text:
Can casinos protect themselves against card counters by limiting bet variations in blackjack?
For reason discussed below, "card counters" make their money by observing the flow of cards as they leave the deck. This is legal in most cases (although it's a felony to use a "device" such as a computer in Nevada). It is frowned upon, probably because it violates an unwritten rule (the house is supposed to win).
Because the rules of the game (the deal plays after all the players), the casino will win the majority of the hands. But there are several offsetting rules that reduce the house edge to about 1%:
1) Players are paid 3-2 for blackjacks (more like 5-4 nowadays), unless the dealer also has a blackjack, in which case it's a tie.
2) The dealer has to "hit on 16, stand on 17." Players are free to make better decisions.
3) Players can "double down" in advantageous situations.
4) Players can "split" two equal cards if it is to their advantage, essentially doubling their bets, and getting two potential blackjacks for e.g. A-A.
Card counters do one more thing to tip the odds in their favor. There are rare situations (when a lot of small cards have come out of the deck, leaving a disproportionate number of ten valued cards). At such times, the game is actually in the player's favor ( 1) greater potential for blackjacks, and 2) greater potential for the dealer to bust.) Card counters will "bet big" at such times, and "bet small" at others. The bet size variations (typically 5- or 10- to 1, larger than that of a typical "tourist), help identify a card counter. If someone were to "flat bet" (bet the same on every hand), card counting probably would be useless.
Nevada casinos will typically bar (eject) or harass people identified as card counters. (Following a court case, Atlantic City casinos can't do this, but will merely "shuffle up" after every deal to eliminate the counter's advantage.)
IMHO, Nevada casinos shouldn't be allowed to do what they do, but should have the privilege of "money managment" available to every player. If casinos had the right to limit bet sizes, and more importantly, bet VARIATIONS to say 2-to-1, it would be roughly even money against the best card counters (and make money from a bunch of wannabees).
Is this a workable solution for the casino to not lose money at blackjack? Would this be "fair" to both the house and players?

Not sure of the question here. Are you asking that by making the maximum bet double the minimum bet, does this put the house/player at even odds all of the time, on average (most of the time), ... ? "Fair" only has one meaning here (on BG.SE), and it would mean even odds.

@user1873: That's basically what I meant. That is, my question is, if you can come up with a construct that gives "even odds, on average," is that a result that would satisfy SE's notions of social justice? Or put it another way, should this be a solution that should satisfy both players and the house (so they stop "going to war?")

One thing to remember people who count cards are doing it to get an advantage then anything that puts them at even odds with the casino will also put non card counters at a disadvantage. Personally there sound be no reason to ban a person from "counting cards" because all they are doing is using public knowledge. Though I do think that card counting teams are not in the spirit of the game.

@JoeW: By "teams," you mean a "Big Player who has teammates spread all over the casino making minimum bets, and signalling him when and where to bet big, right? To fight this, casinos could have a rule than anyone joining a table after a new "shoe" has started can be limited to a minimum bet at the discretion of the casino.

That would do little to hurt the card counting teams as they tend to have bigger pools to use to bet with and all it would do is hurt the average gambler not to mention they can just join before the "new shoe" so can get around that minimum bet increase. Simple fact is about the only thing that can be done to prevent card counters without hurting the non card counters is to increase the amount of decks that are used and how often they are shuffled. If they don't have a chance to see many of the cards then it wont matter if they are counting or not.

@JoeW: The "large pools" of money run by teams isn't a problem. In that regard, they'd just be like some other "high roller" from e.g. Macao. What is unfair is when a card counter bets $10 a hand, and then waits for a "rich" deck to signal a Big Player (BP) to bet $50-$100 a hand at those times (and not others). If the BP started the game with a new deck, betting $50-$100, he'd be on the same footing as everyone else.

So in order to prevent a card counter you would also prevent an average gambler from making small normal bets and then increasing the bet when they feel lucky? Or is it that you just don't understand the purpose of the Min/Max bet at tables which is to minimize just such an act from happening? People have been running casinos for a very long time and they have developed many methods to catch cheaters who have also been working for a very long time and have developed ways around those methods. No matter what you do card counters will find ways to game the system which can not really be stopped.

let us continue this discussion in chat

@JoeW  Who said anything about cheaters?  you mean the casinos who rig just about every game in their favor?

Right but other then cheaters/card counters what groups does a casino really need to protect themselves from?

The answer to this is most likely no since a casino wants players to maximize their bets and placing any kind of limit that would keep a player betting lower would not be in their best interests. Minimum and Maximum bets at a table are established to maximize the amount that a casino can win while limiting a player to take advantage of long term odds to win by placing small and large bets over time. The short of it is a casino wants players to make larger bets when they are feeling lucky but they also know that a lot of players are not going to want to place large bets all of the time so they need to allow them to place both small and large bets depending on how they feeling their luck is running.


text:
Where are the building entrances in Zombies?
It has never been clear where the entrances in to and out of buildings are from roads. Some are obvious when there is only a single road segment:

Others are multi-square builds along side a multi-square road (e.g. the gas station). Some like the army surplus store has an obvious door way:

But others are less obvious, like the hardware store with fenced parking lots, the toy store with non-obvious doorways, etc. Which road segments can the building be entered from? I could not find details on this in the rules or the Zombies FAQ.
I feel like the density of the bright white border lines contains a clue, but nothing seemed to make sense there either. For example, the starting tile (above) has bright lines between the road segments.

I'd like to know the answer to this question despite the fact that I traded my Zombies!!! stuff in on other games some time ago.

