorcerers'. Place the substituted opponent's Race token back into the storage tray. If an Elf is converted by a Sorcerer, the Elf does lose his token.

The Expansion rule book says:

Pygmies - Each time you lose a Pygmy token, roll a reinforcement die and receive as many new Pygmies from the storage tray as you rolled pips on the die (up to the number of Pygmies left). Deploy them on the board at the end of the current player's turn.

No, I tested with the iPad. Pygmies do not roll reinforcement dice when transformed by the sorceler.

The iPad version is someone's implementation. Do you have any proof that the owners/makers of the game checked that all rules were correctly implemented?

No. The pygmy is changed into a sorceror and therefore is not lost but transformed.

The other two answers both provide quotes from the rule book that suggest that the Pygmy token is indeed lost. Do you have some rules text, or maybe word from the designer, to back up your answer?

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Does a Trumpet card count as following suit?
Trumpet includes three "trumpet" cards without a suit that always trump any other card.  However, the rules aren't particularly clear on whether they are truly "wild" in the sense that they could count as a card of any suit.  In particular, if you have another card of the suit that has been led, are you allowed to play a trumpet card instead?

In most games with a trump suit, you must follow with a card of the suit that has been led, unless you are void in that suit (have no cards of that suit), at which point you may play a trump card. Given that, I would assume the rules in Trumpet are the same, and you cannot play a Trumpet unless you're void in the suit led.
This thread on BoardGameGeek agrees, so I'd say it's fairly common to play by that rule, even if the original rules are unclear.

Trumpet does have the rule that you must follow suit, but the trumpet cards have no suit.  Calling them "wild" has led players to believe that they're allowed to count as the led suit.  Do any other games have both trump suits and suitless cards?

@eswald Yes, for instance Tarot has 4 suits (cup, rods, swoards, and coins) plus 21 trump cards with no suit (or sometimes considered to be a "trump" suit). Most trick-taking games played with tarot cards require you to play on-suit, and may only play trumps if you are void in the suit.

I don't know this particular game but from my experiences with various card games trumps are rarely considered matching a suit.
In most games one of the following scenarios is used:

Playing a card of the trump suit is not considered to be "following suit" and forbidden as long as one still has cards of the suit that was lead. See Wizard.
Playing a card of the trump suit is not considered to be "following suit" but explicitly allowed. See Jass.

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


text:
Cluedo and the Great Museum Caper characters
Are there any other games in the Cluedo series that has the same characters? The only other one I could find was The Great Museum Caper...

Clue: The Card Game uses the same characters as the U.S. version of Clue: Colonel Mustard, Miss Scarlet, Professor Plum, Mr. Green, Mrs. White, and Mrs. Peacock.  In some ways, it's even more fun than the board game.
There's a Cluedo card game, too, but I can't personally vouch for it.

There is a long list of official Clue variants which can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluedo.  According to wikipedia, "The great-museum-caper" is not an official variant.
[This Answer was edited to improve it's value.]

Jo: it would greatly improve your answer if you could link to such a list, or include it in your answer.

Thank you.  Point taken.  I went to wikipidia and found a long list of both US and UK versions.

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


text:
Interesting boardgames to play with children
I have two children aged 8 and 6 and they like to play board games.  Some of the ones they have are for very young children and boring for an adult to play.  Are there any suggestions for games that they will understand and I can enjoy?

Should this kind of question be a community wiki? I don't think there is a single correct answer to the question.

@Simon Withers: That's no longer possible. See Should the community wiki police be shut down?

I would consider this question to be too open-ended and have voted to close. A way to save it might be to restrict what you're looking for more strongly: how many players, how long should it take, etc. See also this on meta: http://meta.boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/66/recommend-a-game-questions

I think this is a perfectly fine question, and really don't see what the problem is with requests for recommendations.

Flagged for wiki conversion. See the meta article mentioned above.

I agree with Michiel - this is a perfectly good, specific question asking for good board games to play with two children (i.e. 2 to 4 players), aged 6 to 8 and interesting for adults as well (the emphasised parts are what makes it specific). Let's not go all wiki-happy while we're still in Beta and everybody's trying to build a) rep, and b) a body of Q&As.

Legendary Uno. Its card game. Description from BGG:

Players race to empty their hands and
  catch opposing players with cards left
  in theirs, which score points. In
  turns, players attempt to play a card
  by matching its color, number, or word
  to the topmost card on the discard
  pile. If unable to play, players draw
  a card from the draw pile, and if
  still unable to play, they pass their
  turn. Wild and special cards spice
  things up a bit.

The original (simplest & cheapest) Uno is best. Avoid randomising silliness like the electronic gizmo.

Uno shouldn't be even remotely interesting for an adult: there's no strategy, no tactics, and when you have the option to do one thing or another, very rarely you can actually choose in any meaningful way (just luck).

@Lo'oris, if there is no strategy or tactics then why some players wins more often than others? Personally I don't believe in luck :-)

@Pawka Some players win more often than others due to randomness. There is definitely some strategy in uno, but not enough to have a gigantic impact.

@CrazyJugglerDrummer I tend not to give all glory to randomness. Of course it makes big impact to the game (like randomness does in all card games). But for example when I play Uno with same company again and again, I can guess the moves what they are willing to do. Every person has its own playing style (me too), so there is where the strategy and tactics starts.

@Pawka: guess the moves what, "will he play the color or the number"? rofl, I can't believe I'm reading this.

@Lo'oris I'm not surprised that you can't find any tactics here :-D

@Lohoris. There are definitely different playing styles in Uno. The nasty cards have little impact at the beginning of the game, so some people prefer to hoard them till the end, when they can use them to better effect. This is risky, though, as another player may go out, leaving you with a bunch of high-point cards. On the other hand, having no nasty cards means you can't protect yourself when someone plays one on you. It's a question of balance, and different players have different strategies.

Ticket to ride is good balance to play with children and parents. Only from 8 though.

Give Scotland Yard a shot.

Scotland Yard a great game where one person is Mr. X, a fugitive from the law, and the other players team up as detectives.  Mr. X takes various modes of public transportation to move stealthily around the city of London, and it's up to the detectives to figure out where he is and capture him.
This is a great game of deduction and logical thinking, plus it's tons of fun.  It's fun for Mr. X, since there's something exciting about trying to escape from London's finest, and it's fun for the detectives since they get to work as a team to capture the slippery scofflaw.
This game won the prestigious Spiel des Jahres (Game of the Year) award in 1983, and I think it is a game that has aged quite well.

I loved this game when introduced to it as a teenager, and even as an adult it holds its own. This is a game with staying power.

I loved this game when I was a kid. I can't remember how old I was, though.

Mastermind - It's only playable by two people at a time (and one of them will have to be you), but my mom got it for me when I was about 7 or 8 and I loved it.
In fact, I still have it and even broke it out again the other night.  It's challenging, educational, and it's a game that makes kids think, but can be just as rewarding for adults.

I grew up playing this game, I don't know where it is now, though. Great game which can be played with pen and paper if you don't have it (or in a travel situation).

Carcassonne is great with kids. Not too complicated, and they learn to divide their attention between long term and short term goals.

My 8 year old enjoys the map building components of Carc more than the game play. That said, she really, really enjoys the map building, which means we can have fun with less competitive challenges.

I agree; however, I recommend the use of the green box edition of the game (Hunters and Gatherers): the scoring systems are more straightforward; the tile art is more compelling; there's less in the way of rampant expansionism going on in the game, so it's generally cheaper (although you're not forced to get expansions for the blue box edition, either).

I would recommend Creationary. Especially if the kids already enjoy LEGOs. The game works very similar to Pictionary, but instead of drawing an image for others to guess, you build it with LEGO pieces. The rules allow for a lot of flexibility and also promote the use of other LEGOs to be used to build your creations. It's very fun for adults, but I can imagine that children of 6 and 8 would also enjoy it.

My 8 year old daughter has really enjoyed playing the Fluxx games.

We play Fluxx, its great fun.

I tricked my neighbor's son (in kindergarden) into doing more reading by bringing over Zombie Fluxx.  Now we just have to teach him better strategy, and to stop playing 'Hand Limit 0' when he was the one holding onto all of the 'Play (number)' cards.

Battleship is a ease to setup and play.

Yet another game which is completely luck-based apart from a few unintresting mandatory moves.

Tsuro is simple and easy to follow.  It also plays fairly quickly and requires very minimal setup.  The game can play anywhere from 2-8 people, useful if you need a game to play with a group of kids.  While the suggested age is 8 and up, the users on BoardGameGeek have suggested it for 6 and up.

My 6 and 7 year old love Tsuro.

The Game of Life could be good. Your kids should be able to follow what's going on in the game.

We have banned the Game of Life in our home. It's awful. You practically cut your own throat by going to college, you want as many kids as you can possibly get, etc.. Its chock full of outdated ideas and mores. It's possible that it could have gotten a pass on those problems if it had been any fun though.

It's not any fun whatsoever for adults, but I enjoyed it as a child.

That's true. I guess I only ever played it as a child.

When I see "Game of Life" I assume people are talking about Conway's version: http://sixfoottallrabbit.co.uk/gameoflife/

@TRiG, I know what you mean. In this instance (and based on user comments), maybe it would be more enjoyable to code that than  play this version. :-P

@kchau - TGoL is one of the first things I code when I learn a new language! It's always fun!

Waterworks
This game is very fun from 8 to 80 years old. It's like a domino game.

Set should be a challenging game for all of you.
You lay out a number of cards with figures on them. The cards differ in the number, shape, color and shading of the figures on it. All players play concurrently trying to locate three cards where each attribute is either the same on all cards or different on all cards. The player who locates (and takes) the most sets wins.

