text:
Strategy for succeeding at Crisis skill checks
I've played my first real BSG game last week with three players and the humans got wiped out before we even jumped once...
I did some calculations to figure out if things get easier or harder with more players. What I found out made me wonder how player manage to beat the crisis cards at all.
Average difficulty of a crisis is 9.95 points.
Average value of a skill card is 2.14 points.
Average chance of a skill check in a crisis card is 58.6%.
Every human player gets 5 cards in his turn.
Every cylon player gets 2 cards in his turn (when revealed).
Assuming every card can be put to good use in a skill check we can calculate the amount of points the humans can field and the amount of points the cylons can field in every full round (where every player had his turn). The difference is the amount of points in favor of the humans. That divided by the number of players and 58.6% is the amount of points in favor of the humans per skill check.
Depending on the number of players/cylons the points in favor of the humans are:
2:1 ...  9.75
3:1 ... 11.89
2:2 ...  5.49
3:2 ...  8.05
4:2 ...  9.75
3:3 ...  5.49

Aside from the best case scenario at 3:1 there is no situation where it reaches the average of 9.95 points per skill check. The destiny deck is roughly balanced (average of -0.1 points per check) so we can ignore this.
Conclusion: Aside from somehow drawing more cards the humans cannot win every skill check even if they were to play their cards perfectly.
Question:
So how should the humans approach the skill checks on the crisis cards to win as much as possible?
Option 1: Discuss which ones to fail and which ones to beat. Doesn't work so well since the cylons will also know when they need to fight a check and when they can save their cards. Thus the ratio of cards remains the same.
Option 2: Use XO's exclusively to draw additional cards. One additional card per turn would be enough statistically.
Option 3: Try to undercut every crisis just a little in the hopes that the destiny deck will make at least some of them pass...
Other Options?

Could you elaborate on how exactly the Humans lost so quickly? I've never seen the Humans lose that fast and am having a hard time imagining how it could happen. Did you lose through resources, Galactica being destroyed, boarding...?

How did you arrive at these numbers?  Not all skill checks take the same color combinations and not all combinations occur with the same probability, so it seems like you couldn't boil things down to just an average strength value.

True, but since the different colors only make it harder for the humans and make it somewhat harder for the cylons too I decided to ignore this aspect and assume that everyone just draws the perfect mixture of cards.

In our games we frequently don't attempt to pass some crises - either because we're pretty sure we don't have the cards to do it (so why waste what we do have) - or because the Fail result of the Crisis isn't that bad.
Using XOs in general is good, of course, and the humans should use them wherever possible - I wouldn't use them exclusively to draw cards, but on occasion that's useful.
There are also a few extra ways to manipulate skill checks:

Declare Emergency can lower the difficulty of a skill check by 2
Boomer can auto-pass a skill check once per game

So you concur that the humans have to pick their battles?

Yeah, definitely. Taking a hit on your highest dial is usually pretty safe, for example.

Crisis Deck Management
You haven't put much emphasis on crisis deck management, which is important.

You can scout to bottom deck crisis cards.
Roslin can select one crisis out of two on her turn.
Boomer gets to see the next crisis before it is revealed.

All of these abilities can mitigate the damage caused by failing a crisis.
Track Destiny
You can keep track of destiny, so you can avoid playing when its stacked against you.
Evil and clever brig hack
If you can get around the players personal objections to this, having a player (even human) in the bring increases the number of skill cards drawn per crisis.
Imagine everyone is in the brig.  Then you can cycle through the skill deck, getting all of the best cards into players hand before ever having a crisis check.

Ah, but every player in the brig maxes out at 5 contribution to skill checks since they can only put in one card. I think you make the situation worse in that case.

Everyone in the brig -> no crisis checks.  All but one in the brig means you'll have Investigate Committee and Declare Emergencies flowing, and everyone in the brig able to make an average contribution of say, 3 or 4 per crisis.  As long as the solo free player is a not a Cylon, and you can convince people to stay in the brig, Crises will be a breeze.

All but one character in the big seems like a really dangerous situation. You'd have to be pretty sure the player is not a cylon. Otherwise it's an intriguing move. Also you're right with the scouting. You could basically just skip the hard ones and have cards to spare... Totally forgot about that.

I think this strategy only works when there are no Cylons yet (prior to Sleeper Agent phase), or if the Cylons play rather poorly, especially if you are using the Pegasus expansion. Having all but one person in the brig (turtling, we call it), helps when things are looking grim for the Humans. But, it's bad when things are under control, because you don't get as many actions to do useful things. The other problem is that it's difficult to get people out of the brig once the Cylons do start showing up. If you're using Pegasus, all those people in the brig are sitting ducks for the Air Lock.

Pretty sure that proposing the evil and clever brig hack in game just convinces all the other players that you are the cylon

I don't know if there's a flaw in your analysis somewhere (I don't see one at first glance) or not, but it doesn't seem to reflect my experience with the game (and I've played a lot, though I haven't played a 4 or 3-player game in a while). In my experience, the Humans usually don't have much trouble passing checks. In fact, we usually way overshoot what we need. The only time we start thinking "should we just let this check fail" is when things start to get really desperate, which usually only happens about twice a game.
So I guess I wouldn't recommend any of your options as a standard course of action. I've found that it usually isn't too hard for the Humans to pass most checks.
Since this was only your first game, I suggest playing a couple more times to see if you have similar results. It may have been a fluke. I have to say I've never seen the Humans lose anywhere near that fast.

Well, my analysis only concerns itself with the endgame where all cylons are in their own fleet and no longer have to maintain their cover. Our game had 5 attack crisis during the first 10 turns and after 3 skill checks I knew who was the cylon. So most of our game was played in this situation...

Wow, 5 attacks in the first 10 turns is ridiculously unlucky.

I would like to hear more about your experience in that regard. Do you feel it's easy before and after all cylons are revealed. How often did you play?

@Kempeth I've played a couple dozen times. I wouldn't say it's easy to pass all skill checks, but the humans pass the majority of them (60-70%, I'd guess). And yes, that's both before and after the Cylons are revealed. I should point out that I usually play 6-7 player games. It's probably a little easier to pass checks with that many, because the skill checks don't scale up with the number of players (one thing that may be a small flaw in the game). It certainly gets harder when there are multiple nasty crises in a row. BTW, 5 attack cards in 10 turns is pretty brutal.

Your data is fine, but your conclusion is flawed.  You're right that total card effort for skill checks is below total skill checks on a per-skill check basis.  However, you're failing to see that failing a single check through card conservation allows a pool which makes the next several checks succeed.
Let's use your example of 4 humans and 2 cylons.  You show 9.75 points possible (per check) with a difficulty of 9.95 per check.  Let's simplify the numbers and say that the players all together can amass 9 points per check, but the difficulty is 10.
If the players tried their best every check, they'd always get 9, and the difficulty each time would be 10, and they'd always fail.
However, let's say the players completely skip the first skill check, and suffer then consequences.  What happens?  For check #2, they STILL HAVE the points/cards from the first check.  So now, they have 18 collectively (they drew 9 more each turn), they spend 10, and pass check #2. Now for check #3, they have 17, they spend 10, and have 7 left.  Check #3 they have 16 total, spend 10, pass, etc.
So by skipping one check they can succeed at all of the next 8 checks.
Most of the time, in real game pay, the players experience this in reverse (overspending on the first few, and running out at about check #9), but the math is the same either way.
Make sense?

I am completely aware of this aspect and as a matter of fact the first option I presented is the logical conclusion to it.

The number of players does not directly change the difficulty of the game.  I feel like i makes it easier to play with less just because there is less stuff to track.
This happens because the amount of cards drawn in total by all players directly balances out to the number of crisis that happen.  More players have a wider variety of cards but not more than less.
The cylons cannot poison every check.  In fact they must often help out.  It is very easy to figure out who is responsible if someone just keeps contributing negative cards.  Once they humans have identified the cylon using executive actions victory becomes easy if a lot of damage was not already done.
A good way to pass a check without throwing a lot of effort is to let only one person contribute cards if they say they can.  If anyone does not do it and adds cards anyway they are most likely a cylon.  If the one person clearly does not make an effort to pass, it is only one loss and then you know who the cylon is.


text:
Does War Stomp exhaust me before I am the defender?
This question is related to the World of Warcraft Trading Card Game.
I have a Hunter, no allies out, and in my hand is a Frost Trap.

My opponent attacks with Himul Longstrider, who has War Stomp. He wants to target my hero with the War Stomp power.

Will my hero be exhausted before I am able to pay the cost of Frost Trap?  Put another way, does War Stomp exhaust my hero before my hero is "defending," thus preventing me from paying its cost by exhausting my hero?

Yes.
According to answers on the wowtcg.com forums, War Stomp triggers in two different places, depending on whether the character with War Stomp is attacking or defending.

If attacking, then War Stomp triggers at the beginning of the Attack Window, just after the attacker exhausts for that attack.
  Since this happens before the Protect Point, you can exhaust a protector before they can protect with it.
If defending, then War Stomp triggers at the beginning of the Defend Window, just after the Protect Point.
  You cannot use War Stomp while defending to stop the current attack, but you can exhaust another character to stop them from attacking that turn."

The upshot of this is that when you are attacked by an ally with War Stomp, the attacker can exhaust your hero before the Protect Point, when you are still just the proposed defender. Since you're not yet the defender, you can't respond by exhausting your hero to pay Frost Trap's cost.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Does affecting an action card affect the Minion it has been played on?
Can an ongoing action card played on a minion be destroyed when an action played on a base is preventing minions from being affected?
For example:
A minion has Tooth and Claw... and Guns applied to it.

Play on a minion. Ongoing: If an ability would affect this minion, destroy this card and the ability does not affect this minion.

If another player uses Disenchant on that minion,

Destroy an action that has been played on a minion or base.