I believe the only available answer may be: that there is no certain answer, but the building entrances should be located by player agreement, based on the application of some degree of common sense to the visual appearance of the tiles.
I don't own Zombies, but I remember when I played it I thought it was definitely a "fast and loose" style of game design, rather than having the sort of very precise, loophole-closing ruleset that I personally prefer.  Bad news for us obsessive-compulsive rules lawyers, in other words!

I guess I'm gonna have to get a marker and create some house rules for entrances.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Are Wargames Research Group rules still available?
I used to use Wargames Research Group rules, mainly for modern warfare (post-WWII) wargames. Does anyone know if they are still available, or maybe a more recent update of them?

They are still available, though free versions may be hard to track down. The best place to start would be WRG's own website, though copies are for sale on Amazon and elsewhere.

The latest version of DBA 3.0 is a nice improvement with a shift to base width measurements so allowing for smaller bases and tables if required.

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


text:
Where are the various Krosmaster Arena tokens supposed to go?
In the Krosmaster Arena board game box, there are a variety of tokens that come with the set. In the plastic "piece container", the eight original figures are already set in place, and there's an obvious spot for the eight character cards.
There are four other cardboard punch outs, and included on those are a large amount of tokens. Are those designed to go into a specific location in the plastic container? If so, where?

If your looking at the box with the token slots closest to you. Figs on the far side. From left to right its: dice, bag of (mp/ap/damage/coins), demonic rewards(gold and 1/2 of granite), demonic rewards (jade and 1/2 granite) (each slot holds 1&1/2 colors), round tokens(mobs,traps,bombs), gg tokens,
The character cards have an obvious spot in the bottom and the terrain stacks on top.


text:
In Scarborough Fair, how is the length of a path defined?
The rules say that the customer always takes the shortest number of paths to the next stage.  It also says that the number of tents along the way is irrelevant.  Is path defined as a segment between tents, or is a path defined as a segment between stages?
Put another way, there's a couple places on the board that have paths between stages which have only one tent along the way.  Is the length of these segments one (stage-to-stage), or is the length two (stage-to-tent-to-stage)?

Two adjacent stages have a path length of one.  The designer has a video playthrough on the official website which makes this clear.  I was parsing things too closely and confused myself.


text:
Can the campaign mode for Star Wars: Imperial Assault be played if one player is not always able to attend?
We are starting an Star Wars: Imperial Assault campaign and one member of our group is not "always available". Will this be a problem? Do the rules support this and will it unbalance the game if the number of players varies between sessions?

I believe this question is on-topic and not opinion based because it is able to be objectively answered by both reading the rules and by actual play experience. Essentially, this is like any other houserule question, but this time the houserule is "the number of players changes per session".

@Thunderforge, thanks, but was there actually a question about it being 'on topic' (do I just not have enough points to see a flag/close vote?)

Yes, it currently has 4 close votes: 3 for "too broad" and 1 for "primarily opinion based". I edited the question to try to head off the "too broad" (although perhaps further improvements could be made) and added the comment to address "primarily opinion based". I hoped that putting anything about it being on-topic would discourage further close votes, or encourage reopen votes should a final close vote be issued.

Ok...I'm just privileged enough on the other SE sites that I frequent (Stack Overflow and Seasoned advice) that I didn't even think about not being able to see close votes... I do appreciate your improvements to the question.

Short answer:
It shouldn't be a problem as long as you guys are willing to share control of that player's character when he isn't available or are OK with taking some risk with game balance by having the number of players vary between missions.
Detailed answer:
The number of players in the game does matter and is meant to be fixed. The campaign setup (Rules Reference Guide, Page 7) requires that each player choose a Hero and handles assignment of the Legendary/Heroic cards for games with less than 4 players at campaign start time. If the number of players changes, you'll need to add/remove Legendary/Heroic cards as appropriate.
Campaign setup also affects the building of the side mission deck (Rules Reference Guide, Page 17) as each hero's red Side Mission card will be inserted into the deck.
Critically, the number of credits granted at the end of each session scales based on the number of players. The game wasn't designed for this to vary.
You likely could change the number of players between missions, temporarily removing their side quest and granting less credits at the end, but this means that the pool of players will have less credits than they ordinarily would have had. This can be fairly impactful, as it's a common practice to pool resources to load up one or two heroes with great end-game weapons and attachments. Additionally, the missing hero would either need to be granted XP upon rejoining the game or fall behind.
There are also some logistics to consider: if you have the missing player's hero controlled by the group, you may want to coordinate which abilities they would want to pick if you're doing more than one mission at a time.
I personally feel it's best to just control that player's character in their absence to keep the number of players constant. Some groups will opt to always play with four heroes, even if there are less players, as some missions feel more balanced with a full group and support characters get a greater chance to shine.

The game is designed to be played with a constant number of players. That said, it is absolutely possible to change the number between plays, with a few caveats.
The Imperial player should be able to attend every session
One player plays the Imperial side throughout all missions. However, they have several choices that remain secret from the other players until revealed, such as purchasing special cards to play. If the Imperial player can't attend your session, you can have another player take their place, but that will result in them finding out any of these secret cards. I think that these are minor spoilers though, and some play groups are okay rotating who plays it.
That said, during a particular scenario, the Imperial player has a substantial amount of information that needs to be kept secret from the players, so I do not recommend someone trying to play both sides.
Rebel players are supposed to remain constant…
The game is designed to have the same number of Rebel players each game. If you are playing with fewer than four players, the remaining characters receive special benefits to become more powerful. The credit allotment at the end of each mission is per player as well.
Given this, the recommended solution for what to do when you are missing someone is to have a Rebel player play their character and the missing one. That way, the game functions the same way as if everybody was present
…but we successfully played a campaign where we varied the player count
In our campaign, we just did the following:

During each scenario, give out the special cards for playing fewer than 4 players if we are missing somebody
If somebody is missing, allow their gear to be distributed to other players
Always reward the team with credits as if we had the full number of players

The reason we gave full credits even if we didn't have a full number of players was because we didn't want the Rebels to be underpowered when everybody was at the table. This probably meant that the Rebels were slightly overpowered when somebody was missing, as the team had more gear than they would have had normally.
An alternative that might be fairer is to not allow the missing player's gear to be used by other players, or to only allow a few items associated with the player to be used. At any rate, I believe it is definitely possible to play with missing players from time to time.


text:
Can you turn around in Circus Imperium?
In FASA's Circus Imperium, are you allowed to turn your chariot around on an oval track?
One of the tactics suggested during a previous game was for a player who has no chance of winning to turn around and kamikaze the lead player with a head on crash. The logic being, is your loss is worth my death.
There are rules for head on collisions when we have them with the figure-8 track. Would you allow the player to turn around and go the wrong way down the track? Is a full turn penalty enough? Having to start/finish in the inside/outside lane?

I don't think there is any reason to add more griefing to a game.  Why is the person in 2nd any more deserving of the win?

It may be that we play too many other "screw your neighbour" games (Munchkin, etc.); or perhaps it is our group's way of showing the love. But when someone has won to many games in a row, or has started celebrating to early. We've teamed up before to when someone was nearly a full lap ahead of the pack (it failed, but it was a lot of fun). It's kind of the "crabs in the bucket mentality". Why would anyone intentionally crash into another player (figure-8 or oval) track.

I don't think you would intentionally, but you might be forced to depending where everyone else is positioned.

Normally the rule of play is no, you cannot turn your chariot away from the forward path of the track. You can plot to ram in the figure 8 and are encouraged to damage the other chariots to the point of destruction.
Additionally, the ruling class watching would scream for a laser show to cut you and your beasts down if you tried a turnabout, well before your collision could occur...  Give the boys in the corner seats their cheers by smashing into the wall, leaping into the other player's chariot and kicking them into the oncoming frenzy.

Can you point to a rule, designer comment, FAQ, or suchlike to support this?  (I'm not disagreeing; I don't know the game.  But if you can add a source your answer will be stronger.)


text:
What are the differences between Pandemic and Pandemic 2013?
I have seen that there is a new edition of Pandemic for 2013.
What are the differences between Pandemic and the "New Challenge" version?
Can I convert my original edition to use any of the new rules?
Is the original Pandemic compatible with the 2013 expansion packs?

The differences between the original version of Pandemic and the 2013 version are essentially cosmetic. The only significant change is to the Role cards. The 2013 games features 2 new roles, Contingency Planner and Quarantine Specialist, that aren't in the original version. It also has the revised Operations Expert from the original On The Brink expansion. There are pictures of these cards here. There have been some changes to the rulebook to clarify some things in the original rulebook that caused confusion.
The original Pandemic is not compatible with the 2013 expansion packs (the card backs have different designs), however you can buy replacement cards to make the original Pandemic compatible with the new expansions.

I believe the board art is also different and that's worth mentioning because if you buy the In the lab expansion you will end up with distinct board styles even purchasing the new cards.


text:
How does Talisman 4th Edition compare with earlier versions?
I played Talisman back in the 1980s - I don't know whether it was the first or second edition. I enjoyed it.
Lots of years later I'm back into board games - particularly Catan, Dominion, Carcasonne.
I see that the latest version of Talisman is a 4th edition.
How does this most recent edition compare with the original game? What has changed?

According to the posters on this thread, the only changes between 1st and 2nd edition were cosmetic.
 Although one poster mentions slightly different wording on some of the wands.
The differences between 2nd edition and 4th edition are noted on this thread.

Cosmetic changes, including larger board, cards, plastic bits, and cardboard cutout characters.

RULES and GAME Mechanics

6) Major Difference - Craft can be gained for every 7 points of craft monsters defeated.
7) Major Difference - Spell Casting Limitations - In their turn, the maximum number of Spells a character may cast is equal to the number of spells, and whichever spells they possessed at the start of that Turn. A Character may only cast one Spell during another Character's Turn. This does not apply to the Command Spell. (If you ALWAYS have a Spell due to the Wand or Ability, you draw your 'new' spell at the end of your turn)
8) Major Difference - Mules are NO LONGER OBJECTS, they are considered 'FOLLOWERS' "The mule can carry an extra 4 objects for you while it is your follower. If you lose the mule, you will leave any surplus objects of your choice in the space you are in." I.E Mules can be 'Mesmerised' by the spell but NOT 'Acquisitioned' by the spell, hence if you win a character to character battle, you can no longer 'take' the mule, as its no longer an object.
Visiting the Villiage shops is not optional, Market Day allows everyone to buy from a market rather than trade with each other, Orb of Knowledge is no longer one use.

The second link is dead unfortunately.

I played the new version earlier this summer.  I had not played the original in more than a decade but game play was pretty much the same.  The new boards and cards were beautiful, though.  Some of the playable characters from the original were missing (the elf is one I can remember off the top of my head).  Still, given a choice, I would definitely play the new edition.