This is a great one. My sister had her kids play this when she was teaching 3rd grade, and it is fun and challenging for adults as well.

Some of my (7yo) son's and my favorites:

Go : A 2-player strategy game with a built-in handicapping system. Within the first week or so, my little guy was able to hold his own with the greatest handicap applied to him, so it kept things fun for both of us.
Rummy : A traditional card game played with a single deck.  While not intensive strategy-wise, there is enough there to keep it fun even for adults.  I may be biased: I grew up playing rummy with my brother and grandmother. :)
Chinese Checkers : Everybody loves checkers, right?
Dominoes : Like rummy, dominoes employs a balance of luck and strategy that gives everyone a chance to win (and a chance to lose) regardless of age.
Mancala : Though only for two players, this is a fun strategy game that is simple to learn.
Scrabble : In our house, younger players may play on a team with an older player, or get a limited number of poker chips or other counters at the beginning of each game which may later be traded for peeks at the dictionary for help choosing a word.
Clue : Some strategy involved, and some luck.  Great for teaching deductive reasoning.
Operation : Being grown-up doesn't make your hands any steadier!

Strategy? In Dominoes? Where, lol?

@Lo'oris: Sure there's strategy.  Limit your opponent's ability to place pieces by creating dead ends (segments too close to other segments to place anything on), and (if you are playing a variant that limits how many times a side can be played on) try to block in double-anything pieces so that other players cannot fork and increase the number of ends to play on.

+1 for the Go reference alone - I love the fact that it has a built in handicap.  I have a friend who has taught both of his kids to play Go.

Do you play 19x19 with him or 9x9 or another dimension?

@StuperUser We play 19x19.

My personal favourite is Zooloretto. As you would expect from Rio Grande Games, it has a great board, good pieces and good gameplay. It is also very easy to learn, and because it is based on a Zoo, it keeps the interest of the kids.
I have known kids of 7 and 8 playing this game, and in a few years time being introduced to the more adult games such as Agricola and Puerto Rico etc. It is easy enough for them to understand, but has enough variety to make it strategic enough for adults to play and enjoy.
According to boardgamegeek, its users recommend it for ages 6 and up, although the manufacturer says 8 and up. Most of the other games in the Family Rank are generally for kids of 8 and upwards.
Unfortunately, by daughter is only two, so I am still playing Snail's Pace Race with her.

Ludo is a race game that I played a lot in my early days. I missed it.

I loved Othello as a child. And still do.

I liked to play Concentration with my parents when I was a kid. It's entertaining and doesn't have complicated rules -- you just need to use your memory!

Here are four games that I would recommend for families:
For the 6 and under group:

Piggyback Brigade (Russelbande)

Circus pigs that race through the fields on their days off.
Easy to play, different every time and everyone can win (I mean, more than one person can win)

Chuck-it Chicken (Kiki Ricky)

A rooster is taking over the hen house, and it's up to you to stop him.
Basically a dice rolling game, get to the top first to win.

For the older than 6 group, we play:

The Adventurers

Indiana Jones-style temple exploration.
Pretty fun, complete with rolling boulder. Often the winner is the only one who makes it out alive.  Often, there is no winner.... :)

Robo Rally

Robot race in an ever changing factory.
A fun game, but this can run long.

Edit:  My son's 4th Birthday was last weekend and we got:

The Ladybug Game

Lost Ladybugs have to travel home, meeting mantis and ants on the way.
Great game for kids.  Fun, no reading needed.
Simple to learn, easy to go from first to last then first place again.
Designed by a young girl.

I finally got to play Robo Rally a couple of weeks ago - absolutely +1 for kids! The game will keep the adults engaged but there's enough chaos happening in the factory (moving conveyors, lasers, holes in the floor, being pushed by other robots...) that less-than-optimal moves are pretty much assured for everyone, which means that kids have some slack in their decision-making.

I love Ubongo, even as an adult. Form tangram-like shapes, and collect shiny objects. What more do you want?

We used to play Shadows Over Camelot with my son and his friends when he was younger. The cooperative nature of the game meant that giving advice was OK and that the kids weren't pitted against adults.
We established a few house rules for kid games that allowed easier victories - the one I remember off the top of my head was that the first quest completed just disappeared instead of remaining on the table, flipped over, causing catapults or Saxons to appear.
I'll bet several of the current generation of cooperative games could be played this way with bright kids.

My kids are now sixteen and eight.  They have been raised, steeped in board games.  The first "real" game that my son was able to play with adults was Atilla.  And the first one my daughter got was Settlers.  In both cases, they were in that same 6-8 age-range that you're talking about.  Those might be good ones to try for you.

Senku/Peg Solitaire is a good game to players of every age.

I have to admit I have not yet tried it but I have two children aged 6 at home and I just bought a copy of The Alley Cats on ebay hoping it will be the game we can play with them.

Assuming you have a fourth player I can recommend Dog as an awesome family game.
Similar to Pachisi but you play in teams of 2 and instead of throwing dice you play cards. This adds teamplay and a lot of strategy to the game. One of our favorite games at home and among friends.

Just saw a commercial for a game called Hedbanz on TV, looked like it could be fun. It's more of a card/party game. The gameplay is kind of like 20 Questions.

Wandering a bit away from "board game", you could try Zombie Dice from Steve Jackson Games. Fun for the grownups, teaches counting and decision making (do I roll again? Am I winning?), and just random enough that you won't have to cheat to let the kids win. (My four-year-old is either way better or way luckier at this game than I am, for instance).

Attempting to pick a "fun" game is fairly subjective, but I think a good answer is a game that has fairly simple mechanics along with a depth of strategy.  Also, when trying to play against your kids, you can assume that you would always do better given the same amount of time to think and strategize.  Also, I would interpret "fun" as "not having to dumb down your play too much to give your kid a chance to win."

The best types of games for kids and adults are ones where there is more than one differing role to play in the game.  The adult can pick the role that has to do more with moderating the game.

2 games in this list fit that criteria.
Scotland Yard:
There is a Mr. X and everyone else.  The adult can play Mr. X while the kids work together to catch him.  It's possible to make sub-optimal moves fairly easily to give the kids a chance.
Mastermind:
One person attempts to discover a code, the other creates it.  It makes sense for the adult to pick codes based on the child level of understanding to make it easier or harder.
These games allow for a child not to have to compare their skill directly against yours.  For instance "solving" a single mastermind code says nothing about who is better at solving.  Running away in Scotland Yard is a different skill set that can't be compared directly with catching Mr. X.
"Fixing Games":
If the game is such that everyone has the same goals, you can attempt to "meta" game somewhat.  For instance in Monopoly you could refuse to build improvements and attempt trades to even the others' chances.  Or in Risk you could purposely hole up in a single location and become a large army to beat as last challenge for the other players.  In this case, the "fun" is in attempting to keep a game balanced or just becoming a self enforced game mechanic the others have to overcome.  You're moving the game into an area where you have different goals than the kids.
Games of luck like Uno can be fun for them since you can't always beat them even if you try.  (But then there is really nothing redeeming in making people play a game with out real decisions where you can't improve over time.  Nobody learns anything.  Unless you really just need to waste time.)

Elkfest
Might be hard to come by and it's only two players but it's fun and it's fast. The purpose is to the help a wooden moose/elk to cross a river. You do this by flicking a wooden stepping stone close to where the elk is standing.

Snakes and Ladders is a very interesting game if you want to play with children .

It's a random, frustrating game if you ask me.

Its the most simplest and straight forward game that you can play w/o a strategy.

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

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


text:
What's the optimal setup for Cluedo: The Great Museum Caper?
Has the math been done on an optimal setup of security cameras and painting locations in Cluedo: The Great Museum Caper...?

I am not sure if anyone has actually used math to calculate the optimal strategy. That would of course require the correct play strategy for the camera strategy to really be the "optimal". This person has a thorough explanation of a strategy including the why.
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/598248/pretty-hard-to-beat-4-player-setup

It seems that the best camera set-up is the one that sees the most squares.  If this is so then having one camera in each corner of the hall around the central white room with two in the room looking through the doors.


text:
6 player Dog variation
In Dog there is a expansion from 4 to 6 players. The only variation I know and have played is 3 vs 3. Does anyone have experience with 2 vs 2 vs 2? Does that play well too?
Background: I'm thinking about doing a tournament and it would be easier to get the required number of boards if I could pit three teams against each other.

Today I talked with a friend who has experience playing Dog this way. According to him the game is much more competitive when played 2 vs 2 vs 2 instead of 3 vs 3. There are more enemy pieces underway and they have more opportunities to intercept yours.
I'm still looking forward to playing this variant myself one day, but at least the question is answered.

Rule books on http://dogspiel.info or from board manufacturers leave it open. Popular software implementations like the iPhone/iPad app Dog Board Game or the web-based BrettspielWelt.de use the 2 vs 2 vs 2 variant:

For the 3 vs 3 you have to define who receives a card from whom in the team: do you give a card to your team member on the right, on the left, or both?
I have played both variants, but I prefer the 2 vs 2 vs 2 variant and have played it more often. It gets particularly exciting when the two trailing teams start collaborating to prevent the leading team from finishing.


text:
In Alien Frontiers, how does Raider's Outpost work after a ship has been teleported to another Orbital Facility?
Scenario setup:

A player uses the Raider's Outpost by docking a 3-4-5 set of ships.
Same player uses an Orbital Teleporter to move the 5 ship to another Orbital Facility.