Would Wildlife Preserve (played on that base) block this entirely?

Play on a base. Ongoing: Your minions here are not affected by other players' actions.

Does the play of the Disenchant destroy Tooth and Claw... and Guns and avoid the base card (Wildlife Preserve) since its play doesn't affect the minion?
Or, does this actually affect the minion by effectively "un-guarding" the minion?

Q: Does affecting an action card affect the Minion it has been played on?
A: No.
Q: Can an ongoing action card played on a minion be destroyed when an action played on a base is preventing minions from being affected?
A: Yes.
From the most recent rules (Pretty Pretty Smash Up), page 9:

Affect: A card is affected if it is moved, returned, destroyed, placed, or is changed in power or controller, or has an action attached.

Removing an action is none of these. Even if you were removing an action that gave +2 power, the action doing the removal isn't changing the the minion's power.

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


text:
Order of Operations on Actions
If a First Mate (power of 2) has been poisoned

[...] Ongoing: This minion has -4 power. (Minions have minimum power of 0.)

Also, if a Howl action card has been played

Each of your minions gains +1 power until the end of your turn.

How much power is the card worth after Howl has been played?
Is the +1 from Howl added before Poison? After Poison? Or are all modifiers added up at any given time during the turn?

(Base 2 - Poison 4 + Howl 1) = -1 –> Min of zero
(Base 2 - Poison 4 (Min of zero)) + Howl 1) = 1

Do cards with minimums apply before other actions, or do they adhere to the commutative property of addition?

Good point, updated to make more clear (hopefully)

As I've mentioned in the comments here, you add up the modifiers acting on the minion.

The power of a minion not in play is only the number printed on it, but once in play its power includes all modifications. Its power may never go below zero.

So you add up all the modifications, and if it's below 0 at the end, it's 0 instead. If a new modification comes in, you reevalute.


text:
Can a Tenacious Z be Played After Drawing Two Cards?
In the scenario where a player has 9 cards at the end of their turn and drawing two more cards gives them a Tenacious Z, can they discard it and play it if one hasn't already been played?
In step #5 of the rules, "Shut It Down", it states that:

Anything that happens at the end of the turn happens here. Play passes to the player on the left.

Since Tenacious Z is a special card, it also states:

Special: During your turn you many play this card from you discard pile as an extra minion. You may only use the ability of one Tenacious Z each turn.

Since a turn involves five steps, is this card still playable after drawing two more cards?

The answer is no, but I don't have time for a full answer right now. I'll come back to it later :)

I like @ryanyuyu's explanation below. I anxiously await your full answer since my initial thought process was also "no". :)

@ChrisMissal I regret that I am wrong.  I've deleted my answer.

No.
From the Pretty Pretty Smash Up rules, page 10:

On your turn: This means during the normal Play Cards phase of your turn.

The turn order is:

Start Turn
Play Cards (normal time for plays)
Score Bases
Draw 2 Cards (and then discard)
End Turn

By the time you're drawing and discarding, you've missed the window of opportunity for Tenacious Z's special. If it wanted to override this limitation, it would have to be explicit (e.g. "during any phase on your turn").

As a note, try to find the most recent expansion's rule whenever possible. They clarify confusing things from earlier games and always cover the whole set of rules.

Good catch.  I'll delete my erroneous answer.

@ryanyuyu Yeah, yours was a reasonable enough interpretation that they realised that had to clarify in the later rules :)


text:
Does the Thief card work for a dwarf with broken equipment in Saboteur 2?
The rules for Saboteur 2 specifically state that the Theft card does not work for a dwarf who is Trapped!. Does the Theft card work for a dwarf who is not Trapped! but who does have broken equipment?

Yes,
There is no reason per the rules to suspect that Theft does not work for someone who is trapped.  As one exception for Theft is explicitly listed (Trapped!), someone would need to make a compelling argument as to why broken equipment should keep Theft from working.


text:
What's the difference between a Euchre, a March and a Set?
I've heard of different terms for the same result in Euchre, but is it just preference or is there more to it?

Call trump and get all 5 tricks: Is this called a "March" and/or a "Euchre"?
Earn 3 or more tricks when the opposing team calls trump: Is this "Setting Them" and/or "Euchring Them"?

Calling and getting all five tricks is A March.
Calling trump and failing to get 3 tricks is called a Euchre.

This is the earliest reference I could find to Euchre, in Hoyle's 1845 edition.

This excerpt is from The Law and Practice of the Game of Euchre by Charles Henry Wharton Meehan.  Written in 1862, per Wikipedia, it is believed to be the oldest book dedicated to Euchre.

Hoyle's 2001 edition uses the same terms, as does Scarne's Encyclopedia of Card Games.  Card Games for Dummies does as well, however they use the terms "Marches or Sweeps" for getting all five tricks.
While I've heard the other two terms, it does not seem that they have entered common enough usage to be documented into any formal listing of rules.

This is how I've understood it:

Calling trump and getting all 5 tricks -- that is called a "March", although I've heard it called "getting a Euchre" which I feel is wrong, because of below.
Earn 3 or more tricks when opposing team calls trump -- If your opponent calls trump, and you get 3 or more tricks, you have "euchered" or "set" them, and they have been "set" or "euchred".  These are used interchangably from what I've ever seen.

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


text:
In Small World: Underground, do the Iron Dwarves keep their hammers from turn to turn?
We just played our first game of Small World: Underground, and we're not sure if we played the Iron Dwarves right.
The Iron Dwarves can get Silver Hammer tokens for occupying Mine regions, and it sounds like those hammer tokens are permanently gained, not used up when the dwarves use them for conquest.
The rules state:

Take your Silver
  Hammers back in hand and place them off the
  board, in front of you, where they will wait until
  the start of your next Conquest phase.

This sure sounds like they earn the 7 Hammers and then have 7 to use every turn as long as they feel like staying active.  We played it this way, but the Iron Dwarves dominated heavily because they were also Immortal.
If we played it correctly, my next question for BGSE is going to be: "How do you counter Immortal Iron Dwarves?"

Yes
You are playing this correctly.  Perusing the rules and the BGG forums (where the designer posts occasionally) there isn't any doubt that the hammers accumulate to their maximum of 7 every turn.
It is also noted that the races and particularly race/power combinations are not meant to be balanced in Small World: Underground.  Players should be expected to have to overpay when powerful combos show up and to be teamed up on in 3+ player games when they do get the powerful combo.


text:
What are good standard strategies for Carcassonne ?
I've only just discovered Carcassonne (thanks to the iPhone app), but I keep losing (in 3-player games).
Which standard strategies are there? (game without extensions, 3-4 players).
One strategy per answer please.

Strand your opponents Meeples
When you place a piece, of course try to make it advantageous to yourself.  But if you can, place it to hinder your opponent.  If he is trying to complete a city and you weren't able to figure out a way to share it, then place a tile next to the potential closing piece.  This will limit his options.  By slowing down the rate that his meeples return you will gain an advantage.
Often times, it is possible to leave an empty space that no tile can be placed in.  If your opponent has an unfinished city or road that connects to that empty space then his meeple will not be returning to his hand and will generate a sub-standard score.
There are 2 main empty squares that cannot be filled using pieces from only the base set.

There is no tile containing 1 road, 1 city, and 2 field sides.
There is no tile containing 1 road, 2 city, and 1 field sides.

With a little practice it is pretty easy to get this to work against even moderately experienced players.  I played a game online recently that followed this general sequence

My opponent had a couple pieces towards a city
I played a city tile with a meeple to try to encourage sharing the city.
He played another city+meeple to defend and was able to connect his 2 before I could share
I was able to complete my city while surrounding an empty square, making it unplayable.
As a bonus, he also had an unfinished road running into the empty square.

My opponent had 3 meeples stranded and it we were only 1/3rd of the way through the game!  He stood no chance to win the game at that point.

It is a good strategy, but IMHO a little unsporting. Although I suppose in iPhone Quickplay you're not exactly out to make friends...

@tunaranch - I play all games to win.  A few games/sports define sportsmanlike behavior, which I will then follow.  But if they don't, I feel free to do what it takes

Unsporting?  You might as well say that taking your opponent's pieces in chess is unsporting.

Put farmers on valuable farms
I find that if people are building smaller cities, then it's good to get farmers in early; you can monopolize the farms, and make a lot of points at the end. You need to be careful with this approach, as having your meeples locked up in farms means you can't use them later when you need them, but if there's a valuable enough farm to be had, then take it before someone else does.

I would add to this that it's critical to be able to visualize the boundaries of a farm.  Knowing how to share/steal someone else's farm (and protecting your own) can be worth a ton of points for little effort.

Once you're committed to a farm, continue to build as many small cities as possible on it

Share in other people's structures
If you can persuade other players that you're working with them on a structure (usually a city), then you can get all the points for half the effort.*
For example, in a three player game, if you score 10 point for a city with opponent A and 10 points for a different city with opponent B, then you score 20 points in total, leaving them on 10 points each.

* It's possible to put in less than half the effort - just one tile could suffice.

Use Meeples Efficiently
They're your only resource for scoring points, and they're a renewable resource.  A good starting point for your 7 meeples would be:

3 for long-term goals: cloisters, farms, and large cities
3 for short-term goals: roads and small cities
1 in reserve for instant scoring

Obviously, you have to tailor this for the game situation you're in.  The general idea is to avoid tying up too many meeples on things that won't net you many points.  Smaller roads and cities are easier to complete - score the points and put your meeple to work somewhere else.