I assume that by "4th edition" you mean "revised 4th edition" as it's the most recent version and differs substantially from its non-revised predecessor.
Talisman was always a very random game with many effects depending on the die roll.
To somewhat counteract this, revised 4th edition introduced the Fate stat.
Spending a Fate point allows you to reroll 1 die, giving players some amount of control over the fate of their character.
In my opinion, this is the most important difference.
Many small changes address the balance issues from previous editions.*
Last but not least, the game finally** is more formalized.
For example, in the 2nd edition an effect might refer to a weapon, and the players needed to figure out on their own, whether a given piece of equipment is a weapon or not.
In the most recent edition if an item is a Weapon it is explicitly stated on the card.
*although 4th edition has it's own brand-new balance problems.
**to be honest, this might be already the case in the 3rd edition - my knowledge about that version is very small


text:
What are the differences between first and second edition Yomi?
I have the first edition of Yomi, but recently encountered cards from the second. I noticed that normal attacks draw you cards, but I didn't know if this is true in general. I haven't been able to find a list of differences between the two editions.
What are the rules changes from first to second edition?
If relevant, are the characters changed in other ways, as well?

General Changes
The following rules were added to the game (source):

Hand limit: 12 cards. At the end of the turn (after the powerup phase), discard down to 12 cards if you have more. There's no limit to hand size during the rest of the turn.
Normal draw rule: If your normal attack is blocked or wins combat, draw a card. (this helps to encourage some early attacking)
Double knockdown: if you're both knocked down, cancel the knockdown effect next combat.
Time Out: when a player draws the last card from deck, time is over. The winner is the player with the highest hit points. (If tied, it's a draw.)
Life Total: Cannot go above starting values.

Character Changes
Some characters were tweaked for balance and to work with new characters. The changed items are mentioned here. New stats can be found here. I looked at my physical copy for the old stats.
Argagarg

10: The "counter" ability now puts the cancelled card on the bottom of the opponent's deck (if it was played from hand) instead of discarding it.

DeGrey

DeGrey's character ability now applies to supers (aces) as well as specials (face cards).

Geiger

Geiger's character ability prevents the opponent from activating innate character abilities from blocking if they took block damage from a Time Spiral.

Grave

Grave's character ability now only searches for the queen if you win the combat with the revealed card. If you lose, you draw a card instead.
10: The "counter" ability now also requires you to discard a face card.

Jaina

Jaina's character ability now costs 3 damage for each card, but can't return queens or aces. While on 35 life or less Jaina can return queens and aces for 4 damage each.
2-6 attack: normal attacks in red suits only now deal X-1 block damage (where X is the card rank) instead of 3 block damage.
7: Unstable Power no longer rotates a card at the cost of 10 damage. It is now played after drawing, causing knocked down opponents to stand and preventing you from playing aces, but allowing you to rotate your combat card. If you hit this combat, you search for 2 aces, otherwise you take 7 damage.
10: If the opponent dodges and this is in your discard pile, the opponent still takes 2 damage but you no longer return the 10 to your hand. You can't power up with 10s.
J: Charged Shot is now a 4.6 speed starter, not an 8.6 speed can't combo. Flame Arrow is unchanged.

Lum

Lum's Roll the Dice, 2-3: You gain 4 hit points -OR- draw the bottom card of your deck.
Lum's Roll the Dice, A: Draw 3 cards then peek at the bottom card of your deck.
10, throw: extra cards discarded to the throw add 4 damage each, rather than 3.
Q: No longer deals any block damage.
A, Blackjack: Now you can't choose to put the cards into hand (unless you hit exactly 21).
A, Great Pandamonium: Requires 2 aces for 21 damage, instead of 1 ace for 10.

Midori

Midori's dragon attacks can't be blocked by normal dodges only (previously could not be dodged at all).
When you block an attack or joker while in dragon form, you may return a non-joker from your discard instead of drawing a card.
K: Talon Swoop is now 1.8 speed, not 2.2.

Rook

Gained the additional character ability "Defense Mastery" (opponents don't draw when you block their normal attacks).
3 block: instead of getting to discard a card for 8 damage, this card now knocks down the opponent, deals 5 damage, and makes your attacks/throws 3 speed faster in the next turn. Neither version of this block draw you a card or return to your hand.
K: this throw now beats normal attacks with speed 5 or faster, but you still take the damage from it.

Setsuki

10: Can no longer counter character abilities.

Valerie

10: "Burst of Speed" pushes moves to a minimum of 1 speed, not 0.
K: Can now only be blocked by a block of the same colour suit (red/black).

Style Changes
Characters now have ability cards which summarise their different abilities and stats, and which abilities they have on their normals.
The template for abilities on cards has been cleaned up slightly, making it clearer which phase to use them in by using a heading separate to the ability text.

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


text:
Is it better to learn to play bridge by reading about it, or just playing?
I'm an avid card player, and I have a particular love for trick-taking games (above all, Hearts and Spades). I've wanted to learn to play bridge for a long time, and I've bought two different books on the subject, but neither really launched me into playing. For experienced players, what is the best way to learn to play bridge, for someone who is already experienced and comfortable in four-person trick-taking games?
Should I just master the most basic rules and then try playing? I find this works well for Hearts and Spades, but I'm not sure that the complexity of Bridge will be as easily acquired.

I think you'd be hard-pushed to learn Bridge just by reading about it.  There are many, many excellent books out there, but until you're sitting down at an actual table it will be hard to visualise what it actually feels like, having only partial information, trying urgently to communicate your hand to your partner despite your opponent continually getting in your way.
Equally, I think it'd be a slow process learning Bridge just by playing it.  Sure, you'll get better and better as the fundamental concepts begin to dawn on you; but Bridge is an immensely subtle and sophisticated game and some of the finest game-playing minds of this and last century have thought about it for millions of hours.  Reading some of the greatest writers on the subject will be a short-cut to ideas and epiphanies that would take you years or decades to stumble across in the course of playing with just the basics under your belt.
So to answer your question, yes I would "just master the most basic rules and then try playing"; but I'd make sure to keep reading more, then playing more, then reading more again!  Bridge is an incredibly deep game, perhaps unequalled in depth by any other game - you could easily spend your life playing it, mastering it, assimilating the ideas of others who have tried to master it.  It's well worth it though - I envy you your journey!