Do the 3 and 4 ships remain in the same position after the 5 is moved, or do they shift? What if the 3 or 4 were moved instead?
A higher value set of ships is required to use the Raider's Outpost when it is occupied. If the 5 ship had not been teleported, a 4-5-6 set would be required. However since the 5 ship has been moved, it's not clear what is now required to use the Raider's Outpost. Since it only has the 3-4 ships remaining, is a 3-4-5 set sufficient? Or is it played as if the 5 ship were still there, meaning a 4-5-6 set is required?

Actually, there has been official errata posted on this very question:

Bumping Ships from The Raiders' Outpost
A question has been raised about how the "Bump Rule" works for the Raiders' Outpost if one or more ships in the original run have been removed, either by the Plasma Cannon, the Orbital Teleporter, or by losing control of the Relic Ship. Does the new run have to be bigger than the original run or just bigger than the ship that are left over?
Here is the text from the rulebook...
Raiders’ Outpost
You must dock a set of three sequentially numbered ships to use the Raiders’ Outpost. There are docking ports for one set of three ships. If the Raiders’ Outpost is occupied, you may dock a higher-value sequence here and move the original ships to the Maintenance Bay.
While docked at the Raiders’ Outpost you may steal a total of four resources from any mix of players or one alien tech card of your choice from one player. If you steal an alien tech card that you already have, the stolen card is discarded immediately and you gain no benefit from doing so.
Example : If a 1-2-3 is docked at the Raiders’ Outpost and the next player rolls a 2-3-4 then that player may remove the 1-2-3 and dock their 2-3-4 at the facility to conduct their own raid. If another player rolls a 3-4-5 or a 4-5-6 then they may remove the 2-3-4 and dock their own sequence and conduct their own raid.

The addition of a second example should clear up this question.

Example 2: RED has docked a 3-4-5 at the Raiders' Outpost. On his turn GREEN uses the Plasma Cannon to send the 5 back to the Maintenance Bay, leaving a 3 and 4 on the Raiders' Outpost. To dock a higher-value sequence at the Raiders' Outpost GREEN must use a run of three ships that totals more than the sum of the ships currently docked there. The remaining ships total 7 so GREEN may not dock a 1-2-3 since they only total 6. GREEN may dock a 2-3-4 (total 9), a 3-4-5 (total 12) or a 4-5-6 (total 15) to use the Raiders' Outpost.

Errata can be found on BoardGameGeek.

My understanding is that the 3-4 ships remain where they are after the 5 ship is removed, whether by the teleporter, or getting zapped by the Orbital Laser artifact, or whatever. Then a 3-4-5 set of ships will be sufficient to occupy the Outpost again, as a 3-4-5 straight is higher than a 3-4. The same would apply if the 3 or the 4 ship was removed; 3-4-5 still beats 3-5 or 4-5.


text:
What's The Strongest Base Strategy in Thurn & Taxis?
It seems like you can take any number of different paths leading in the general direction of victory.  Build short routes and grab points for being the first to complete a region.  Build long routes and grab points for being the first to build long routes.  Concentrate on finishing one big region for a hefty points boost.  Spread your houses all over the board to be the first to have a presence in every region.  Play out as many houses as possible to be in the best position when the game ends early.  Play conservatively to maximise the value of the houses you do play.
It just feels like any of these opposing and contradictory strategies could win the game, depending on the right cards being available on your turn, of course!  But I can't believe that T&T is that random - I must just not have "gotten" it yet.  Therefore, what are the best ways to sit down at a table with other relative newbies and do well at Thurn & Taxis? Mega bonus points for describing how/if this changes if you're playing with the quite different rules in the sequel ("The Power and the Glory" I believe?)

In my experience, this is exactly the fun of the game and all its expansions (and a few others like it): there is not one strategy that is guaranteed to do well, but you have to constantly adapt your strategy to what cards are available, what the other players do, etc. I would consider this a virtue of the game, and would typically consider a game that has one winning strategy to be broken.
It often happens to me that I play a game that's new to me, lose to someone more experienced who did better in one particular area, and decide that improving that area is going to be my strategy because I now see that it is 'obviously' better than concentrating on other areas. Then in the rematch, the positions are reversed and the other player creams me with my 'original' strategy. The lesson is that the difficulty of the game is not in implementing a strategy - anyone can do that - but in recognizing which of the many available strategies is called for in a given situation.

That being said, there are strategies that rarely work even if the whole universe seems to conspire to make you do it. I've never seen anyone who aimed to get Bavaria complete very quickly, win.

The last game I played saw the player who completed Bavaria straight away winning by a large margin! I don't know, I agree with you that a multiplicity of viable strategies is a great feature of a game. I'm just uneasy, with T&T, that so far I can't see how the choice of strategy matters. I guess "adapting best to what cards come up" is a very good skill in and of itself, nothing to be sniffed at...

As I see it (having played close to a hundred games), the way to win at T&T is to play all or most of your houses while getting as many bonus points as possible. Beginning players tend to focus on the carriages, but generally if you're playing against experienced players the game will end before you can get to the 7th carriage anyway.
How you get the bonus points is up to you, but I've found that (at least on the original map) the game tends to go to someone who ignores carriages and focuses on getting long routes. Personally I tend to start out (depending on the initial cards available) with a route of length at least 5, either all different colors or all grey. Usuall I try to be the first to get every color, but getting all the greys works too. Either way, my goal is to, as much as possible, place one post office for each card played and use my special actions to draw and play more cards; this way I'm maximizing my efficiency.


text:
How does the RATUKI card work?
A relative has given us a Hasbro card game called Ratuki - the rules for which can be found here.
I just can't decide how the RATUKI cards are meant to work though.  In normal play, a stack must be started with a 1 card, and a stack can only be added to with a card one higher or one lower in value than the current top card.  If you play a 5 card to the top of a stack, you shout "RATUKI!" and claim that stack.
A RATUKI card "counts as any number you like" - so you can start a stack with it, and play it onto any stack.
My question is, does a RATUKI card once played keep the value it was played "as"?  e.g. if you start a stack with a RATUKI card, is the only valid play on top of that a 2 card?  If a RATUKI is played on top of a 2, do you have to specify whether it is a 1 or a 3 and does that information persist (possibly quite a challenge to enforce, in this fast paced game).
The other option is that a RATUKI card can be played as anything and immediately counts as anything.  But if this is so, can you essentially slam a RATUKI onto any stack, immediately shout "RATUKI!" and claim that stack?  If you start a stack with a RATUKI card, can you immediately claim that stack at the same time?
Are there any card games with an analogous mechanic that shed any light on how the designers probably intended this game to be played?

It should play the same as a Skip-Bo card in Skip-Bo.
It's just a wild card - and no, it shouldn't "retain" its value in later plays ... how would you remember which Ratuki card had been played with what value?

Ooh yeah, Skip-Bo definitely looks to be the same family of game, good spot.  So if a Ratuki card is on the top card of the pile, can you play any card at all on top of it?  Can you only claim the pile if the Ratuki card was "played as a 5"?

@thesunneversets it would seem that if the Ratuki is a 5, it ends the pile. If you have a 2 on top and you play the Ratuki, one presumes you'd only play it as a 1 if it would help your hand.


text:
What tactics should Baron Blade use in the Power Splicing scenario?
I just played through the first scenario of Sentinels Tactics, Baron Blade vs Tachyon/Legacy/Ra, where he is trying to blow up the power plants.
Baron Blade got totally destroyed, he only managed to kill 2 of the plants, and that was when we were playing wrong and allowing him to attack the plants from higher ground. Once we fixed that, he was mostly useless. Should he be trying to avoid even being touched with teleport? Should he be trying to incapacitate the heros? It seems like fighting is a losing battle for him.
I watched the demo game for the scenario in which Baron Blade won, but it seemed that the heroes played really poorly. The heroes were running away from baron blade, never using aim, and doing attacks that lowered movement (which might be good in other scenarios, but in this one, baron blade can teleport to get large distances anyway, so it's probably useless).

I have played as Baron Blade multiple times and never lost Scenario 1.
The key is using the terrain to your advantage.  There are eight potential targets of which you have to take out six.  That means you should be teleporting to an unoccupied target just about every time.
Pay close attention to turn order.  Remember that you get two turns for every turn any particular other hero gets.  Is Ra over by himself protecting a target?  As soon as he takes his turn, jump over there and splice it, then jump away on your next turn before he gets to act again.
Always wear your suit for +1 defense, and don't be afraid to change out your teleport for your restributor (and +1 Defense token) on a turn when you're going to let them hit you - especially if you can burn an action to Dodge.  Never attack unless you know you can get a kill, like a six-space Fusion shot with Aim.
Good luck.  With a good handle on the terrain and the Baron's defensive powers, you should have the Megalopolis power grid in your hands in no time!


text:
What are the differences with Khet 2.0?
I believe I played the original Khet a few years ago, now I notice there is a "2.0 version". Could anyone point out the main differences?

From ThinkGeek:

For those of you that loved the original Khet, you're gonna just flip
  for Khet 2.0, but we'll sum up game
  play for you who are new to the game.
  In Khet 2.0 Laser Game, there are four
  types of playing pieces, and two of
  them have mirrors. Game play is
  simple, and easy to learn, as there
  are only a few movement choices. The
  goal is to eliminate your opponent's
  Pharaoh. And, you eliminate the
  Pharaoh just like they did in olden
  times - by firing a red laser! And
  this is where Khet 2.0 kicks the game
  up a notch.
In the original Khet, the lasers were
  part of the board. But in Khet 2.0,
  the lasers are built in to special
  Sphinx pieces that perch in the corner
  and can now rotate to change the angle
  of the beam (because of this change,
  the board is very slim and now built
  to travel)! Your laser is fired after
  your turn and bounces from mirrored
  piece to mirrored piece (always
  shooting off at a 90 degree angle). If
  the laser hits any piece on a
  non-reflective surface (with one
  exception we'll leave as a surprise),
  that piece is removed from play. If
  you eliminate your opponent's Pharaoh,
  you win. If you eliminate your own
  Pharaoh, you will be mocked for all
  time (because it is possible). Khet
  2.0 Laser Game is the next generation of the best laser game of all time.