Place your meeples so you'll get them back quickly
Try to maximise your meeples throughput i.e. don't place them on tiles where you won't see them again until the end of the game. My tips:

Cities that you you can complete easily. Avoid having two meeples in cities where you'll need the same tile type to complete them (unless you're hoping to steal some city points from someone else)
The same with roads: it's rarely worth having 2 on the go at once, since you'll very likely only be developing 1 at a time
Monastries are great for the start of the game, not always so good at the midpoint if you won't get the meeple back, but can be useful again in the last few moves
Don't worry much about farmers for the first quarter of the game until a few cities have taken shape.
Always keep one meeple for quick "place and score" wins, like 4-point cities and short roads

The basic principle is you want each meeple to do as much work as possible rather than being stranded on incomplete towns, roads and monastaries or farming an area that will never be developed.

My strategy for Carcassonne has always been to build reasonably big cities. It means that other players are not scoring as many points by farming, as there are fewer cities, plus big cities are very rewarding. I do try to finish cities with a reasonable time left to play however, to ensure other players don't disrupt the building, which can result in limited scoring.
I found a very good write up of my strategy, quoted below.

Build Big and Complete: In general,
  it's a solid strategy to build and
  complete as many large structures as
  you can. Building up your segments
  fast and effectively, by avoiding time
  wasting tile placements that don't
  immediately benefit or protect your
  segments, is essential to both putting
  a healthy dose of points on the board
  and also to reclaiming your meeples in
  a timely manner. Of course, too much
  of a good thing may turn out to be
  detrimental to your success. Be
  careful not to get too ambitious when
  it comes to gargantuan constructions
  since you will eventually have to
  complete these monsters to gain the
  lions share of the points. If someone
  comes along and plays a tile that will
  prevent you from completing your work
  of art, or you simply run out of time
  and tiles, you'll score the minimum
  points with the end-of-game scoring
  rules. Additionally, your poor
  meeple(s) will be stranded in the
  segment the entire time it's being
  built as well. Being reasonable and
  knowing when it's time to cap off the
  segment will help you avoid the
  dangers of greedily (and unwisely)
  going wild with your building plans.

In general, not a ton of strategy, mostly tactics.  Just make sure you're doing the math on the "upside" of every move.

How many points will you expect to earn with this move?  How much of that will be because your opponents have helped out?  (such as when you place a city caddy-cornered and try to join them later)
Roughly how many moves are left in the game?  That will guide you on how aggressive to be about placing pieces where you need subsequent pieces to complete a city/road/cathedral.
When placing a piece where you need another piece next to it to complete it, measure the difficulty of completing that piece.  In general, the number of pieces already surrounding that other spot, the harder it is to complete, and cities/roads are slightly harder to connect to than field.  By the way, this calculation can also be used to place pieces to make things harder for your opponents.

Sabotage your opponents
One element that is a much bigger factor in the iPhone game than in real life is using your tiles to prevent an opponent from completing something they're working on.  The iPhone game will show an "X" when no remaining tiles can be played in a given spot, and will show you all the remaining tiles yet unplayed.
You can use this to your advantage by placing a piece that will leave an opponent's city, road, or cloister unfinished, or leave a field unable to be connected to another.
In the tabletop game this is less common because you generally don't know precisely which tiles are left and you have to do the computation of whether there are any pieces playable in a given spot yourself instead of having the game do it for you.

Draw good tiles
Obviously, this takes some luck, but there a few things you can do to improve your odds.

Work on a couple of projects requiring different tiles at the same time, e.g., a big city and a long road.  This increases your chances that your next tile will be useful somewhere.
Know the tiles.  You don't have to count cards, but you can help complete your cities by knowing the common tiles that will fill a given hole.  More importantly, you need to know which tiles don't exist so you avoid leaving an impossible space.
Expand outward.  It's easier to place tiles when your cities and roads aren't constantly bumping into other features.

Merge
You cannot place a Meeple in a castle that is already occupied, be it your own, or another players. However, you can start a new castle nearby and attempt to merge it on a subsequent move. In this case, both players get the fill points for the castle (or road, or farm).
This is a great way of neutralising their points, but better still if you can merge 2 Meeples into a castle where your opponent has one. In this case, the player with more men in the castle gets the points.
The same applies to roads and farms - and it is with farms that this kind of play can be crucial.
(Advice originally via my regular Carcassonne opponent and mentor, @Pockless)

Limit the size of opponents farms.
For instance, by building a road around it.

Having as many of your meeples on the board (-1 for quick scoring) is a very good strategy.  Your meeples can't earn you points sitting in front of you.  You certainly don't want 6 of them stuck in long term places.  Once you start added in other expansions, with more pieces this becomes even more critical.  Each piece used well can make a huge difference on your game.  I personally try to have every single piece on the board by the time I lay my last square (unless it actually lets me score a city or something)  Finishing a road vs. starting a new one with 2-3 segments makes more sense to start another one near the end if you have the pieces left.

Here is a summary of some of the techniques I use, and I've seen here that I think work well.
Use Meeples Efficiently

Put a meeple on a road and whenever you pick up a road piece, put it connecting that road, steer it away from others who might connect to it and away from the main board pieces. Everything else is for Cloisters and Cities.
Don't always put a piece down. You have a few things to consider first. How many cloisters are out yet? How many meeple do people have available and easily returned? Do you have cities to finish or cloisters to surround? Always work out the points you'll get from each option you have.

Build Farms late
People, in my experience rush to place farms down and sit on them only to have them snatched later in the game. Don't fall into this trap. You've just lost a piece you could put on a city or short road, and have returned in time to play as a farmer!
Don't underestimate Cities
Cities, if you can focus on them, and reap huge returns. These returns can swing the game, even when someone has played a farm heavy game!
Always leave a spare meeple for a cloister
There's nothing worse than drawing a cloister and not being able to put it down.
Place tiles carefully
Always keep in mind where you're trying to finish off a city a cloister or a road (remember point one?). Keep a track of yours and other's farms are and be wary of extending or joining farms
Do whatever the other's aren't
If the other players are engaged in farm wars, leave them be and focus on cities. No one picking up on farms? Get a few of those down. Try to stay ahead of the pack this way and they'll end up diluting the resources too far to compete with you.

 Use all your meeples in the last few turns
It is a waste if you have meeples left after the last turn.
In order of importance:

Completing (large) cities have the first priority.
Try looking for farms with two or three cities that are not yet taken.
Try to put a meeple on cities or roads that have not yet been taken.

Note that unfinished cities give only half the points that finished cities, while for cloisters and roads it doesn't really matter whether it is finished or not.
 Put cloisters next to each other
Try to put cloisters next to each other. If you do so, then you can get two points for every piece you put next to the cloister and you will complete the first cloister faster. However, also beware that you don't put too many meeples on cloisters.

There are a lot of answers to this question.  Unless you believe that your ideas should be voted on separately, condensing them to one answer would make for one stronger answer.

@PatLudwig Okay, I added the other answer to this one. Other sites, where I am active on, have another preference about such things, mainly for the seperate voting.

Double-count your tiles
This doesn't seem to have been really mentioned. But try to place tiles that are scoring for you more than once. Say a tile with city on one side with a road running past. If you have meeples correctly placed it could:

contribute to a city (1 or 2 points); and
contribute to a road (1 point); and
contribute to a cloister (1 point)
contribute to a farm (0 or 3 points)

It could even be the piece that connects one of your small farms into a much bigger farm occupied by someone else.
I think this strategy particularly applies like this:

place cloisters next to somewhere you know that you will be building anyway (a road, a city, or another cloister)
prefer to start cities next to farms you control

On the downside, you have to be careful to avoid over-constraining yourself. You might create a situation where a road you control runs into a space next to a city you control. If you find the right tile, that's nice and efficient. But there won't be many tiles that can fit.

I've always had good luck by banking on large farms. This will usually net you tons of points at the end of a game but it's pretty risky as well in that you generally will want to place your Meeple on a farm pretty early in the game so at that point it's kind of a guessing game as to what area of the table the game is going to expand most, that is, which area will end up with the most cities.
Roads are your biggest enemy with this strategy!

If you are playing with any expansions, it is important to apply them to strategies you already know, as the expansions may make some strategies more useful, or more obsolete.
Some examples of this may include:

10th Anniversary Special Edition, in which would make blocking people off from getting their Meeples back more difficult until late game
The Gold Mines Expansion, in which would make sharing of castles and roads a much more interesting way to move. It would make blocking people a much more prominent strategy when you don't ever get your share.
The Flying Machine Expansion, in which would change the way you look at jumping on the train to sharing points for castles, roads, and even abbeys.

Changing your strategy may need to happen, depending on the expansions you use. Thinking of how you will play before the game begins can change the outcome of the game drastically.

The question specifically states that they are not playing with any expansions, so this doesn't really answer the question in any way.

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

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


text:
Does anybody need the 6th epidemic card in Pandemic?
4 epidemic cards in the pile are easy in Pandemic. 5 cards - it is interesting. Our win / lose ratio is about 50% with 5 epidemic cards. But I can't imagine how to play with 6 epidemic cards. Are you just very lucky to win this way, or are there are some strategy secrets I still don't get?
Btw there is a 7th epidemic card in the expansion "On the Brink".
Is there anybody who usually plays (and wins) with 6 or 7 epidemic cards on the pile? What's your secret?

Related:  http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/2372/good-general-strategies-for-pandemic

Anecdotally, the one time I played Pandemic one player knew how to play and the rest of us were newbies - I assume we were playing with 4 or 5 epidemic cards.  Basically the the owner of the game made all the decisions for everyone and we defeated the epidemic without breaking a sweat.  I thought it was a bit pointless!  I would have enjoyed it MUCH more if the task had seemed closer to impossible.  But maybe I'm just a boardgames masochist?

We play with six epidemics most of the time and win about half our games, which is a good ratio for us.  My husband and I play a lot of two-player games, but we also play with three and four players and use six epidemics unless we have beginners.
We use a house rule of dealing two roles per player and letting the players choose.  Discussion is permitted.
The key to playing with six epidemics, in my experience, is to be ruthless in not wasting actions.  Yes, that isolated city with three cubes will have an outbreak soon; absorb it if you've got spare capacity so you can focus on getting the cards together for a cure or attacking bigger problems.  It can be tempting to say "while I'm in the neighborhood anyway why don't I...?", but you should always look at whether there are more pressing demands first.