Great answer - thanks so much! Got any recommendations for books to accompany me on my journey? :)

Unfortunately I personally have read only a tiny subset of the great books that have been written abut Bridge - but there are some good lists here that should cater to all levels: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridge_books.  I do recommend Victor Mollo's "Bridge in the Menagerie", just because it's full of very funny sketches of Bridge players of all different temperaments, presented as anthropomorphic animals.  Other books can teach you how to PLAY Bridge, but that one makes it very easy to learn to LOVE it :)

@ella evans: If you think this, or any other answer is great, you should "upvote" it. I just did.

Assuming your goal is to play good bridge, you need to do both: reading and playing.
Reading will make you familiar with the distilled thoughts of experts, card play techniques, bidding issues etc, which they arrived at, after having had years of experience. It is unlikely that one single individual will ever gain that through his/her own playing experience.
While in theory this is all fine, to play good, winning bridge, you need to be focused at the table, and be able to do: Counting.
Being able to count the hand (high cards, distribution) is the single most important ability which separates the good players from the average player, and for most this only comes from playing. Not counting vs counting is compared to driving blind vs looking where you are going.
If you want to learn things quickly: do some reading, play some hands and do a post-mortem of the hands you played with a better player who knows the stuff. Rinse, Repeat.
The best way to learn and improve is to actively look for your mistakes (which can only happen if you actually play), ideally by doing a post-mortem along with a player who is good enough to figure them out.
I would highly recommend you read this blog post from Justin Lall (who won the silver medal in the recent world championship: Bermuda Bowl): http://justinlall.wordpress.com/2006/04/26/how-to-improve-your-game/
Good luck!

There are two aspects of bridge: bidding, and playing.
For bidding, you HAVE to read. Basically, you have to learn about point count, distribution, and at least the "standard" bidding conventions. There's no way around it, but it's not a heavy burden.
Fortunately for you, the time spent in bridge is about one-third (or less) bidding, and the rest playing. In the latter part, you have a natural advantage over other beginners, with your other playing experience. There are a few standard playing techniques, and quite a few "tricks," most of which you can pick up as you go along.
Back to bidding: In some beginners' classes, the teacher will examine each hand in turn and tell people how to bid.  But "reading" is still the best way to learn bidding, certainly without a teacher.

Actually, for a casual player, learning any one of the standard bidding systems IS a heavy burden, let alone all of the 2-3 more common variants.

@aramis: It's hard to learn a bidding system WELL. But this will get our friend started with Standard American: http://home.comcast.net/~kwbridge/basics.htm.


text:
What is the no agressive variant (Peaceful Variant)?
Yesterday I played on Board Game Arena a non agressive variant of the game. The only difference I saw was a lack of wonders of age A (that could be just luck) and no agression cards.
The game itself was very boring, with nothing else to do only a rush to tackle VP without any other interaction between the players.
That's the only thing that this variation do, or there is something else that I miss??
How does the military cards are arrange in this variation?

I assume this is the same as the "Peaceful Variant" from p19 of the rules:

Remove all Aggression and War cards. You probably also want to remove the Pacts that lose their usefulness when no one can attack.

As the rules proceed to explain, this can be more fun for new players so they don't get crushed quite as badly. Military cards are acquired as normal - they are less useful without war but not totally useless (e.g. there's still Colonization). There is definitely less player interaction in this variant, but still some (e.g. competition for particular cards).


text:
How many monster cards / what is the bonus value in the Alvin and Dexter Ticket to Ride expansion
The Alvin and Dexter expansion looks like an interesting one, and one you could quite easily do yourself.  To that end, how many cards of each type of monster do you get in the expansion pack and what is the value of the bonuses for each monster.

There are 40 cards (20 for each figure) and the bonus cards are worth 15 points each.
I would strongly urge you to buy the expansion yourself though - it's not all that expensive really, Days of Wonder games always have above averagely beautiful components, and games designers need to eat too!

I agree, in my defence I think Days of Wonder have done well enough from spreading the word about their games to a number of groups of people: so much so I should be on commission.  I am sure if we try it out and like it I well get the official expansion.


text:
Good first leads in sheepshead
In most trick-taking card games when you have a strong hand (as the bidder should in sheepshead) it's good to lead with high cards to retain control. However, in sheepshead players tend to hold on to the point-cards until they know who the partner is -- and they definitely won't drop points on tricks the bidder is clearly taking -- so I usually try to deliberately lose control, without making it too easy.
I don't want to play below the 10 of diamonds, because then the Ace or 10 of diamonds will often be played and I won't get them. Similarly, I don't like leading low non-trump. I suppose if I had an Ace as my only card in a suit I might lead it, or if I've put an Ace or 10 down in a suit I might lead a lower card in it, but generally I lean toward jacks -- as low of jacks as possible. I hope this will flush out some trump yet discourage anyone else from taking points. What do you think is a good first lead?

I play a lot of dopplekopf (aka double sheepshead although there are more differences than just the deck size).
A bare fail-suit (non-trump) Ace has a reasonable chance of taking a trick and certainly helps your team. The odds that your partner(s) had a better legal play had they known you were on their team are small, so this seems like a good lead.
If you're the picker's partner, leading a jack (or sub-10 diamond, though jacks are better) to your partner's presumed high trump is a very good play. If you're the picker, consider leading a red queen early to attempt to force opponents into difficult decisions (especially before partners are known).
Leads that might fish out partners are generally more valuable if you have a strong hand (trump) or a lot of points (especially in fail suits), because in both those situations, your hand will be vastly improved by good teamwork. If you have a more middling / balanced hand, letting things go unknown for longer may result in teammates overtrumping each other.