So it seems that the form factor has changed, the lasers can be rotated, and there's a new piece added.

Doesn't moving the lasers increase complexity too much? Has anyone tried both?

The new lasers don't significantly change the complexity, as they don't move in a normal game.  The only rules change there is the ability to rotate 90 degrees to fire 'left'.


text:
Tales of Arabian Nights -- Story versus Destiny and variants?
In the ZMan version of Tales of Arabian Nights, you choose 20 points between Story and Destiny. I tend to do 10 of each or something similar. Is this the best strategy?
Also, the game is very random, which I'm OK with, but are there any variants where there is some strategy or planning involved? Especially with some of the quests, it's like it doesn't really matter where you go on the board, just that you go somewhere.

it seems you have two distinct questions here.  You might get more responses if you break them down into individual questions.

I've pnly played the WEG version of this game once, so my memory is a bit foggy.  It was an interesting concept, but we had one player who rolled so badly that she hardly got to do anything the whole game.  The only strategy I tried to employ was try to make sure I had a chance for something interesting to happen every turn.  I suppose you could invent your own variant where it's known ahead of time what will happen at each location instead of rolling for it.

Been playing a fair bit of this over the weekend, so here's a few thoughts:

It seems that Story is a bit easier to get than Destiny (and there's a couple effects that convert Destiny to Story, plus some that remove Destiny), so I tend to skew a few points towards Story. I haven't seen a particular reason to skew too far away (the furthest I've gone is D7/S13) because there's no guarantee you'll get lots of story points.
The game is fairly random, but there does seem to be some (at least loose) correlation between your choice of reaction and the skills required. So you can work around bad luck to some extent by being a bit more cunning in your opening skill selection and picking reactions that hopefully you have good skills for. (This is admittedly still pretty darned random)

2a. One good way of beating down the randomness is to aim for master-level skills (which let you shortcut the destiny die, and are generally-but-not-always good results), and remember to use any effects that let you skew the game in your favor. (Blessed, Respected, Determined, to name three.)

Our group ignores the story/destiny split and just uses the total as a victory condition. (20 for a shorter game, 25 for about the same, 30 for slightly longer).
This does weaken some of the effects a little, but it saves pretending the game has any strategy at all and removes the fiddly tokens.
If the game is being really fun (or really boring!) we may agree to adjust the target mid-game.

Here are two variants that my friends and I play with, each of which addresses your questions.

This is perhaps unsatisfactory but to beat the meta of how to split points is simple for us - we don't play with points!  We just go until it's time to stop, this way it really doesn't matter if someone is doing way better for no reason and there's no competition.
A useful way to incorporate strategy is to allow users to pick a mastery at the beginning.  We started off with 2 talent, 1 mastery, but now just for diversity we do 2 talent, 2 mastery, and a lvl. 1 treasure.  This last one can be great because treasures are really hard to come by (normally) and some of them open up new story options.  Choosing mastery and (possibly) treasure means that you can develop a personality and a strategy - for example, just today my friend was a pirate with seamanship and stealth and stealing who always robbed, while I was a bravo with appearance and weapon use who always attacked.


text:
How have editions of Bang! been different from previous ones?
Bang! has had a relatively large number of changes over the years. I know lots of people who are used to a different edition than I am. Often, this means they are used to a different set of rules and a different deck composition. What are the changes in each edition?

For the sake of clarity, I mean only the editions having English text. (Italian/English versions are fine but not the versions like French or Czech/Slovak/Polish.)
Whenever an expansion has been included in an edition, I'd appreciate it if you would describe any changes from the separately-available expansion or which edition the expansion is.
As far as I'm aware, there are five different editions of Bang!, listed below (printings' dates listed in parentheses):

1st Edition (2002)
2nd Edition (2003, 2005)
3rd Edition (2007)
The Bullet (2007, 2009, 2010)
4th Edition (2008)

Note: Your answer doesn't have to say all the changes for every edition; it will help even if you just mention a few changes.

In the interest of keeping within the scope of a question, full descriptions of the expansion are unnecessary, as are lists of expansions. Both should go in a separate question, please.

Making this CW in the hopes that the community will integrate future answers into one cohesive whole.

2nd Edition
This edition adjusted or clarified a few of the rules (and the matching graphics). The rule changes were:

The Sheriff can't be put in jail. (1st Edition: Sheriff could be put in jail.)
Discard Jail after you skip one turn. (1st Edition: Jail was not discarded until a heart ♥ or diamond ♦ was drawn.)
When performing a draw! for jail, the flipped-over card must be hearts ♥ to get you out of jail. (1st Edition: The flipped-over card could be hearts ♥ or diamonds ♦.)
Sid Ketchum has 4 life points. (1st Edition: Sid Ketchum had 3 life points.)

There were also a few changes in cards' names:

Cavallo (Horse) became Mustang
Maestrina (Mistress) became Cat Balou
Indiani! (Injuns!) become Indiani! (Indians!)

3rd Edition
—
Bang! The Bullet!
This was a compilation release, it contained the 3 expansions released at that point

High Noon
Dodge City
A Fistful of Cards

It also included

3 special character cards

Uncle Will
Johnny Kisch
Claus "The Saint"

2 additional high noon cards

New Identity
Handcuffs

A sheriff's badge

This release contained the 3rd edition of the basic game rules and the 2nd edition of the Dodge City rules.
4th Edition
—

The reason why the Maestrina (Mistress) card was changed to Cat Balou in the second edition was that "mistress" was a mistranslation of maestrina, which should have been translated as "schoolmarm". The unintended connotations of the word "mistress" resulted in the name change to "Cat Balou". (From the Bang! Cards page on the designer's site.)


text:
Can I put more than one Master Builder in the King's Court?
I played my first game of The Pillars of the Earth today with 3 other people. I had a question about the King's Court which was not specifically addressed in the rules. If I have already placed a Master Builder there, may I place a second (or even third?) there in order to potentially "force" other players to have to pay taxes? Doing say may result in them losing victory points if they can't pay, so I thought it was an interesting strategic possibility. The owner of the game has only played a couple times, and also only with 2 players, so he hadn't come across the situation before.
I know that often, there are likely better opportunities to take which will result in a greater net gain for yourself than that loss for your opponents, but I was wondering if it was at least possible. The decision we came to was that it wasn't explicitly stated in the rules that you couldn't so we allowed it as a possibility, though no one took it in the game. Is this allowed?

After taking another pass through the rules, I see no reason this would be forbidden.  That being said, I see no case where this would be a good play.  You gain nothing by placing a second builder here, and at best you are causing one player to pay taxes.  I suppose in the very narrow situation where 1) this is the last space (and therefore you know which player will have to pay), 2) you know the player who will have to pay will not be able to afford it and therefore lose victory points, 3) that player is in first place, and 4) you are in second place that this play could be worthwhile.  However, even in this case it seems likely that the player targeted could make up the one or two points they would lose (two to five divided by two, rounded down) with the action they choose instead.  I think it is always going to be preferable to take another action instead.

I agree that it's extremely unlikely, but I could see it coming up at the end of a a four-player game. Suppose the event protection, privileges, VP, and craftsmen (seven spots) have been taken, along with the first three spots in the King's Court. This leaves two master builders, yours and your impoverished opponent's. Bonus workers and starting player are both useless now, so the choice is just market or king's court. Your opponent has no money, so the only use for the market is resource conversion. If they can't profit from that, then they will not be able to make up the VP.


text:
Baby shower games
This question is more of a wiki about what games would be fun to play at a baby shower. My wife is throwing one and the games are fairly boring. I was hoping I could help think of at least one, original, fun game for her and her friends. Any ideas?

If you have enough people, Werewolf (a.k.a. Mafia or Assassin) makes a great party game - it often reveals exactly what your friends think you are capable of!
The 'turns' are fairly quick, so it works well with large groups (in the dozens) - although you might want to limit the length of discussion/argument in between!
It also has the added advantage of not needing any equipment and as a by-stander to the party you'd make the perfect 'Narrator' (they moderate the game, rather than participating).
From the wikipedia page:

A party game modeling a battle between
  an informed minority and an uninformed
  majority. Players are secretly
  assigned roles: either "mafia", who
  know each other; or "townspeople", who
  know only the number of mafia amongst
  them. In the game's "night" phase the
  mafia covertly 'murder' a townsperson.
  During the day phase, all of the
  surviving players debate the
  identities of the mafia and vote to
  eliminate a suspect. Play continues
  until all of the mafia have been
  eliminated, or until the mafia
  outnumber the townspeople. A typical
  game starts with seven townspeople and
  three mafioso.

EDIT: The thread 'Anyone know more 'social' games like 'Werewolves"' has a great list of similar 'party games'.

So, this is not really a board or card game, but I think it could be fun for you to do.
At one of my friend's baby showers, they played this game where they removed the labels on a few jars of baby food. Then, each guest (that wanted to play) had a taste from each jar. The goal was to try and correctly guess the type of baby food in each jar. And, they gave the winners - the top 2 or 3 people with the most correct answers - some prizes.
Like I said, not a BCG, but could definitely be fun, and memorable...

How about Pictionary? I've played it with quite large teams (about 10 on each side) and it's a riot.