My wife and I have a house rule to let us choose the number of epidemics after we see what roles we get. We usually play "If we have a Medic then 6, otherwise 5". That keeps the challenge ratio at a good spot in all cases.

My group played with six once, and had virtually no problems; at no point were we even worried we might lose. On the other hand, the last two times we played with five cards we lost miserably, so I don't think the sixth card is as big of an upset as you're expecting. I'd recommend just trying it to see how your group does; a lot depends on if you get two epidemics close together and what cities they hit

We have tried to play with 6 cards few times. Once we have even won :-) But there was only luck, not strategy - cards were mixed comfortable. I'm interested if anybody plays with 6 cards and could win at least 33% of games.

@Pawka It's possible we just got really lucky; we're 1 for 1 right now and haven't tried it again

I suggest don't try, you got very good ratio. Keep it :-)

I've also won with six in a cake walk but been destroyed by it many more times.  I think it mostly comes down to luck.  I've also had horrid luck run the other way and lost with only four while trying to teach newbies.

@Tycho The first time we played (with five, if I recall correctly) we had back-to-back epidemics :)

As others have pointed out, it is possible to get a reasonable win percentage with 6 epidemic cards. However, I would like to add that the strategy changes considerably between 4 and 6 epidemics. Besides being ruthless with actions, as another answer pointed out, you should also keep in mind that because epidemics come more often, you will get fewer new cities and cities that you've already seen more often. In my old group, we found that counting cards pretty much made the difference on legendary difficulty. It's not too hard to keep track of the probabilities of an epidemic hitting on the next turn, or when you're getting near the end of the cities that you've already seen. By counting cards you have a better chance of assessing what is urgent and what isn't. Sometimes a city will have 3 cubes on it, but will get buried under a lot of other cards, and you know that you don't have to worry about it for a while.

One group I played with stacked the cubes differently depending on whether that city's card was in the discard or draw pile, to keep track.

Ahh Pandemic. There's quite a bit of luck involved. Hitting back to back pandemics can screw you over even in a 4 epidemic game...
Since we got the hang of it we've never lost a 5 epidemic game. So we've been thinking about tackling the 6th card. A big factor in the game are the roles you get. Some combinations just aren't that useful while other simply rock. My suggestion would be to choose your roles and see what combinations suit you most and then try with one of those...

With 5 players, we're able to win with 7 epidemics + Virulent/Mutation about half the time. In the last game we played, we were short one action and therefore lost by decking ourselves (lame!). Note that having 5 players isn't really an advantage -- it mainly just makes you more likely to deck yourself before you get 4 cures.
We tend to do better if we draw a good balance between role types, where we have at least one of the three major categories: movement/coordination (e.g. Operation's Expert and Dispatcher), treatment (e.g. Medic and Containment Specialist), and cure-finding (e.g. Scientist and Researcher).
Most of all, though, you need a role in the movement/coordination category -- it's just so expensive to get around the board normally.
I don't like to recommend variations I haven't tried, but you can probably reach 7 more easily if you give yourself more choice in starting roles. For example, during setup you could allow each player one chance to discard her role and draw again.

We win roughly 70-75% of the time we play, even with 6 epidemic cards.
There is a small bit of luck to it. For instance there was a game where the cards were not shuffled well and we drew 5 epidemic cards in the first two rounds. We survived them all, but after that we got crushed.
It's all about calculated risk and playing to the best of the abilities of your role. You really need to do what your character does. Just last night we had a Contingency planner and (having a blank on the name but the guy who can build research stations) and the people that were playing those roles literally were making contingency plans and construction plans, respectively.
We find that you need to always know what cities are in the infect discard pile, so that you always know which places are the biggest risk if an epidemic comes up. You need to start your trading planning after the first round. Whoever happens to have the most cards of a color is most likely the one to cure that disease. Sometimes you even need to allow an outbreak to happen to reach a more important goal. And you have to be making logical guesses as to when the epidemic cards will be drawn, like if you haven't drawn one in two rounds, then it's probably coming really soon. That way, you can calculate the risk of any cities that have 3 cubes based on what's in the infect discard pile.
It's a really deep calculated risk, team strategy game. We usually discuss for like 10 minutes per round and have everyone's turn planned out for each round and then we alter the plan slightly based on the cards that are drawn.

"the cards were not shuffled well and we drew 5 epidemic cards in the first two rounds." - This is not poorly shuffled. This is incorrectly set-up. The Epidemics are supposed to be distributed amongst the piles, even at the highest level you cannot get more than one epidemic in the first two turns if playing correctly.

It is never possible to guarantee a win in pandemic, even with 4 epidemics. However, I have played rather a lot of 2 player pandemic with 7 epidemic cards from the 'on the brink' expansion, and my win rate was above 40%. But the guy I played with was also very, very good, and we were using the "Brettspielwelt New Assignment" rules, which is that all players may change their roles when the card is played.
Boardgamegeek thread on that errata
We also used the Brettspielwelt system where every player plays with their hands faceup, which may not be the best way to do it but I think that house rule is best because all it does is speed up communication.
Some games we tried to play where only one player could change their role, but it probably would have dropped our win rate below 33% (but not below 25%).

My experience has been that when we lose, it's normally by running out of cards. So while we haven't played with six or more epidemics, I'm not sure it would make a huge difference; if anything, it might help by keeping the cubes a little more concentrated early on.

One combo that can easily tackle 6 or 7 epidemic cards is Scientist/Researcher. Just stay in Atlanta, swap cards and discover cures. I think it could do 8 comfortably or almost-comfortably as well.
The deck is 48 cities plus 5 events plus 6-8 epidemics, or 59-61 cards total, of which 8 are in the opening hands.  So it's an epidemic every 51/6 or 52/7 or 53/8 cards, which is 8.5, 7.42 or 6.625; in the worst case, by the second epidemic you'll have drawn 13.25 cards, let's say 10 cities and 1 event, plus your initial 18, for a total of 18 cities. Most likely you have at least two cures by then and are well on your way to a third. Only move to 3-cube cities for treatment.  Note that bottom-draws are guaranteed to not have any cubes already so long as you haven't had an outbreak yet.
In the easy (6-epidemic) case you'll have 15-16 cities and 1-2 events by the second epidemic, plus the initial 8 (or 7-1), for at least 22 city cards. An even spread is ~5 of each color, so you'll probably have at least three cures. Then emergency cleanup is almost trivial.
Another combo that works well is Medic plus Operations Expert. There you do the opposite: focus almost all your energy on removing cubes and only incidentally swap cards. Building up a network of research stations will make transportation easy; the OE should build one in each of his first five turns, and probably spend cards flying to the most valuable cities (those with 3 cubes, those with two that are far away from other research centers, or perhaps in places where you need to swap cards). It'll be a much more defensive game, but I found it fairly easy.  Note that with more epidemic cards, the disease is concentrated on fewer cities due to the more frequent reshuffling (at least early; you also get to higher infection rates more quickly, which pulls in the opposite direction).
I wrote a fairly extensive analysis of Pandemic. Please read the other answers to that question first; they cover more basic stuff.

I have a really hard time picturing you winning by just sitting in Atlanta and trading cards. Do you have a "script" of a game where this actually worked, or are you just basing this on your math calculations? By the second epidemic, you have likely had 4 outbreaks, and even if you tried to go stop some at that point, you're unlikely to be able to cure enough to avoid 4 more within a turn or two.

"Stay in Atlanta" is more like guidelines. You have to go out a bit, but you're likely to come back again.  If you're a bit lucky, one of the initial 3s is close to Atlanta, and it only takes one turn walking there (and one turn back). In that case, sure, clean it up when you're not busy trading cards. If there's an isolated 3 far away, say Chennai, you can probably just leave it alone. Even if it outbreaks after the second epidemic, and you bottom-draw a neighbor on the third epidemic, it's only 3 outbreaks. And by that time, you're almost done and have the time to do damage control.

I'd still like to see an annotated game in which this worked with 6 epidemics. My experiences have not been anything like what you describe.

One thing I completely forgot in my analysis: with the scientist, you only need 4 cards of each color to find a cure, so with 18 city cards it's possible to have four cures, very likely to have three.  With 22 city cards, it's extremely likely (I haven't actually done the math) that you'll have four cures.  With two event cards, it's a 90% chance you'll have at least one of Airlift, Government Grant and Resilient Population which will neutralize one threatening city. If you're lucky, you get GG and can relocate to the disease-heaviest area. Have you tried playing somewhat like I suggest?

I think annotating a game is a bit too much labor just to prove a point to a Stranger On The Interwebs, but if you know a free online implementation, I'll be happy to play a game with you. I saw Quill18 play online on the youtubes, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFd-oh1fYMs; that might be one to track down.

I totally understand, I was just curious if such a thing already existed. I'll try playing a solo game at home at some point and seeing what happens.

I'd love to hear your findings! :-)

My mom and I played just yesterday and I snuck in 6 cards without her knowing.I was actually too lazy to separate the piles and everything so I randomly put them in and got 4 right off the bat which was nice because it was uninterrupted playing. We found all 4 cures before the last two but by the time we finished the board was covered in cubes. My first hand I drew 4 red cards andred was cured in the second turn so that was lucky. It was funny my mom said "I'm glad all the epidemic cards are gone." after the fourth one to which I said "ha ha remember you love me, WE CAN DO IT!!"