Assumptions:

You're playing 5 player sheepshead.
You are leading and the picker. (Seemed implied)
Your hand isn't super-strong.

Let's start with the "Lead a singleton fail Ace" ploy. As we know, there are 6 cards of fail. In order to have a singleton fail Ace, either the player was singleton before burying, or the player buried other fail in the suit. In the latter case, I'd avoid leading the singleton Ace (it's expected to be trumped). In the former case: why wasn't the singleton Ace buried? Could be a weak pickup. Regardless, the expectation for leading a singleton Ace is that three players have exactly one of the fail and one player has exactly two of the fail. It demonstrates a weak position to the other players (perhaps you can see the perspiration appearing on one of the players and deduce that to be your partner).
I tend to like the basic strategy of draining trump. Lead JD or higher. Expect to pull three of "their" trump for two of "your" trump. Expect to lose AD or TD on this trick (unless you buried them).
Depending on where the holes are in your trump, you might want to play high or low. Say, you have QC, QH, QD, and are missing QS. You can gamble with QC (know your counts!), or you can drop QD on the table.
In a situation where my pickup wasn't terribly strong, I'm definitely seeking to drain my opponents of their chance to trump fail. It may risk AD or TD, but I'd rather lose an early trump trick than have the table pile points. (On the opponent side, if the strategy is to throw points on tricks even when the partner is unknown (odds in the opponents' favor, and might be the only chance), it's likely the lone Ace will be trumped and shmeered).
HTH,
Tyler

Is "fail" a standard term for non-trump? Haven't heard it before.

@shujaa It's the term used on the Wikipedia page.

@shujaa Yes, it is.

...but it does seem unique to Sheepshead in this sense. A Google search for "fail suit trump" turns up only pretty much only Sheepshead hits. Yet another quirk of Sheepshead.

I guess I should have been clearer: it's standard in the context of sheepshead. Enjoy the game.

It might have to do with the regularity of the non-trump suit to "fail" to go around (without being trumped).

As to why a fail ace might not be buried:
It happens, but rarely, all three turn up in your hand (assuming picker).
A lone fail ace doesn't seem too much of a handicap, in my experience. However, should you have the choice between a protected ace or a lone ace to keep, then.. It depends... as always, on how you judge the strength of your hand - specifically, how well you can maintain lead.
I wouldn't lead fail ace, as a rule, until after milking as much trump as possible from opponents first.
As partner without trump http://www.sheepshead.org/advanced.cfm#tips suggests leading fail ace instead. It does say 'if picker is on the end' too. And, I would add, preferably a lone ace.
One story melds to another. Meh, it happens.

I would always play the queen of clubs first if it's in my hand.
You generally want to get as much trump out as possible at the beginning. The very first time the opponents are able to do so, they will play the called suit. If they still have trump, your partner's ace will usually be trumped off (and obviously you are unable to overtrump on that trick.)
And how many trump do your opponents have? Well, there are 14 trump in the deck. If you have 4-5 in your hand then there are 9-10 in the remaining 4 hands. If you can play trump twice and everyone follows suit, then there are only 1-2 trump remaining in the other hands! Often someone who was previously able to trump will no longer be able to.
If I don't have the queen of clubs but have the queens of spades and hearts, I would play one of those, to make the other one high. It's possible that the person with the queen of clubs is the very person who does not have the called suit - and thus can't play it. They'll have to play something else, and if I can trump in with a low/medium trump, I can play my queen of hearts followed by another trump, and most of the time that will make my opponents be out of trump.
With a weaker hand, there's not much wrong with just playing low trump. If your opponents are inclined to put their ace or ten of trumps on, they will do so whether the card you play is the jack of hearts or the nine of diamonds - either way, you obviously aren't taking the trick but your (unknown) partner might.
I would never lead a fail ace to start the game as picker. Similar to the called suit, you want that to be good for a trick after the opponents are drained of trump.


text:
Can a Dimir Keyrune receive a Cipher, and does the encoded spell stay?

Here's the scenario (I hope I get this right by the rules): last turn, I summoned my Dimir Keyrune onto the battlefield. This turn, if I transform it into that "2/2 blue and black Horror artifact creature", I'll be able to attack with it. It will be unblockable, making it a good candidate for a Cipher spell. The transience of it being a creature, however, is a problem.

Whilst it's temporarily a creature, can I cast Paranoid Delusions and then encode it onto the Dimir Keyrune using Cipher?
When the Dimir Keyrune stops being a creature, what happens to the Paranoid Delusions encoded on it? Does Dimir Keyrune remain encoded? This would mean, I think, that in the future, transforming it back into a creature would mean I could attack with it and potentially cast Paranoid Delusions.

Yes, you can encode it on an animated Keyrune; and yes, it remains encoded even if the Keyrune stops being a creature.

A creature is a creature. It doesn't matter how it became a creature. It's even less relevant that it might stop being a creature. (Any creature could stop being creature.)
Enchantments, Equipments and Fortifications fall off because State-Based Actions (SBA) specifically ensure they are attached to a valid object. There is no such SBA for Cipher cards. As long as the Keyrune remains on the battlefield, Paranoid Delusions will remain encoded on it. Of course, you'll have to reanimate the Keyrune to take advantage of the encoded card.

There's a reminder rule that covers this:

702.98c The card with cipher remains encoded on the chosen creature as long as the card with cipher remains exiled and the creature remains on the battlefield. The card remains encoded on that object even if it changes controller or stops being a creature, as long as it remains on the battlefield.


text:
Online Rules for Primordial Soup: Freshly Spiced
Are detailed rules for the extension Primordial Soup: Freshly Spiced available online?
All I found online is a low quality picture of the cards and an analysis of the new genes.
And the linked Official English Rulebook doesen't show the details of the genes.