Baby Bingo - create bingo cards with baby-related words, randomly arranged.  (It's best to use a reasonably small set of 25-50 words; include specific words related to the mother or baby if possible.)  Write a story that includes all of the words.  Read it slowly and let people mark off the words on their cards.  First person to get 5 in a row wins.

There's a wonderful free party game called a number of names, including Eat P**p You Cat which is best described as the love child of Pictionary and the telephone game.
The game is hilarious and requires only pencils and paper for each participant. It requires no skill and can be explained in two minutes.

P**p? I'm pretty sure we wouldn't be offended by the un-censored version ;)

@Jon Hadley - Yes, but I was actually poking fun at this discussion on meta.

There's a great book called Super Party Games that describes a bunch of games that can be played by groups of 10 or more. I generated a set of puzzles for one of the games described in the book. Each player is given a sheet of paper that they tie to their forehead where they can't see it. On each sheet of paper are three letters, and you have to arrange yourselves to spell out a secret quote without telling anybody what letters are on their heads. You can download the puzzles and print out one of the puzzles for your group size. If you don't mind being excluded from the game, you could find a quote related to babies and make your own puzzle for the people at the party to play.

Apples to Apples is a really great game for moderately large groups. In my experience ladies tend to enjoy it. Scattergories is also fun, and scalable by dividing into teams. Lastly, my family and I recently discovered Guesstures, and the best antics by far were those of my 80-year-old grandmother, on which fact my 14-year-old niece and I agree (read: good for all ages).

When I'm hosting a large party I also find it's useful to have several different fast 4-15 player games out, so that people can circulate in and out of game-playing and casual conversation.
With that in mind: I'd start with Apples to Apples.


text:
Earthquake - does it affect units in docks?
So in a game of 'Mine a Million' aka 'The Business Game' the production card came up with Earthquake at Newport. The card's description officially says:

All Warehouse stocks belonging to all players are lost

So the question is, if stock is kept inside a barge at the barge dock (or a ship in the ship berth) does that make it safe from the earthquake as technically the goods aren't in the warehouse?

@Rainbolt thanks for creating a tag for me :) I actually wonder if there should be a rule-clarification tag too? This isn't really "house-rules" per se but its the only tag I could find

You're welcome. Maybe there should be a tag for rules, but I won't create it because it seems too broad. Not many people are experts on all board and card games. The folks using the site a few years ago had this discussion.

Many of the cards in my version of Mine a Million are open to a bit of interpretation, but I think this one is fairly clear.

This card specifically mentions "warehouse stocks". It does not mention barges or ships.
Similar cards for losses at the pithead specify "on the ground (not in lorry/barge)" and/or "in lorry/barge" (wording not exact, I couldn't quickly find the wording online and I'm not at home to check).

On the basis that the cards make it very clear when stocks in a barge at the pithead are at risk, I suggest the interpretation that stocks in a barge or ship are safe against earthquakes.
In fact, just last night when that card was showing, I put all my stocks (from both my players) in a ship and left my wife's stocks (from both her players) sitting in the warehouse. Unfortunately she managed to sell them before anyone rolled a 1 or 6 :(

That's a good thought process - and one which hopefully I can justify to the other players when they say "You can't do that!" :)


text:
Do you know any good miniature wargame that is fairly easy to learn and play?
I have various miniatures (sci-fi and fantasy one), some grounds (tree, hills, barricades) and many many dices. I host regularly every week in a Barcelona bar a boardgame meeting with new people to boardgames and from various language and nationality. I have many new enthusiasts, but few experts in gaming.
I am looking something to propose for the occasional gamer, and at the same time, a miniature wargame that is fairly easy to learn and have fun to play.
What is a bad suggestion: Dungeon & Dragons, any of Warhammer series, historical reconstruction of fights
What is a good suggestion: A own made auto generated labyrinth game (I have plenty of tiles), a game with a 15 minutes creating character and quick battles, a game that can play several people at the same time.
Can you please help me with some suggestions?

We used to play Necromunda years ago--I'm not sure if it's still around. Like Warhammer it is/was a Games Workshop game, but I think it could suit your purposes. It came with enough "terrain" in the box to support a game. It would be well suited to a multi-player game (think of an urban gang-fight free-for-all). Only a few miniatures were needed so that barrier is low and a quick gang could be set up quickly by new players while the seasoned set up the terrain.

A good suggestion, although best for 2 players.  The box is long out of production, but a revised all-in-one rulebook is still readily available.

I played once Necromunda, but it doesn't look as "fast game". I mean you have to build your gang, equip them... it doesn't look quick to prepare for people that don't know wargaming. thx for the suggestion

@Littlemad: Unfortunately Necromunda is almost certainly not going to come in under 15 minutes for setup with even one first-time player.

Savage Worlds
Savage Worlds is an RPG system - but contains a strong game of miniatures combat! The rules are "Fast! Furious! and Fun!" as advertised.

You can learn the game from the book in an evening and teach it in minutes.
You can use all your minis, tiles, and terrain.
You can choose an existing setting or create one yourself.
Unlike many wargames, it's designed to handle many participants in a battle.
The rulebook is small and inexpensive.
There is an active and welcoming Savage Worlds community online.

I think it makes a good fit for your criteria and hope you give it a try.

Looks promising, I am gonna have a look and report to you :D

@Littlemad - I hope it works out well for you! I can't wait to hear how it goes!

Mordheim lends itself to a small model count pretty well, and the rules are available on Games Workshop's website for free.

Heroscape is a solid game that may you may be able to repurpose.  It uses hexes that you could either incorporate in or toss and use whatever you have.  Most importantly it has a "simple rules" variation built in to the rulebook that allows for pretty easy pick-up-and-play.

I saw many times ago this game, but I do not want to buy stuff like basic hexes, when I have plenty of tiles and other things that can be used as such. Thank you for your suggestion

Fuzzy Heros seems like a nice simple set of rules, though you'll probably want to adjust the theme a bit.

http://www.manticgames.com/Shop-Home/Dwarf-Kings-Hold.html
It's a very, very fast game with quick rules.

Quikwars, which is a simplified version of Brikwars, looks pretty easy.


text:
What are some interesting starter games for a very young child?
I'm interested in playing some games with our very young (16 months) son.
I think he's a little young for most things yet - I'm familiar with Old Maid, Dominoes, and similar games that involve a little bit of matching; those seem like they will be good points of entry for him shortly.  Marbles, while also great, involves tiny pieces that can be swallowed.
I want to avoid games like Candyland and probably even Chutes and Ladders - they annoy me.  :-)  Other games with a lot of cards or paper products involved are probably right out - they'll get slobbered on or destroyed.  Small parts get eaten.
What are some concrete, not commonly known games that might be interesting to him?

Hey Elijah, sorry I've closed your question.  Recommendation questions are not a good fit for a Q/A site and we have banned them.  These questions tend to devolve into long lists with no real way to vote on the answers which interacts poorly with our reputation system.  I hope you understand and stick around.

That "other site" that focuses on lists of games has several on this topic.  You can try http://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/33475/first-games-my-picks-for-kids-younger-than-three or try searching GeekLists for things like "Toddler".

My son likes Hi Ho Cherry-o

I was going to say CandyLand and Chutes and Ladders, because as annoying as they are they are still a huge hit with my 4 year old. I am hoping that she will soon be old enough for Catan Junior! She already wants to play Catan with Mama.


text:
Can a player swap position with a dead body in lifeboat?
In the lifeboat game the rules when you are unconscious specify that :

Other players could swap their position with yours or steal your cards
  and you can't defend yourself.

But nothing is specified for the cases where you are dead and still in the boat. There is a note allowing other players to steal your cards but nothing about position swapping.
Following the rules it seem to be disallowed (as it isn't specifically allowed), but does anyone have experience with either variant? Is there a FAQ with this info somewhere? The official FAQ is really short and the extensions don't add any details about this.

The FAQ you linked to I believe covers this. Since fights are started by a character refusing a seat exchange, a dead person's seat is just taken from them.

How do I start a fight?
Fights can only be started by a character refusing a mugging or a seat exchange. Incapacitated characters (unconscious or dead) cannot start a fight, join a fight or have a fight fought on their behalf. If somebody wants to take something from them, it just happens.

Here is a quote from the rules:

Unconciousness:
People can take from you or trade places as normal but you cannot fight back.

I agree it's not stated in the section "death", but I see no reason why it shouldn't be the same.

Dead people are not conscious, so I wonder if that is sufficient.


text:
Does "Swarm" AI card affect all Locust on the map?
In the Gears of War board game there are AI cards.  These cards generally refer to AI's that fit a specific criteria (like "all wretch with 3 spaces").  However the Swarm card reads:

Each Locust that is 5 or more moment away from the nearest COG figure moves until it is 4 movement away from the nearest COG figure

Does this mean all Locust that aren't near you pile up in one spot that is 4 away from where you are standing?

Source

Yes it is part of the game mechanics to bring the distant locust back into the game. Most of the "For Each" Locust AI cards only move the figures one or two areas and only spawn Locust if there are no figures in play of the listed type. Rules of play book suggest that if there is no space to place the piece off the edge of the map.
With that said it could be possible to have Locust type A, B, and C at the far end of the map with minimal effects on the player from Locust AI card if there was no card like this.

you might want to note that the active player might have a choice   of where to place the figures, so if two spaces are equidistant. all the figures may not be in the same space.


text:
Star Trek: Deck Building - Upgrade Rules
When a card is suppose to be upgraded do you remove the card being upgraded from your deck?  Then the card gained from the upgrade, are you allowed to play that card?  If you upgraded a card already on the bridge, can you play the gained card?