Mixing them in like this is against the rules. If you shuffle right (with 4/5/6/7 piles) only 2 epidemic cards can be back to back.


text:
Keeper Action Card Reuse in Mansions of Madness
Some Keeper Action cards in MoM specifically state "This card can be used only once per Keeper turn." Other specifically state that a card may be used a number of times - once per monster on the board, or some such.
But most of the cards are not specific. Does this mean they can be used multiple times per Keeper turn by default?
For example - the Raise Dead card allows the Keeper to spend 1 Threat to place a corpse token or spend 2 Threat to replace a corpse with a Zombie.

Can I as Keeper spend 3 Threat to place the corpse and replace it with the Zombie?
If so, can I keep doing that as long as I have enough Threat to spend? (Subject to the limited number of Zombie figures, of course)

Yes,
Unless restricted by the card, the Keeper is only restricted by his available threat in terms of using the same Keeper Action multiple times.
See this errata by the designer on BoardGameGeek.  It's obvious that the errata is meant to limit the usage.  If the default was once/turn, there would be no need for the errata.


text:
Creating Scenarios for Mansions of Madness
OK. So Mansions of Madness is practically here. I know I can't be the only one who's hotly anticipating this game.
The only question I have about it is this: The game comes 5 scenarios included, each with 3 variations, for a total of 15 unique games.
Can the included scenarios be hacked, modified, customized or remixed? Can entirely new scenarios be created from the existing components?
I know that there are people out there who have had their hands on this for some time already, and I want to know what they think.
Sure, 15 scenarios is a lot - especially since players won't know exactly what path they're on until they uncover late-game clues. But I'm interested in the answer to this question from a re-playability standpoint, especially with regard to community-created scenarios vs. officially released expansions. I don't have anything against official expansions - I just imagine that if the game is as good as I expect, my group will be ready for something new well before FFG is ready to release one.
EDIT: Now that the game has been out for a while, the community really seems to be supporting it. BGG has a number of scenarios and tools for crafting your own.

Ok, so I'm answering my own question, at least in part.
First of all, I think the internets were greatly deceived when they spread the idea that each of the five scenarios (there are indeed 5) had only three variants. Some of the scenarios had what looked by my calculations to be upwards of 40 permutations.
Second, the Keeper's role is much more dynamic than I had previously realized. It strikes me that the Keeper's game is similar to the Demons' game in claustrophobia, a truly wonderful asymmetrical 2-player game. Like the Demons, the Keeper accrues Threat over time, which he must pay for all his actions. It seems to me that the vagaries of Keeper play will keep even an identical scenario from playing out the same way twice.
Finally, I think that the answer to my hackability question is a resounding no. The thing that has me so excited about MoM is that it provides narrative out-of-the-box. The game does a lot more storytelling than most. That very quality seems to make it hard to vary beyond the included scenarios. Each card is tied tightly to a choice or combination of choices and the stories will fall apart if not constructed properly.
This is my opinion as of having read all the books, but having played zero games. I will update this answer if that opinion changes.

Having played the game about 4 times now, it seems to me that designing a new campaign for Mansions of Madness is possible, as everything, including which powers the Keeper has, is entirely mix-and-match.
However, it's far more a stripped-down Dungeons and Dragons than a traditional board game. You'd effectively have to:

Come up with a game-style concept (e.g. Monsters, monsters EVERYWHERE!)
Come up with a story to justify that concept (e.g. A witch is opening a plane to the Cthonic regions in exchange for the resurrection of her sister)
Come up with a set of hidden objectives (e.g. get out before you're used in the ritual, stop her from opening the gate, kill her and her undead sister)
Come up with a set of clues (e.g. Discover how to interrupt the ritual successfully and safely)
Come up with a time set (e.g. The 5 stages of the ritual, each one summoning progressively more horrible thingummies)

and then work out how to layout the board to fit the story, and how to prevent the players from reaching the objectives too soon.
The main issue is the clues, which have to look like the provided exploration cards, but have to be changed.
The most obvious solution is to simply use existing clue cards, but tell your players to ignore the flavour text, and instead at the point of discovery, hand them your own prepared cards.

The way I see it, you could just place the clues 1A 2A 3A etc. and when they find the clue you have written down on a piece of paper what the text should read. Same with event cards. When time runs out for the event card and you flip it, you just have another text that corresponds to the number on the event card


text:
In Puerto Rico, When should I NOT take a Quarry when I have the opportunity to?
It's fairly easy to choose between the different plantations when the settler phase comes around as you just have to evaluate which you have the production capacity for or which you would be able to buy the production capacity for, and take into account what other goods you can produce and what other players can. However, Quarries are a little different, and sometimes I find it difficult to choose if I should take one or not. Here's some rules I use:

If I don't have 2 quarries yet and there's at least 4 builder phases left.
If there's no plantations I want.
If there aren't many left and I want to deny another player the privilege of having one.
Only take a 3rd or 4th Quarry if it will make a big difference in being able to get a very valuable building, usually from the third or fourth tier.

What rules do you use when determining if you should take a Quarry? What are the most notable situations when you should NOT take a Quarry when you are able to?

I edited your title by adding the name of the game. It's in the tags, but probably should be in the heading as well.

I have a suspicion that if everyone in your group loves quarries and wants to fight over them, then concentrating on different areas will pay dividends.  I don't have a detailed cost-benefit analysis for you, but these worker placement type games almost invariably reward you for doing what a majority of the other players are forgetting to do, and I can't believe that doesn't extend to Puerto Rico and its quarry strategy.

@Tom You might want to check out the accepted answer at http://meta.gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/821/question-with-vague-title.  Its from the other Gaming site, but I think the reasoning applies here as well (and Grace is now an SE employee).

The simple answer to this question, is how much value is the quarry going to gain you over and above the other options your have to choose from. This comes down to the stage of the game, the competing products of your competitors and the value the goods that are on offer as alternatives.
A quarry saves you money when building, but only a maximum of 1 coin per build.

You may already have all the buildings you want/need, without triggering an end of game scenario
You may have plenty of money so an extra coin is of little value to you
You may not be using a building strategy to win the game, but be cautious with this one, as balance is key
You may get an extra worker for building, if you have that specific tile with that function.

A good offers you the opportunity to sell / ship

There may already be too many plantations and not enough goods to go around, so this may not be a good option
You may need a factory to produce your good (with the exception of corn) and not have time to build this, so plantation has no value
You may already have a factory with a spare space, so another good of a particular type may allow maximum efficiency from your factory
A good may be of high value (like coffee/tobacco) that gives you far more money than you would hope to gain from a quarry, by someone visiting the Trader.

And needless to say, all of this depends on your opponents positions, and your future potential actions.

Some strategies revolve around the tier 4 buildings, and for a strategy like that, quarries are invaluable.
However, if you're going after a more "captain" based strategy, then the tier 4 buildings don't work to your advantage as much as some others might, so more production (from a plantation) would behoove you more.
Usually, my decision to quarry or not to quarry is based on the current strategy i'm going after, and less about a set of rules i'm following.  That being said though, taking up to 2 is almost always beneficial, so you should probably keep that rule no matter what =)

In most cases, the decision to take a third quarry or not depends mainly on what ELSE you can do with your turn. Usually, you're playing against a "field," which is to say that you want to take the action that benefits you most compared to the field. That may or may not be taking the quarry, depending on what the rest of your strategy is. Basically, you should refuse to take quarry if you has something BETTER to do.
Taking one "if there aren't many left and I want to deny another player the privilege of having one," is an interesting strategy called "playing not to lose." I'm assuming that this "other player" is your main rival in the game, with the rest far behind. Then, it might be to your advantage to make a move that hurts you relative "to the field" if it hurts your main rival MORE. Even so, you might use some other strategy if you are also worried about a THIRD party.


text:
When a Warlock casts an Animus, is it still an Animus?
So, I was playing a friend who plays a lot of Hordes yesterday, and he mentioned that when his Warlock casts an Animus as a spell, it still counts as an Animus.  This means that it cannot be cast on a model that already has an animus on it.  Is this true?
As an example, Say I am playing Legion.  I have a Carnivean and a Stinger in my battlegroup, and I want to cast the Stinger's animus (to get Bushwack) and the Carnivean's animus (to get the +2 armor).  Can I have both of them on me at the same time?  Or, as an even better example, say I have a Shredder in my battle group as well, and I want his animus up on my Warlock along with my Carnivean's animus - is that legal to do?  When I read the text of the Hordes rules, it did not seem clear to me.

I tried to add a "Hordes" tag, but I was unable to since I do not have enough reputation yet.  Can someone please edit it and add it for me?  Thanks!

Took care of that for you!

No problem - welcome to the site!

A model can have only one friendly animus in play on it at time. If another friendly animus is cast on a model, th eolder friendly animus expires and is replaced by the new one when the affected model is hit by the animus. This applies to animi used by warbeasts as well as those cast as spell.
cit from the quickstart rules pag 4 right column ANIMI block.
To answer your question your friend is right :)

I figured he was - he usually is on Hordes rules.  Just thought I would get a second opinion.  :)  Thanks for the answer.

Technically he isn't right. The OP said "can't be cast if ...", you instead said "if it is cast ... it overwrites the previous one". ;)


text:
Can We Find a Middle Ground on the Russia First Turn Attack Rule In Allies and Axis?
Some (mainly Axis) players refuse to play Axis and Allies if Russia is allowed to attack on the first turn. Other (mainly Russian) players argue that Russia is unfairly hobbled if it has to play strict defense at that time.
Some would argue that if Russia captures a territory (Norway, Ukraine, Manchuria) on the first turn, the Axis have too few IPCs between them to have a fair chance. Others might counterargue that the Axis have a chance to capture them back and regain their income, which is calculated as of the end of their turn.
Perhaps a more important reason for the dispute is that Russia gets to "kill" a fighter in those territories with a first turn attack, at the cost of an infantry unit. That's a difference of 9 or even 10 IPCs (the fighter has only a 2/3 chance hitting the 3 IPC infantry).
My "fix" for this problem is to allow Germany to move the fighters in e.g. Ukraine and Norway back to, say, Eastern Europe, and likewise, Japan its Manchuria-based fighter back to Kwantung before the game starts, thus modifying the original setup. Then allow Russia a first turn attack. That way, the Russian player gets the opportunity to capture a territory, but not to kill a fighter.
No matter which side you are on in this debate, are you satisfied with this compromise? Would you still choose Russia if the Axis can now "protect" their fighters? If Axis, will you now play the game with a Russia first turn attack option? Or will this remain a sore point that could prevent certain players from playing the game with certain others?