I've tried to rephrase it to read as a question, and hopefully kept the original request intact.

Download this player aid file available here:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/filepage/1493/ursuppe-fisch-abgeschmeckt-rulespdf
The final 2 pages have a list of all of the genes in the expansion plus their description/explanation.  This should give you all of the information that you need.


text:
How well do Forbidden Desert and Forbidden Island play with two players?
I introduced a colleague to Pandemic. He liked it and asked if I could recommend a similar game that:

Plays well with two people, and
Will be a bit more approachable for his partner, who's new to games (and might find Pandemic a bit fidgety or overwhelming to learn).

The first thing that came to mind is Forbidden Island (which I own and like) or Forbidden Desert (which I've been been hearing great things about).
Before I recommend it though, I've never played either with just two players. Does does (one or both) hold up well with two players?

I would probably, between the two, suggest Forbidden Desert, as one thing it brings that Island lacks is specific balancing based on the number of players in the game.  Desert's analog to the "Flood Meter" from Island has different tracks based on the number of players.  Also, unlike Island, Desert supports up to five players as designed.

Forbidden Desert does play well with two players, and is a bit less intimidating than Pandemic.  Just be warned that it is hard, even starting at the lowest difficulty level.  In comparison Forbidden Island is pretty much a cake walk as long as you know what you're doing.

Forbidden Island can be a bit tough with 2 players, mainly because of the hand limit restrictions. I've had mostly close calls at normal difficulty level.
So if you're playing with 2 players, I advise to just play 2 characters each.


text:
Where can I purchase replacement parts for Battleship Galaxies?
My boys and I still enjoy Battleship Galaxies in spite (and because of!) some rather bizarre abilities and the strange "activate only one ship" mechanic.
My younger son was setting up the board for a recent game and was a bit too overly enthusiastic when he disconnected the vertical piece of the base from one of the ship miniatures (it's a ball and socket press-fit attachment).  That snapped the tip off at a point that almost certainly doesn't have enough surface area to glue back together.
Is there a source for replacement parts?
For this specific situation, what we really need is hex bases of various configurations (1, 2 and 7 hex), with a vertical piece to hold up the ship mini and holes for the shield and hull pegs.

You can still glue them back together, but you'll need to add more surface area. Use a thin drill (1/16 inch?) to drill out both the snapped-off ball and the base, then insert a peg of some sort (such as a piece of paper-clip or toothpick). Then you can glue the peg into both broken bits, and it will hold much better than just gluing the broken bits together.

If you look at the pieces in the link that ire_and_curses added, you can see that the bases are some hexes, a vertical triangle with a pea-sized ball at the top.  The break was between the thin tip of the triangle and the ball.  Drilling would be close to impossible with my tools: there's just not enough plastic there to drill and add a pin.

I did manage to find some replacement pieces from here.  As you see in the image below, the bases do arrive unassembled.  I'll use the plastic cement (that I ordered at the same time) to attach the vertical column into those center holes.

The part number at this vendor appears to be AFS062-CLR.
Note that, due to trademark restrictions (almost certainly), they have to refer to their pieces as "Galaxy Battle" and make them visibly different from the original.


text:
Is there any configuration of Free Cell that cannot be solved?
When I have free time in small durations, I often play Free Cell on my phone. The app that I use permits unlimited undos, and because of this I currently have a run of 603 wins, with 655 total wins and 10 total losses.
As is demonstrated by those statistics, my 10 losses occurred during my first 52 games. Prior to using this app, I had only played Free Cell very rarely.
As my statistics approach a 1% loss rate, I have to wonder: Given an unlimited ability to undo your moves, is there any initial deal of Free Cell that is impossible to solve?
A proof one way or another would be ideal (although I admit that I doubt I'd be able to comprehend such a proof), although an authoritative source would be a good alternative.

This site might be useful: http://www.solitairelaboratory.com/freecell.html

Given that there's no secret information, undo is irrelevant to whether something is impossible to solve.

It's not hard to prove that an unsolvable start exists. Just imagine a start where the only possible first moves would be moving cards to the extra cells. In some versions, -1 and -2 are examples of this though the only way to play them is to choose that seed.

If you only count setups which can exist in normal play, seed 11982 in the Windows version is an example of this:

Of the original 32000 games in Freecell, 11982 is the only one for which no legitimate solution was found. Since then, several computers and players have failed to find a solution- to the point where every possible combination of moves has been tried and has failed.

As far as I've read, the 32,000 "deals" in the original Windows version are accidentally those produced when the MS C Compiler's random number generator is seeded with the values 1-32,000. In other words, they don't have any special status as such, and 32,000 is of course an infinitesimal fraction of the number of possible ways of shuffling a deck of cards (and a small fraction of the number of possible shuffles that even a modest random number generator could produce).

Definitely accidental. The aforementioned random number generator has 15 bits of entropy, which means 2^15 possible orderings. That's 32,768.

@ikegami: It has more bits of state, but it only hands out the higher-order bits (because low-order bits are crappy with LCGs).

Do you have a source for all the 32000 games being solvable except for game 11982? There is a new question on the site where the user is asking if a different game is unsolvable.

@Thunderforge I did at the time. It was the record of a group that between them tested and solved every other game. No idea if it's still around.

@Thunderforge This page has some information about such a project: http://freecellproject.com/about/


text:
In the card game "War", what happens when a player plays their final card in a War?
For the card game War, what happens when a player plays their last card as part of the war?