Yes, you remove an upgraded card from your deck. No, you are not allowed to play a card immediately when you gain it. Normally, when gain a card it goes to your discard unless the card specifically tells you otherwise. No, if you upgrade a card from your bridge, the gained cards normally go to your discard area, unless the card says specifically otherwise.
From the Rulebook2.0 on Bandai's website, (page 24-25 Glossary):

Gain - Move a card from Starbase to your discard area (Some effects may move it to another area).
Upgrade - This is short for “Trash the designated card and gain a card from Starbase costing up to the designated amount more than the trashed card”. So you can trash a card of cost X and gain a card with a cost less then X.
Trash - Move a card to one of the following areas depending on where the card originated from:

If it is a starter card, remove it from the game.
If it is a Basic Character card, move it to its pile on Starbase.
If it is a card that started in the Starbase Deck, move it to the Starbase Discard Area.
If it is a Borg Card, move it to the Borg Card Pile

Thanks I hadn't seen that glossary.  Just the star fleet academy I wasn't sure since it said 'Upgrade a card on the bridge or in your hand' i assumed the card simple changed placed with the new card.

"Upgrade a card on the bridge or in your hand," would fall under the general answer that is given in the glossary. When you upgraded the card from your bridge, you would trash it, and then gain a card (into your discard) from the Starbase


text:
Star Trek: Deck Building - Experience and Stats Pool
If an Exploration card requires experience to defeat does that mean that experience cannot be used for buying cards from the Starbase?  Since you can perform multiple buys I was treating the experience as a pool, played characters add to the pool, purchases remove from the pool.
What about 2 missions which say 'requires Attack +4', Can I complete them both with a total attack of 5?

No, you only need to meet the goals on an exploration card to acquire the card and move it to your Points Area. The rules clearly indicate that you don't have to spend experience to complete missions. You should treat experience as a pool though. When you spend experience to gain cards from the Starbase or to repair damage, that experience isn't available for purchasing any other cards or repairing other damage. The glossary doesn't define what it means by spend, but this is clearly the intent.
This is covered in the Rulebook.

Q.The Mission I want to complete, has a goal of 6+ XP, do I have to spend 6 XP to
  complete it?
A. No, you just need to have cards in your Bridge that combine to 6 or more XP. That XP
  can be spend for other things as usual.

Yes, you only need 4+ Attack to complete the goals of those missions. Normally, you only get one Explore per turn though.

GOAL - This is the criteria that must be met to acquire this card and move it to your Points Area
Perform 1 Explore - The Space Deck contains several different cards that you must
  obtain to gain Mission Points and win the game. To explore, you flip over the top card of the Space Deck and proceed based on the type of card flipped (See page 15 for Exploring the Space
     Deck). This can be performed multiple times if you get
  additional  explores.


text:
Choosing early round paintings to auction in Modern Art
One game that still leaves me stumped for good strategy is Reiner Knizia's auction game Modern Art.  The last time it hit our table, I noticed that when it was my turn to auction a painting early in the round, I had no clue which of my paintings to select first.

Do you play cards of an artist that you have fewer of (hoping someone will buy it because they have some to sell as well), or one you have a lot of (and run the risk that nobody else is interested in it)?
How much is the artist tiebreak worth thinking about?  If all else is equal, sure, play a Lite Metal over a Krypto, but is it more important than that?
What kind of auction do you play?  I would think that an open auction would generate the most interest, but is that the case, and is it worth worrying about?
Do you play a double painting to saturate the market, or do you hold out and try to cash the double in later, hopefully as the third and fourth painting of the round?
In later rounds, how much do the carryover values from the previous rounds matter?  Sure, they are worth more, but conversely there are less of them left to sell and people may not be interested anymore?

Does anyone have a better feel for this game, and can provide some insight?  I'd love to have a couple rules of thumb ready for when I play this game next.

There are no hard and fast rules about Modern Art, as so much depends on the mentality of the fellow players.  However, general rules of psychology, bidding games, and trading can help.
To start with consider these things:
1) The threat of being out-bid is more powerful than outbidding someone.  This means you always want to have more money than your fellow players.  Too often newer players will buy up paintings that will score early, then allow the remaining players to get the same artists at lower prices (since they're out of money).  Try playing with losing every auction first round, to see how it feels to be really rich.  With this strategy, you'll want to end round one as quickly as possible.
2) Don't overpay.  It sounds simple, but there's an opportunity cost (to buy something else) whenever you buy something.  Here's some math to estimate prices.  In an optimal game, every round consists of 3 artists only in proportions of 5/4/4 (=13) with an aggregate 'price' of 5*30 + 4*20 + 4*10 = 270 / 13 = ~20.  This means all things equal, don't pay more than 20 for a card, first round.
3) Keep track of # of remaining artist cards!  This is a game of psychology.  It's important to know what your opponents are likely to have in the their hand.  Likewise, keep track of your opponent's play styles over rounds or multiple games.
4) Tips on auctions:

In Free Auctions, psychology tells us that players tend to overbid.  This is due to 'loss aversion' and the mistaken belief that you're denying an opponent something he wants.  Try to bid up your opponent, if you have the guts, to make him outbid you and pay too much.
In one-round auctions, you have the advantage as the auctioneer if and only if you have a big pile of cash (see #1 above).  If the last player bids too high, let him have it, else take it for yourself.
In secret auctions, players are trying to read each other, and tend to overbid because they think that adding 'just a few extra' will win them the auction.  Try lowballing these auctions just in case someone gives up with nothing (bidding nothing is a terrible idea)
The fixed price auction is your best opportunity to play strategically.  Only play one of these when you know an opponent will overpay.  No one will let you buy it too low, so never offer these under-value (unless you have ALL the money).
The dual auctions are wonderful ways to grab art.  Try using it only late in the round with the one-round auction.  If you have a pile of cash no doubt this is an opportunity to get a lot cheap, or get a pile of money for next round.

To answer your specific bullet points:

As for which artist to play, you want to 'team-up' with a specific other player.  A win for you and one other player means a relative gain against two other players (assuming a 4 player game).  Concurrently, this means that you play cards already in play and hoard artists that haven't been seen yet (they will later).
The artist tie-break is game balance, but doesn't quite fully balance things.  The artists with the more cards are therefore slightly more valuable.
Play most auctions to well-below value, and play the one-rounds to win as auctioneer.
Doubles are more powerful later in the rounds, but only if you have a cash advantage.
4 rounds * 3 winners per round / 5 artists = 2.4   So, each artist, on average places 2-3 times a game.  That's quite significant.  Keep track of the artist and place: if the 12-card artist places first, forget about him scoring the rest of the game, but if the 16-card artist places 2nd or 3rd, that's a good bet to try to win in subsequent rounds.

Hope that helps!

Quick question about your point about one-round auctions (and auctions in general).  I've always played that you should never buy your own auctions (unless the price is ridiculously low), since it's so easy to make a guaranteed profit.  Even in a scenario where you sell a painting for 16 that cashes in for 30, you've made 16, the buyer made 14, and everyone else makes 0.  If you had bought it for 16, you'd make only the 14 while everyone else makes 0.  Is this the right way to look at this?  How aggressive should you be in your own auctions?

Buying your own auctions is tricky, since the price needs to be lower to count the opportunity cost of (1) not getting the money from your opponent (2) having your opponent lose the money.  When I said 'big pile of cash' above, I'm assuming that you have enough control of cash that your opponent isn't bidding anywhere near value

Buying your own art is good for you but bad for the rest. So the other players will not allow that and will bid to prevent you from buying your own art.
Here's your post in numbers. Player A puts up an auction.
![enter image description here
If you are player B, what situation would you prefer to be in?
Obviously in the situation where you bought the art because now you're 14 points ahead of C and only 2 points behind A, which is much better than being 14 points behind A and having no advantage over C if you let A buy his own art.


text:
Is it practical for the visually-impaired to play in casinos?
When I play games (causally) that involve face-up cards across a table (hold 'em, blackjack, etc), I usually have to either ask that the cards be placed closer to the center (toward me), particualrly at larger tables, in order to see them.  I can imagine that this would be an imposition, and perhaps even barred, in a casino setting.  And I imagine that even if I could ask that cards be announced when dealt (I don't know if that's possible), that I wouldn't be able to take notes to record them so I'd have to memorize the table every hand.
Are those impressions correct?  If so, what affordances are available to visually-impaired players?  Or is this just one of those cases of "sorry, don't try to do that"?
(I ask this question out of curiosity, not out of an impending desire to jump into casinos, for which I'm not good enough.)

This is also one of the main reasons I stopped playing M:tG (where I did actually play in a couple tournaments) -- asking to see the cards was annoying the other players.  And the tables there are usually smaller than casino poker tables; on the other hand, casinos may be more interested than M:tG tournaments in helping me give them my money. :-)

I always read the card I play when i play M:tG and my group always had a unwritten rule that any card could be inspected at any time if it was face up on the table. No matter how many times it was asked to be seen. We are all near sighted :)

The people I've played with don't mean to be mean or anything, but especially when there are a lot of cards on the table, it can be hard to track -- wait, is that available blocker card A or card B with similar colors in the art?

@Pow-Ian That's actually a written rule. "Players may refer to Oracle text, either electronically or in paper form, at any time. They must do so publicly and
in a format (such as gatherer.wizards.com, other official Wizards of the Coast sources, or printouts of their
sources) which contains no other strategic information. If a player wishes to view Oracle text in private, he or she
must ask a judge." I know you were referring to kitchen-table magic, not tournament magic, but still the spirit applies.

In MTG, you are also allowed to take notes (though you can't bring notes in with you into the game except those corsiKa mentioned).

How far away from standard cards can you sit and still read them?