Another option (in addition to the fighter option, perhaps) would be to prohibit (or limit) what German naval units can be attacked by Russia on the opening move.
When I play Russia and am allowed to attack on the opening move I aim to:

Wipe out the transport and sub in the Baltic Sea Zone with my two fighters. This carries a bit of risk because if the transport hits I lose a fighter and Russian fighters are essential. Another downer for the Germans when I make this move is that their sub is pinned in the Baltic Sea Zone since the UK Sea Zone is occupied.
Remove the German sub from the Span Sea Zone. If I'm feeling lucky I'll use just my Russian sub, but more generally I use my sub and transport.

With these moves, Germany is going to have a hard time taking out both the Atlantic and Mediterranean fleets in the first turn, and will likely suffer some crippling loses if they attempt to do so. That means:

Less chance for Germany to take and hold Africa for any appreciable amount of time,
A quicker introduction of the "shuck-shuck" strategy, and
Less chance of any sort of counter-attack against the UK sea zone in an attempt to slow the inevitable.

In short, successfully weakening the German navy at the very start of the game puts even more pressure on Japan to break through to Russia before the US gets into full "shuck-shuck" swing.

You were the "alert" reader for whom I subdivided the UK sea zone into Norwegian sea (north) and UK zone proper (south) in another post to prevent the Russian sub from attacking the German sub. The followup fix is historical: Germany had the battleship Tirpitz and the two battle cruisers in the Norwegian sea. Move the sub and transport from the Baltic there and give Germany a battleship unit to prevent a "cheap" Russia attack. Then give the UK a second battleship in the UK sea zone to compensate. All in line with "reality."

No first turn Russian attack is more than saving the fighters
Finland has 3 infantry, 1 fighter and 1 tank, and they can all get killed on a first turn attack by Russia. The losses from that battle alone are worth (3*3 + 5 + 12) 26 IPCs. When I play as Germany, if Finland isn't attacked on Russia's first turn I usually attack Karelia using all available ground forces, just to retreat before round 2 to extract all but one infantry from Finland. Now of course this isn't always possible: if Russian really stacks Karelia well then even one turn of attacking can incur unacceptable losses, but you might be surprised how many people leave too many Russian infantry in the Caucasuses, which opens them up to my Finlandian retreat. So if we discount the 26 by the 1 inf being left behind we're at 23, then another fudge factor to account for the times when my little 1-round gambit is too risky and maybe the valuation is down to 12. That's pretty close to the spread between the bids on Russia attacks and no Russia attack games.
And we haven't even talked the risk that Russia can take Finland and kill the fighter in the Ukraine (although both European attacks might stretch Russia a little thin).
Finally, Asia. I don't count this one for much (in terms of Russian upside). Sure, Russia can take out the Manchurian fighter on the first turn if they really want, but to be safe that probably involves using the fighter from Russia, which isn't available if they attack Finland and/or the Ukraine. Plus, as Don Rae rightly points out, the Manchuria attack puts Russian troops in a dead zone where they can be directly attacked by the Japanese navy (see Turn 1 under the heading The Right Japanese Typical Purchases and Deployment Strategy). In fact, if Russia attacked Manchuria and left some tanks and armor there I would probably not attack Pearl Harbor just so I could use my battleships and extra aircraft in the battle to make sure I won. Wiping out the Russian tanks on the Eastern front pretty much opens up Russia to being dominated early.
So as an Axis player, I put a high premium on the no Russia attack rule. I think it saves me between 12 and 23 IPCs as Germany. Granted, this is equal to the cost of the 1-2 fighters you suggest saving as an alternative ruleset, but I value the units I've saved more. Germany needs tanks and infantry early as much as they need planes, and I'd probably only lose one in a first turn Russian attack anyway (almost noise compared to what I might lose on Germany's first turn taking out all the navies). That is why I pretty much only play no first turn Russian attacks.
Now to consider the Allied perspective. The game is already unbalanced (see the link about bid spreads), so if someone wants to play me straight up with no bid, then not attacking as Russia is the least I can do (remembering that I don't consider giving up the Asian attack to be a concession at all; I wouldn't do it even if it was allowed).
As the Axis I would not take this deal
I would need more incentive that just saving my fighters to be okay with letting Russia attack in the first round. As the Allies I'd take the deal because it's not much of a concession (I'm not attacking the fighter in Asia and the one fighter I give up killing in Europe doesn't unbalance the game enough for me to be worried at having a chance to win).

"Dead zone" is the key concept. I did say that the fighter in the Ukraine also goes back to East Europe (at Germany's option). My theory was that saving the fighters in the dead zones represented most of the 10 IPC pickup, and the rest "cancelled." Also, if no Russia first turn attack reduces the "spread" from 22 to 12 IPCs, giving Germany jet fighters (8 IPCs) and Japan supersubs (2 IPCs) reduces most of the remaining gap (by 10 out of 12). Maybe one more Axis infantry makes it "square," or tilts the game ever so slightly to them.

As the Axis I would probably take your deal to save my fighters and get the two techs. Jets increases the value of my German fighters and is going to make Eastern Europe and impenetrable fortress for a while, whereas the super subs can help Japan quite a bit in the early game in terms of sweeping the Pacific. In fact it could enable Japan to use their entire fleet to start harassing mainland America, because they know if America tried to counter-attack they'd have lots of warning and could just build a few subs to tilt any battle in their favor.

Based on your post, my other alternative for letting Russia make a first attack is to allow the German player to move the fighter, armor, and two (out of three) infantry from Norway to either East Europe or the Ukraine at his option. This saves the Norwegian expeditionary force and may make the Ukraine prohibitively expensive to attack. I'm not worried about Asia either.

This is more of my thoughts than an answer, though I am going to answer the question (since that is what this is for). I have actually never heard of the "Russia cannot attack the first turn too" rule until I began reading in this forum. I've been playing for near 8 years now and like I said, this is the first time I've ever heard this. I don't see why Russia can't attack in their first turn... that is how the rules were set up. To make it more historically accurate, I understand, but that isn't how the rules were set up. So if Russia attacks, yes, Japan or Germany may lose a fighter (woop-de-do) since they have more IPC's than Russia; who cares? Russia is spreading itself out by attacking the first turn anyways. I can see reasons for the rule change, but I'm indifferent either way. It doesn't matter to me.

The rule change is just to help game balance. It tends to save some units that would otherwise die in a first turn Russian attack and perhaps more importantly, it gives Germany and Japan a more stable board to start from, which allows them to script their first turns. As for No Russian Attack, it's a pretty canonical rule variant, given that is shows up in the official 2nd edition rulebook in Appendix IV Optional Rules, page 31.

@rpather3: At the end, the game proposed three alternate rules to "tilt" the game (back) toward the Axis. They were 1) Russia can't attack the first turn (but gets its "income") 2) Fighter and sub "techs" for Germany and Japan, and 3) No factory building allowed. Some people on the site have "determined" that the first two rules together make it almost 50-50.

There is no middle-ground.  The reality is assuming optimal Axis and Allied play the allies should always win as shuck-shuck should effectively weaken/spread German fronts before Japan can sufficiently bring the heat on Russia.  The "Russia no first round attack" house rule is necessary to limit this Allied advantage by preventing the 3-5pts of additional IPC's Russia can take in the first 1-2 rounds by aggressively targeting Finland/Manchuria.  Keep in mind, this house rule should only be used if you have advanced players because the allies starting advantage can only be exploited by those with enough experience in setting up shuck-shuck under OPTIMAL axis play (too often Axis players attack too early w/Germany sealing their own fate.  Proper axis play is for Germany to hold-out until Japan comes, thus only purchasing infantry and perhaps fighters if/when they need their last suicide on the navy in UK to delay the eventual shuck-shuck if only for 1-2 turns).  Few points

Scott's allied play follows optimal logic (Russia's ability to wipe Axis navy before Germany's attack is crucial as it materially weakens Germany's Luftwaffe, allowing earlier shuck-shuck implementation).  Thus Russia can't be allowed to attack land OR navy units. Either outcome is too great of an advantage.
Adam's Germany response to attack Karelia can only be based on non-optimal Allied play.  Russia really only has 1 move, to move all infantry to Karelia leaving 1 piece in Caucas to prevent a blitz into Russia.  In reality Karelia should be defended by 22 Infantry/tanks and 2 fighters thus Germany shouldn't attack in it's round 1.


text:
Can I sell properties in Monopoly with houses to another player ?
Can I sell properties in Monopoly with houses to another player for a cost w/o mortgaging the property to the bank ?

I'm not sure I understand the last bit about "w/o mortgaging."  You can't mortgage a property with houses on it.

Unimproved properties, railroads and utilities (but not buildings) may be sold to any player as a private transaction for any amount the owner can get. However, no property can be sold to another player if buildings are standing on any properties of that colour-group. Any buildings so located must be sold back to the Bank before the owner can sell any property of that colour-group.
Houses and Hotels may be sold back to the Bank at any time for one-half the price paid for them. All houses on one colour-group may be sold at once, or they may be sold one house at a time (one hotel equals five houses), evenly, in reverse of the manner in which they were erected.

From:
http://richard_wilding.tripod.com/monorules.htm#sellingproperty
The following page is a copy of the rules as printed in the Monopoly® Rule Book.

Rolled back latest edit, as it corrupted the quoted text. Quotes are what they are - and comments on the content must be kept separate from the quote itself.


text:
Finding places to play Magic the Gathering games
A friend of mine recently got MTG for the XBox and is talking us into getting real cards.
I'm all up for starting but I dread the idea of playing the same two people over and over with no change epically since one of them is over competitive and exploits every loophole he can to win.
Does anyone know of any a reliable (not just google it) way to find places where people play MTG?

welcome to the site!  I have edited your question to keep the question more general; asking for places to play in a specific city is too localized and could possibly be closed.

As for your location-specific needs, I don't know that many people can speak to that.  However, for the more generalized "How do I find more places/people to play Magic with," here are a few answers:

Wizards of the Coast has a Store and Event Locator
Check your LGSs (Local Gaming Stores) - many will either run Friday Night Magic, regular events, or casual play days
Look online for people or groups that play in your area (e.g. something like Craigslist or http://www.meetup.com in the US - not sure about the UK)
Teach other people to play

Besides those, there's always Magic the Gathering: Online - yes, it's another place to spend money on Magic (and you don't physically own the cards), but lots of the older (and less-played newer) cards can be found very cheaply, and it shouldn't be hard to put together a decent collection and play online.

there are no LGS

@Skeith, the Store and Event Locator show two stores, both around 8 miles away.  Beyond that, it seems like finding or teaching other people (or playing online) are your best bet.

NearbyGamers
This website is dedicated to solving your problem.
Caveat: I haven't used it in years, because I have all the gamers I need.


text:
Axis and Allies Europe edition: Neutral Territories?
So, as far as I understand it, the rulebook for Europe states that if a country invades a "strict neutral" (that is, any neutral that doesn't specify if it is Pro-Allies or Pro-Axis) then ALL other strict neutrals go pro-"non attacking side." For example, let's say that Italy invades Greece. Greece is a strict neutral, so according to the rules, all of the other "strict neutrals" would now become Pro-Allies....
If the U.S. invades Brazil, why would Greece care, or Switzerland for that matter?
I do not play with these rules, since I think they don't make sense.  What variations of this have you played?

But do you think the rules are dumb?

@LittleBobbyTables; I do think that those strict neutral rules are dumb. I revise them when I play.

The thought is if you are willing to invade brazil then you are willing to invade us as well. => This makes you my enemy. =>  The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

@Chad; I get the whole "enemy of my enemy is my friend thing" but it just seems to make all of the rest of the game imbalanced. If I invade a strict neutral in South America, then why would a country in the Middle East care too much to say "I think I'll change my strict neutrality and become pro-Axis"

@RPRATHER - The logic is if you will invade one neutral country you are willing to invade another. So you are willing to invade me and probably will. At least once you have taken out your enemy which will leave me vunlerable. So I am better off siding with your enemy. The truth is Germany would benefit most strategically from being able to invade a neutral country with out penalty. The rules are fair to everyone so that no one can invade a neutral country but Germany is most hampered by it.

I don't think such rules make sense either. Because it puts too heavy a penalty on attacking neutrals.
Attacking neutrals is not something that should be done lightly, and there should be a penalty. Maybe that penalty should be that all (threatened) neutrals in a particular REGION (e.g. Europe), go over to the non-attacking side. But MOST neutrals will understand such a move if it is made for a reason that is quite clear will not apply to them. Such a case may be made for a neutral on say, a DIFFERENT continent.
So I'd limit (but not eliminate) the impact of attacking one neutral on other neutrals.

For years a group of us in Michigan have played a set of house rules that includes a diplomacy system where you can pay for diplomatic overtures to neutrals to try to sway them to lean toward you ( adding their economy to yours 1$ for sumbness like Rio de Oro, 4$ for Switzerland) and letting you move through their territory or base there.  If you get a spectacular result (11+ on 2 d 6) or two partial results they join you activating their armed forces in your color (rangeing from 1 inf for Rio de Oro to 3 inf a tank and a fighter for Spain).  I agree that attacking one European neutral should not sway the opinion of Asian and American neutrals.

I agree that it should have some strategical value to attack nuetrals rather than only discourage. Perhaps they should be grouped so attacking, say, Mozambique would only anger African neutrals and not all. Still, I can see how they want to stop

A nation from invading a neutral to outflank an opponent and no-one minding
A nation from completely taking over the world!

by restricting them through not wanting enemies to gain more allies. Historically, if Germany took over ALL territories in sight, it would worry even the most peaceful neutrals.

I've never played Axis and Allies Europe, but the rules seem a little silly to me as well.
I suppose I can see the historical justification though. Neutral parties are just trying to stay out of the war, something they can typically only get away with if their territory or industrial base isn't a significant enough benefit to be worth the opportunity cost of diverting military resources to conquering and holding them. It's easy to see how the Swiss managed this. Mountainous terrain, armed citizens, easy to go around on the way to France, no industrial base to speak of, and useful to keep as not an enemy so that you can use their banking system.
But perhaps even given this calculus it might still be too enticing to pick off a small neutral or two. So the neutrals basically agree, tacitly or otherwise that if one of them gets picked off they all go to war. This raises the stakes for the attacker from having to deal with one little country to having to deal with a bunch of them--all over the globe. Now it's definitely not worth the trouble.
I assume the game is just trying to capture the same sentiment.

In some (computer) games I know, this dynamic is captured by the fact the "neutrals" is a separate (computer-controlled) player, which is to say, attack one and the computer will play them ALL against you.

After an attack on a true neutral country, allow your opponent to choose true neutrals to become pro-them equal to twice the IPC value of the violated neutral.
E.g. If Germany attacks a neutral worth 3 IPCs, the allies may choose 6 IPCs of neutrals to become pro-allies.
This significantly reduces the negative consequences of violating neutrality while retaining some neutral backlash.


text:
How long does it take to play Cuba?
How long does it take to play Cuba? And does the playing vary considerably between different numbers of players?

The time does depend on # of players, as turns are sequential, yet total rounds is fairly constant.  I would say 30 minutes per player is a good average.  The game will change significantly with # of players, as it makes use of several first-come mechanics (limited board resource slots) and, of course, the voting mechanic.   4-5 players will be the closest in game-play.


text:
I have the Dominion base set only, in what order should I buy the expansions?
I've heard a lot about the different Dominion expansions, but I'm still not really sure which direction to go.

In what order would you suggest I buy the expansions?
How does each one change the game?
what different behavior/strategies does each one promote?

Personally, my favorite expansion is Prosperity.  My least favorite expansion is Alchemy.
So, if I had to suggest an order, it would be:
Prosperity, Dark Ages, Seaside, Intrigue, Hinterlands, Cornucopia, Guilds, Alchemy.
Here are the major new things in each set:
Intrigue
New Mechanic: Multi-type cards (ex. Action – Victory)
Actions tends to be more complicated than Base's actions
Nastier attack cards
Standalone (doesn't require Base)
Emphasis on attacks and special actions
Seaside
New Mechanic: Durations (Multi-turn actions)
New types of Attack cards
Tokens and Mats for use with certain cards
Emphasis on setting up your next turn
Alchemy
Smaller set (12 Kingdom cards instead of 25)
New basic Treasure card: Potion, costs $4 worth 1p
Powerful cards, but 10 of 12 take a Potion to buy
Emphasis on extra actions/action chaining
Prosperity
New basic Treasure Card: Platinum, costs $9 worth $5
New basic Victory Card: Colony, costs $11 worth 10vp
8 Kingdom Treasure cards that act like actions when played during Buy phase
New Victory tokens, worth 1vp or 5vp each
Emphasis on treasure and victory points
Cornucopia
Smaller set (12 Kingdom cards instead of 25)
Emphasis on Actions and Drawing cards
Doesn't mix well with Prosperity
Jester is the real star of this set as it lets you gain one of a card an opponent flips up.
Hinterlands
Several new Kingdom Victory cards with special effects
New Mechanic: On gain, do X
Emphasis on +Cards and gaining cards
Puts a new twist on some existing card ideas (ex. Margrave instead of Militia)
Dark Ages
More new Kingdom cards than any other set
Shelters provide an alternative to starting with 3 Estates
New card type: Ruins. An action card that isn't very useful (brown border)
Emphasis on giving other players junk and action chaining
Guilds
Smaller set (12 Kingdom cards instead of 25)
New Mechanic: Coin tokens that you gain and can spend later
Emphasis on trashing cards and gaining coin tokens

From what I've found Alchemy seems to be the lowest ranked expansion in almost any category. Are there any hard reasons for this or does it just happen to be less popular?

@CrazyJugglerDrummer: The addition of Potions makes the cards harder to purchase.

I do suppose potions make things a fair bit more complex as you have to balance your quantities of 2 different resources. But is this really the only thing? Its very action centered, which could also make things more complex. It seems to be the expansion that's hardest for newer players to like, whether intentional or not.

I already answered this here.
And the other answers on that page are very good, but specific to Intrigue. If you have a friend you always play with who is getting Intrigue, I would get Seaside first. If not, get Intrigue first.

Others have answered how each expansion changes the game and what different behavior/strategies exist, so I'll comment on suggested order to buy expansions.
Subjective/situational aspects
I think it depends a lot on personal preference, whether you know anyone else with the game or intend to buy the game and how much money you want to spend.
Personal preference
I don't like Intrigue as much because I prefer peaceful games over attacking/defending, but there are some cards in Intrigue that I definitely would not want to miss out on! My wife likes Prosperity the most because she likes games to last longer (more base victory points available with colony added) and she tends to prefer big money strategies. Neither of us like Alchemy very much. If you are going to buy them all anyways then order of purchase may not matter in the end, but if you only want certain experiences then I suggest you read all the answers/tips/suggestions and familiarize yourself with the cards so you can carefully make your decision.
Friends
If you have a friend who enjoys playing base Dominion with you perhaps they might buy Intrigue so they will have a set of treasure/victory/curse cards themselves and then you could each decide who will buy the other expansions later. You can save money by ensuring you and your friends don't double up on games and expansions. If you are going over to someone else's home to play with them you won't need to carry as many boxes around and vice versa.
Cost
Can you afford to buy them all? Do you want to buy them all? Your choice of expansions may be very situational...
When everything is said and done...
There are great cards in each set and the game has evolved over time so if you're going to buy them all why not buy them in the order they were released? That's what we did and I don't have any complaints, in fact I've enjoyed every minute of our experience with Dominion! :)

I must admit, I had an advantage when getting them: I bought Base and was given Intrigue as a gift.  After which, I bought the remaining 3 sets as each came out.