@TomPanning, it depends on the card, but about two feet (a little more "obvious" cards like aces).  Face cards are hardest because all you get is the text in the corner, while on other cards you can see a pattern of pips.  (Sorry for the delay; I didn't get a notification for your comment.)

When dealing blackjack, a (legally mandated) rule required all scores to be announced, partly for this exact reason.
You would hear the current total for the current active hand, which the dealer would also be pointing to, and can ask for the dealer's card to be stated at any time. A busy table might lead to impatience with constantly calling out all cards and you would be limited to the single statement of each one. But on a slower table or when you're the only player, dealers are happy to help out in small ways as there is much more time available to do so.
When dealing poker, we would often reserve a seat for those players who have low eyesight directly across from the dealer, both in cash and in tournament, where it is the least distance to see the cards and where they are laid out directly in front of the player.
Anything that wouldn't be stated for another player won't be stated for you, but any bet or raise amounts can be given, cards can be read off the board, active players can be indicated.
Generally, a good casino will reduce barriers that stop you playing and spending your money - blind or not, your dollars are worth the same. A great casino will go beyond legal requirements in small ways like the aforementioned seating or reading of cards, and will pay special attention to any issue you have, regardless of whether your disability is a factor in that issue - giving and being seen to give excellent service is the casino's best advertisement. A bad casino won't care - you'll quickly figure out whether you're in one and can leave shortly afterward.

If you play table games like blackjack, I don't think you'd have any trouble (although since only a card counter would want to know other people's cards, don't expect any help there. ;)).
In Hold-'em poker, some seats are definitely better than others; the cards generally go right in front of the dealer, so if you can get the seat directly in front of the dealer you'd probably be fine, and you might be able to make do with the seats on either side of the dealer depending on how small the tables are. I suspect that in the worst case you could tell the floor that you can only play in the center seat, and see how well they can accommodate you. If the room's even halfway decent they'll try to take care of you.

It's been generally true, but particularly since the passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act in 1990, that casinos will make "reasonable efforts" to accommodate the disabled. This is perhaps more true in the East Coast, which had a strong civil rights tradition going back to the 1970s (New Jersey casinos can't bar suspected "card counters" but they can shuffle up after them) than in the West (in Nevada, it's a felony to use a computer to play casino games).
"Reasonable efforts" may consist of giving you good seats (either next to, or across from the house dealer), rather than at the ends. At the minimum, it would consist of the dealer announcing "your cards" (your two cards and his upcard in blackjack, the five "board" cards in holdem).
With some practice, you should be able to recall the three or five cards that have been "announced" to you in blackjack or holdem (have a practice session before each casino visit), and it will actually make you a better player. What little I have read on this subject in books suggests that most disabled players are "above average" after they overcome their initial handicap, because they're more sensitive to what else is going on. Also, opponents tend to underestimate them.


text:
How can I teach kids how to play Battleship?
I like playing Battleship, and I would like to teach my nieces to play.  What's a good, simple strategy to teach someone new to Battleship?  In my particular case they are 8-12.

Teach them two things:

Don't let your ships touch each other.
Don't let your ships touch the sides.

By doing that, no matter where a ship is hit, there are at least two adjacent places to target that will be misses.
Children less familiar with spatial concepts might take longer to place their ships, but there's also a lot of flexibility given those rules, so one niece could put all her ships facing the same direction while another one could have them alternating back and forth across the board.
It may be useful to remember that there is a difference between teaching the game itself and teaching the game as you or someone else might play it. There will be time to teach them more specific strategies later if they become interested in the game and also show interest in strategic thinking; with this in mind, pay attention to how they respond to what you teach. If one niece doesn't seem interested in planning, let her put her ships where she likes. If another one questions you right away as you explain how to set up your ships – "But if I do that, you'll know what I'm doing!" – then you could probably go straight into more advanced techniques with her.

If you know that no ship touches the side though then they must be within a smaller rectangle.  Make sure that no ship touches the side of that rectangle... It's like the surprise test paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surprise_test_paradox

Not really ... the idea is to create space around each ship. There's no need to make a bounding rectangle or to shrink it. Anyway, most basic strategies are going to have weaknesses once you learn your opponent is using them; that has to be put aside when you're teaching. More complex strategies can be discussed later if they like ... but some people never care to get to that point, and that's OK too.

I agree that any simple strategy is going to have a weakness, but if you're playing against someone and you know that none of their ships touch the side, then you have a big advantage.  The paradox reference was that you're trying to surprise the opponent by avoiding the edge case, but if they know what you're trying to do then you have a new edge case. :-)

This is basic strategy, though. Once they understand how that applies to Battleship (if they get to that point; not all kids want to), then you can talk about the consequences of repeatedly using a specific strategy against the same opponent. I edited my answer to reflect that.

In terms of finding ships, instead of placing them, try teaching the concept of sub-dividing spaces, diagonally.   Start with a simple X shape on the board, then proceed to making other angular lines within the shapes.  You can use the trick of "try to place a ship inside this pattern and see how hard it is" to prove the point.

I use Battleships as a teaching tool in my English Foreign Language classes, so I've developed a simple way to teach the game to my teenage students. I'd recommend breaking the game into steps, something like this:

Start with a real world example. "This is a game about ships at sea. They can't see each other, so they use maps to try and hit their target."
Explain the different ships. I wouldn't go into too much detail at first. "You each have one long ships that takes five spaces...".
Help them set up the board. If you're playing on graph paper, draw out an example.
Show them an example round. This should include missing, hitting and sinking of ships.
Let them play. Watch the game and see if they understand.

By playing they will learn to develop their own strategies, which will make it more enjoyable to them. Don't teach them strategies, because they'll be less likely to want to play more often. They'll be watching you, so that will inform their decisions in future games.


text:
How to speed up a game of Empire Builder?
Are there any rules variants that I can use to speed up a game of Empire Builder?  I love playing Empire Builder, but the fact that it takes so long tends to put off some of my friends.

Do you have this problem with other members of the crayon-rail-game family too, or is it just this one?

@Monica Cellio, while i have Eurorails at home as well this is the only one we've played.

Questions about house rules should be based on experience rather than speculation and should ask for the same per this meta question, otherwise they tend to end up as discussion questions.

One dis-recommendation: don't lower the amount of money for the win condition.  The game advances through phases from initial building (limited range) to networking to running those few big deals that are finally possible late in the game.  By reducing the win condition you'd be cutting out that last phase and that can be a lot of fun.
Tested recommendations:

Setup: alphabetize the goods if you haven't already so "banking" is fast.  This is huge, as otherwise looking through a bunch of different goods with tiny pictures is a pain.
Check BoardGameGeek for player aids.  It can be hard to study the map to plan your move without getting in the way of the active player, but a copy of the map can help (not so much with detailed track planning, but with "where the heck is $city on this map?" planning.  Granted that should be less of a problem on a map of one's own country, but it still helps.)  Similarly, make sure everybody has the "where does this good come from?" card for planning.
Increase starting money by 20 and add one more round of initial building.  I've tried this a few times with Iron Dragon with experienced players.  The effect was to increase the value of those first early runs, thus jump-starting track building.  It didn't make a huge difference in elapsed time (maybe 10%), but it did cut down on the early feelings of angst and futility that can come with unfortunate cards.)

Untested ideas:

Allow each player some small number of "I hate this card" redraws, without the cost of a full-round flush.  I would limit this to the early stages of the game -- maybe up to three uses while your money remains under 100.  The idea is to soften those "aw, crap, I guess I could go there for 10" runs that don't really help you except to flush the card.
If time is being lost because inexperienced players can't plan their turns in advance, consider some scheme for parallel turns.  Play is largely non-interactive, after all.  Maybe a player and the one opposite him at the table can go at the same time so long as they aren't competing for the same pip, goods token, etc?  (If so, turn order wins.)

I don't think any of these would damage the spirit of the game, unlike, say, removing some calamities from the deck would.

found a good forum post on boardgamegeek: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1263799/tighter-and-quicker-game

We own several versions and editions of the crayon rail games in my house.  In each one that we have, there is a "Variants" section of the rules.  One of the variants we always play with is the fast game.  It has 5 main effects that I can think of offhand:

Increases starting cash by $20
Adds one additional pre-movement turn
Gives you 5 initial demand cards, and you must discard 2 after the third building turn
Increases the speed of the trains (9 to 12, 12 to 16, half 6 and 8 respectively)
Nullifies the "Rail Tax" card

Another official variant that can help is the mercy rule.  The mercy rule allows you to "borrow" from the bank, but you must repay double the next time you get money.  This allows you to spend that extra $10 to build track to get that $55 payoff.
Between those two rules, our games tend to go smoothly and rather fast (usually 1.5 - 2 hours for 2 players, add 30 minutes per extra player).
It seems funny to me that each of the ideas had been mentioned in some fashion in another answer, but nobody mentioned the official variant.

The answer to this depends a lot on why the game is taking you so long to play.  We had been suffering from the same problem, and the main reason is because we have one player who is just an incredibly slow thinker.  He often took over 15 minutes just to make one move.
Over time, we made a lot of small changes to the game to reduce the amount of information this one player needed to process:

we use fast trains (they move 12 and 16 instead of 9 and 12).
we use the fast ferry option.
we use card racks (similar to the tile racks you use in Scrabble) so that players cannot see each other's cards.  This way, Slowpoke doesn't waste time looking at anything but his own cards.
we used to play with a three-card "clearinghouse" -- that's what we called the publicly shared contracts that players could complete.  Originally, we had an optional rule that you could spend the second half of your turn trading one of your cards for one from the clearinghouse.  We dropped that rule so that Slowpoke couldn't spend time staring at the options in the clearinghouse, and replaced it with a rule where you could trade out an unwanted card for the top card of the deck, sight unseen.

The rule change that ultimately resulted in us significantly speeding up the pace of the game was one I read about in another game forum:  "defer all drawing of cards until the end of your turn."  That means when you make a delivery, you do NOT immediately replace the card;  instead, you continue operating your train, picking up loads, moving it along your track, and even making another delivery if you can.  At the end of your movement phase, you execute the second half of your turn, building track or upgrading your train.  Then and only then do you draw one or more cards to replace any completed deliveries.
This change has several interesting effects:

on the down side, you can't plan your train movement, your load selection, and your building based on what new card you draw until your next turn.
on the plus side, the thing that takes the most time in the game is looking at one or more new cards -- and since this is now the last thing that happens on your turn, you do this during the next player's turn, not during your own turn.  The game marches on while you examine your new cards.
also on the plus side:  if you draw any event cards, you reconcile them as usual.  However, if an event causes you to lose a turn, you only lose your next turn.  You don't lose "the remainder of this turn" in addition to your next turn.  This seems a little more fair.

Once we implemented this rule change, we easily shaved over half an hour from our game time.

This isn't really a house rule per se, but it's especially helpful in speeding up the game when playing on a new board (or unfamiliar one).
Whenever a new demand card is drawn, read off and find all of the cities as quickly as possible. Everyone "competes" to find and point out each city first. This helps everyone learn the map better, as well as whomever just drew the card evaluate which (if any) demand to attempt to fulfill.

We find the disaster and taxation cards prolong the game unnecessarily. Remove them before play starts.

Untested, but I don't think it would be too disastrous: increase the speed of the trains.  Instead of 9 and 12, try 12 and 15.
The idea is that you'll get where you are going in less turns, so your game should take less turns.
Possible problems: You might not be able to build track at the beginning fast enough to keep your train in motion.  If a bridge disaster catches you, you'll spend more "movement time" waiting to get to rebuild.  And ferries become more costly to use, as the "half movement" penalty is now half of a bigger number.

I don't understand the ferry point.  You still get to move farther than you would have; yes it's half-cost, but it's half of a bigger number.  With a smaller train your move would have ended before you got that far.

I was thinking about the fact that when you move into the ferry post, you forfeit your remaining move points (which will be a bigger number).

12 and 16 works better -- keeps the benefit of the train upgrade the same (+33%)

Build First, then Move train
This can speed up a game a decent amount, for several reasons.

Theoretically you've spent the whole round thinking about where to build, so when it comes to your turn you're ready.
Since you build before moving, any new loads you get after making deliveries you'll can think about between turns instead of them changing your plans.
You can move your train right up to the end of the track much more safely leading to less wasted movement.

For a 30min to 1hr game:
1) don't use train cards
2) remove ALL bad cards, just use cargo cards
3) start with $100,000
4) can always borrow any amount, repay double what you borrow, payable anytime before game ends
5) draw $20,000 Per turn, no more, ocean space is $3
6) trains always move (if possible) Up to 20 spaces per turn
7) use 4 cargo cards at a time, can place any 1 cargo on each card
.... Can carry cargo not on available on card
8) create 4 draw piles....
9) if u don't like your cards, you must redraw 4 new cards..
... Put each unused card under the stack you draw a new card from
10) the only cargo cards that are discarded and out of play are the ones you've used (delivered cargo and got paid) - unwanted unused cards get recycled
A solitary version takes 5min to play, above rules but don't use a train marker, draw tracks and collect on a card immediately if you are connected to source and destination.

The rules that our group currently use are as follows:

You start building from a major city (like before). In subsequent build turns you build from existing track. Yes, you pay the 5M to enter a new major city. Each player starts with 5 contract cards and picks their favorite 3. After this, each player holds 3 contract cards.
At the start, your current train can deliver one contract per turn.
When you connect a source with a destination, you are able to collect your money.
During your build phase, you can either build track or upgrade your train for a cost of 20M. If you upgrade your train, you can now deliver 2 contracts per turn instead of one. You can upgrade your train to be able to deliver all three contracts.
Remove all event cards (if desired). If you keep the event cards, then derailments prevent deliveries or pickups from the cities listed.
If you run on another players track, you pay this player 1M per 2 dots on their track round up. If you do, this counts towards the 20M limit for building. I.E. you cannot ride on another's track and upgrade your train in the same turn.
Play ends at 500M instead of 250M. You still need the cities. Each player gets to finish out their last turn. This gives the last player a chance to catch up (and sometimes win).

I’m late to this thread, so please forgive me if someone else has already mentioned this option:
HIGH-SPEED TRACK.
Between three or more “clear“ mileposts (no mountain mileposts or those associated with river or ocean-inlet crossings) that you have already built track between, for $1 million per section, you can upgrade track to high-speed by erasing the single lines and drawing in two parallel lines. Once that is done, you or anyone renting that track can skip over the middle mile post connecting each pair of high-speed track sections when you/they move along that track. In other words, you can move at double speed.
Note that you must build high-speed track two sections at a time, so it costs a minimum of $2M to upgrade existing track. If you’re building new track and you want it to be high-speed to begin with, it will cost a minimum of $4M (2 sections of high speed rail).
This isn’t just a game hack; it has real-world parallels (pun intended). One thing that slows long-haul trains down is when two trains traveling in opposite direction on a single track are approaching the same point at the same time. One of them has to pull off onto a siding and wait for the other one go by. Parallel tracks eliminate this problem.
My railroading friends and family like this better than increasing the speed of all trains (9to12, 12to15) for two reasons:

The fast train option gives the player with lucky cards at the beginning of the game a big advantage. If you can pick up and deliver a pair of medium-value cargo loads quickly, right at the start of the game, it can make you pretty hard to beat.
The high-speed track option adds a fairly complex layer of strategy, and a bit of gambling excitement, and it makes renting each other’s track more tempting. Think of it: how often do you actually rent track from someone else? Not often, right? However, if they have a fairly long stretch of high-speed track across the High Plains, or the Southwest, or to a city with a high-value commodity in a remote location, it can be very tempting if you can accomplish a pick up or delivery twice as fast (and for a lot less money) by renting another player’s high-speed track instead of building your own track. It can often mean the difference between delivering your load during your current turn or having to wait until your next turn. Also, recall that track rental is $4M-per-turn. If player1 has high-speed track that allows player2 to use the track, pick up or deliver a load, and get off the rented track, all in one turn, saving player2 $4 million…?

A variation to this variation is: it can be stipulated that you can’t make track “high-speed” (by paying an extra $1M per section) while you are initially laying it down. My group has found that this restriction is not necessary, and it’s not realistic, anyway: if you have the vision that it will be worth it, and you have the money, you would do it, right? The standard restriction of spending A maximum of $20M per turn makes building long sections of high-speed track a multi-turn process, anyway.
Also, since there is no prohibition against players making deals with each other, and track rental is on a per-turn basis, we have found that it’s sometimes worthwhile to pay to upgrade another player’s track to high-speed, so that one can use it and get off of it in a single turn. Surprisingly, this has often been useful late in the game, because the owner of the track never gets the opportunity to use their own track that another player upgraded. Of course, the owner of the track can decline the offer of upgrade.


text:
What happens if an alliance is created that would create an illegal battle?
In Rex: Final Days of an Empire, it is possible for the following sequence of events to occur:

Sol Offensive is revealed as the Influence card and affects a zone occupied by the Sol player's troops (allowing him to move said to anywhere on the board).
The Sol player places some number of troops in a space occupied by another player (e.g. Letnev, but it is irrelevant).
The Sol Offensive is completed otherwise, and a second Influence card is revealed as a Temporary Cease Fire.
The Sol player and the Letnev player (who would otherwise have battled) now form an alliance.

Now, the placement of the Sol player's troops is illegal (the rules state you cannot place troops in a space occupied by an ally's troops). According to the rules (or an official ruling or FAQ), what should be done?

Heh, I don't know this game but I'm very amused by this complex game state and the discussions it is generating on the internet.  I take it you're aware of this thread: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=259&efcid=1&efidt=625730?

I actually hadn't seen it, no, but the option (mentioned therein) we've been using previously was "If the two players ally, then the Sol player must immediately move that army again, as though the Sol Offensive card had just come up." It's just a house rule, though.

@thesunneversets You might have heard of the original. It's quite famous as a great game for cutthroat screw-jobs.

Fantasy Flights did publish a FAQ and Errata that covers this issue:

Q: What happens in the rare circumstance that two
  players have units in the same space when a “Temporary
  Ceasefire” Influence card is drawn?
A: Since allied players can never have units in the same
  space, these players are forbidden from forming an alliance
  at this time.

Apparently there are not yet any errata to clarify this issue, but a couple of house rule options leap to mind:

Your house rule seems like a good one. Since it must follow a Sol Offensive, re-moving the Sol units (i.e. changing the move that had just been made) seems to result in the fewest extra changes to the game
You could disallow alliances between players that occupy the same space. This might be a little harsh, but it's by far the easiest to enforce, and since the Sol player was attacking anyway, they won't be too often worried about being refused this option!
The suggestion I'd be tempted to make if it came up in a game I was playing (which it hasn't) is that the alliance is allowed, on the requirement that the pieces don't still occupy the same space during the battle phase (i.e. one of the players must move during their movement). You could require that agreeing this is a requirement of forming an alliance. If neither player moves, then the alliance is void because offensive troops were not removed from an ally's area (which works thematically too). Since players only get one move, forming this alliance would cost one of them a fair part of their turn, which might be too high a cost to form the alliance, but as long as the parties are aware of this I don't think this is a problem.

Three excellent suggestions here; all good rules and thematically appropriate.  +1.