Necroing as there are several new expansions now.
Adds the least complexity to the game:
Base > Intrigue > Cornucopia > Guilds > Seaside > Prosperity > Hinterlands > Alchemy > Dark Ages
Completely personal preference (subjective, obvi)
Guilds > Dark Ages > Prosperity > Hinterlands > Seaside > Alchemy > Intrigue > Cornucopia > Base
Most experienced players like Cornucopia more than I do and Alchemy less; otherwise I think this is close to the general consensus (which of course will vary).
For bang for the buck I would buy Dark Ages if you are into learning new tricks, as it is a huge expansion. I would buy Intrigue if you don't feel like learning too many new rules but just want more cards. Prosperity would be a good compromise between these two goals. My favorite is Guilds, but it is a small expansion.
They're all good!

Adventures that just came out, I'd put as even more complex than Dark Ages, and a ton of fun.


text:
Dominion: what happens when I play Throne Room on a Feast since Feast gets trashed when played?
Throne Room: "Choose any action in your hand and play it twice"
Feast: "Trash this card and gain a card costing up to 5$"
So I use the Throne Room and play Feast twice. The first time it gets played it gets trashed and I gain a card up to five. The second time its played the Feast card is in the trash, and to play a Feast it needs to get trashed to gain a card.
I recall the rules say something like when you play an action you must follow as many of the rules as you can, so I assume you would just trash the one Feast and gain 2 cards up to 5$. Is this correct?

As other answerers have written, the end result is you gain 2 cards (costing up to 5) and the Feast goes to the trash.
The general idea I like to remember is on page 6 of the rules (emphasis mine):

The player may still play an Action card even if he is not able to do everything the Action card tells him to do; but the player must do as much as he can.

With just this rule you can see what the result is of playing Throne Room + Feast - do everything the card tells you to that you can do... twice. (In this case, Trash the Feast and gain the 2 cards).
This also covers several other tricky scenarios - for example, playing Upgrade to trash a Copper. In this case, you will gain nothing because no card costs exactly 1 (unless you also played a Bridge earlier that turn).

Or you could have played a highway

Gain two cards.
From the rules, pg5

If you use Throne Room on Feast, you will
  gain two cards, even though you can only trash Feast once.
  Gaining the card isn't contingent on trashing Feast; they're just
  two things that the card tries to make you do.

As @MagRoader pointed out, the general rule is on page 6.

The player may still play an Action card even if he is not able to do everything the Action card tells him to do; but the player must do as much as he can.

Therefore the gaining of a card is not dependent on the trashing of the Feast (obviously you can't trash one card twice).

While there is a general rule to this effect, keep in mind that a card may specifically disallow some of its actions.  For example, Tactician doesn't give you its next turn bonuses unless you discarded any cards... and you must discard all the cards in your hand when playing it the first time.  Likewise, Outpost restricts you to two consecutive turns.

The first time Feast is played, it is moved to the trash, and you get a card costing up to 5. Then, Feast goes (stays) in the trash, and you get a card costing up to 5. In Dominion, the only times one instruction on a card is dependent on another (that I can think of) is when it's prefaced by something like "If you do, ", as in Moneylender, or when the following instruction calculates based off the preceding one, as in Remodel.


text:
When should I buy a Possession in Dominion?

Possession is easily one of the most controversial and game-changing cards in Dominion, and I've often heard it described with disgust by many players. Most Dominion cards require you to take advantage of the power of your own deck, and thus are relatively easy to come up with a strategy for. But Possession usually requires you to take advantage of your opponent's deck instead! How can I tell if Possession is a good buy and how should I use it?
(Links to the Dominion strategy blog are fine, but please make sure your answer actually contains a good complete answer and not just the link. :) )

Huh, I just noticed Possession isn't even an Attack

Personally, I rarely design my deck to specifically target Possession, because:

6 coins plus a potion is difficult to get
I don't know what my neighbor will have

However, if I do have potions in my deck, and I happen to run across 6 coins and a potion during the game, I'll evaluate at that point.  Usually if the person to your left has any kind of reasonable deck (they're buying Golds and such) it will be worth it to get Possession.  Sometimes their deck is complete garbage and it's not worthwhile because possessing them will just clutter your deck with more Silver or other low-cost cards.
Remember, by buying Possession you're essentially sacrificing at least one Gold you could have had, so the hands you're possessing need to be of some minimum level of quality to make that tradeoff worthwhile.
Ultimately, I only get Possession in games where the other potion-costing cards make buying a potion worthwhile, and where if I don't happen to put together 6 coins plus a potion in a single hand, there's still a viable strategy.

If the game is likely to end quickly on piles (e.g., a good Gardens setup), then you may not even have time to purchase a Possession.
If there are attacks that directly hurt your opponent (e.g., cursing or hand-size attacks), then Possession becomes less valuable, especially in a two-player game.

I specified attacks that directly hurt your opponent to exclude attacks like Pirate Ship, which wouldn't change my Possession strategy significantly.


text:
What is the logic behind the bean cards to be removed from the deck in Bohnanza?

With 3 players, remove the Cocoa Beans
  from the game.
With 4 or 5 players,
  remove the Coffee Beans from the game.
With 6 or 7 players , remove the Cocoa
  Beans and the Garden Beans from the
  game.

What's the logic behind this? Is there any reason cocoa beans only work with a medium number of players? I can see the potential logic of wanting to keep them occurring at a certain frequency, but how does that 'improve' the game. It they are common, players will scramble to get them due to rarity, and with more players they will be powerful in trade. These are key elements to the game, and I don't see why the rules specifically try to prevent these conditions that are just a natural part of the game. Same thing with coffee beans, why do the most common beans only work with a medium number of players? What effect will changing these rules have on the game?

It seems clear that the very valuable, very scarce beans will work best when there are neither too many nor too few players at the table.  With too many players, these beans are too hard to make work: if you take a risk and plant one, at a competitive table you may never be allowed to plant another!  Conversely, with too few players, these beans are too easy to make work: you stand a good chance of just randomly drawing into them on your turn and making a killing.
I suspect the Coffee Beans exist to make up the numbers in games where the Cocoa and/or Garden beans have been removed.  They are a pretty generic bean, plentiful and of low value, unlikely to rock any boats.  I don't think the Coffee beans would be unbalanced in a 3/6/7 player game in and of themselves; but they need to be removed just because, if you'll allow me to mix my metaphors, too many beans spoil the broth.  The more types of bean you have in the mix at any one time, the more random the draws become, and the less easy it is to discern a hopefully optimal strategy.  (Equally, of course, too few beans makes it too easy to see the "best" plays.)
Keeping the number of beans in play down to 9 or 10 at any one time keeps it easy, but not too easy, to wrap your head around the numbers of what's going on.  If you just want a fun, random, noisy bean-collecting game where you don't really care about the finer points of game balance or cutthroat competitive strategy, I'd suggest that it's probably not worth your while removing and adding different types of beans between every game.  Depends entirely on your motivations for playing Bohnanza!

Nice analysis.  I don't think we played with those variants back when I played more Bohnanza.  I don't recall ever reading them actually.  Taking out some beans is definitely something I'd be willing to do.  The game takes a bit longer than it ought to (IMHO).  Dropping the deck by 20+ cards sound ideal.

Ignore them if you like, they aren't mandatory.  Those are all listed after the main rules section under a heading entitled, "Variations based on the number of players"
You can find a probable reason for those rules on BoardGameGeek.  To sum it up, the original German version of Bohnanza was for 3-5 players.  There was an expansion that included support for 6-7 players which added the 4 (Cocoa), 22(Wax) and 24(Coffee) beans.  This expansion was included for the english language release of the game by Rio Grande Games.
One can make an assumption that between the release of the expansion in 1997 and the Rio Grande version in English (2000) that it was felt that the additional cards led to a longer, possibly less satisfying game.  The variations based on number of players appears to be an attempt to improve, and definitely shorten the game (particularly with < 6 players).

Well, with 3 players, it is guaranteed that at least 1 player will draw more than 1 cocoa bean, which is a large advantage.
With increasing numbers of players, it seems likely that they would just get thrown away.  Not sure if either of these thoughts were what the game designers were actually thinking, but it's a theory.


text:
Arkham Horror -- multiple investigators assisting in a combat?
Despite Arkham Horror being a cooperative game, one of the glaring holes I noticed the first time I played was that it doesn't appear that multiple investigators can attack a single monster, and vice versa.
I've read the rules a couple of times, but wanted to make completely sure:
If two investigators are in the same space as a single monster, Investigator A has to either Evade the monster or pass a Horror check, then fight until they either win, flee or die.  If Investigator A flees or dies, Investigator B has the same option to either Evade or pass a Horror check, and fight as normal.  At no time can they somehow gang up together and add their Combat together against the monster, correct?

That is correct. With the exception of the Final Battle, all combat is one-on-one. Investigators cannot team up against monsters, and multiple monsters in a single location do not team up against an investigator.

Yep, as mentioned above, combat is one-on-one. Just wanted to add that there are rules for "team battles" at Arkham Investigations if you want to use them.
http://arkhaminvestigations.barkingdoginteractive.com/

Interesting, I'll have to take a look at those, thanks!