When their last card is the first card of the war (face up), before the three face down cards are dealt
When their last card is one of the three face down cards

It depends.
The linked Wikipedia article has this to say:

Most descriptions of War are unclear about what happens if a player
  runs out of cards during a war. In some variants, that player
  immediately loses. In others, the player may play the last card in
  their deck as their face-up card for the remainder of the war.

Also, in some variants the other opponents must take the needed cards from the top of their hand and give it to the other player for them to use in the same order.


text:
No doom tracker markers when sealing a gate with an Elder Sign
Yesterday we came across a very 'rare' situation in Arkham Horror. We had been lucky with getting one Elder Sign via setup (random possession) and managed to buy another 2 within the first few turns of the game.
Due to some fortunate Mythos cards, not many gates opened on the first few turns (monster surges or blocked by Kates ability) and so we managed to seal two gates using the Elder signs, resulting in 0 doom tracker tokens on the Great Old One (GOO).
What would happen should we seal another gate with the Elder Sign and no doom tracker tokens were available to take from the GOO?

This would be very rare -- the only time a gate would be placed without a doom token is if it came from a gatebuster. But, theoretically, it could happen -- you seal a gate with an Elder Sign, then a gatebuster opened up another gate, then you used a second Elder Sign to seal it. And you got monster surges all other times.
The two rulings I could see is either you couldn't use the Elder Sign (because you couldn't fulfill the full requirements, just like if you didn't have enough clues or money to purchase something), or you would ignore that part of the card and simply seal the gate. Our group would probably choose the latter (although you probably would be smarter to not use the Elder Sign at this point).

I see a legitimate third option... treat the track as if there are -1 doom tokens on it; so don't add a doom token the next time 1 would be added.

I thought about that, but that option seems to be against how normal Arkham Horror rules work. There's no concept (as far as I know) of a "-1 token" in the game.


text:
What defines "Isolation" in Third Reich?
I may be blind, but I can't seem to find any definition of "isolation" in the Third Reich (2nd edition) rulebook. I don't remember seeing it in my first edition book either, but that was a long time ago.
The are a couple places places where the term is mentioned in the rules, such as:

2.7 Fortress ... Can't be taken by Attrition or Isolation

In my 1st Edition Rules, section 4.3 Supply from the middle of the first paragraph to the end of the second:

Any units which are not in supply, and remain so at their end of their turn, are eliminated and returned to their Force Pool. ....
Supply has no effect on Combat but does affect Movement. Ground units out of supply cannot move, regardless of the Option or Phase employed. Naval and Air units are always considered supplied. Airborne (4.7) units or armor units conducting Exploitation (4.5.3) are considered in supply during and one turn after they conduct their air drops or Exploitation.

Beneath that, in the caption of the diagram illustrating an Out-of-Supply situation on the Eastern Front, it says:

The Black player has just finished his move, leaving  all the Red units isolated and out of supply except for the 10th infantry which ....

The 4th Edition Rules below agree, though in a somewhat more verbose and comprehensive fashion, so I am lead to believe that the rule has not changed over the editions:

27.43 Unsupplied units are eliminated if still unsupplied at the end of their player turn. This is so even if they were in supply at some intermediate point of their turn. Elimination occurs at the end of the player turn; units are lost after unit construction, therefore units lost from lack of supply cannot be reconstructed during the turn of their loss.

My rulebook index has "Isolation (out of supply units)" and a reference to the rule that units that both started and finished the turn unsupplied are eliminated.
So I would think
isolated is a shorter way of saying out of supply.

I can't find anywhere in the rules that defines "isolation".  But the rule on Fortresses (4.8) does say that units in them "can't be eliminated due to supply."


text:
Can Japanese Cards be played if using an English based Deck?
I was reading on the Yu-Gi-Oh Wiki that some cards have their artwork changed due to censorship, examples are the Fortune Lady's
Original Japanese version

English Version with Censor

Now I am wondering, if I were in a sanctioned tournament in an English speaking country and my deck contained mostly English cards, could I play the Japanese card and have the English one off to the side for the other players or spectators to reference the effects?

No, although you can use foreign language cards from the TCG, OCG cards are not allowed.
From Konami's Yugioh FAQ, that lists several Official Tournament Stores

Q: Can I use foreign language cards in my Deck?
You can use foreign-language copies of legal-for-play cards printed for the TCG market, as long as you can show an official translation of the card, kept outside of your Deck and Deck box, when asked to do so by an opponent or tournament official.
Q: Can I use OCG cards in my Deck?
No. Cards printed for Asian markets are not legal for play in TCG tournaments.

There are several reasons for this, which make the cards identifiable in a regular TCG deck.

I'm baffled this question has had a wrong answer with such a score for such a long time...
No, you can't.
I'll just quote the other answer and highlight the important part:

Q: Can I use foreign language cards in my Deck?
You can use foreign-language copies of legal-for-play cards printed for the TCG market, as long as you can show an official translation of the card, kept outside of your Deck and Deck box, when asked to do so by an opponent or tournament official.

The Japanese (and generally Asian) market is called "OCG" (Official Card Game) and is separate from the TCG market mentioned in this quote. This is mainly due to the card backs, which are different and can thus be distinguished from TCG card backs. It also has marketing and legal reasons, though (this censorship has a reason, after all).
To sum it up: Asian cards including Asian-English cards are not allowed for use on official tournaments outside of the (Asian) OCG territory. Keeping a legal copy outside of your Deck doesn't help. If it has the wrong card back, you can't play it.


text:
In Sorry!, do you have to move past safety zone or forfeit turn?
In Sorry, if you are 7 spaces away from your Home and you draw a 12 (and your other pawns are in Start or Home), do you have to move past your safety zone like you're going around the board a second time or do you forfeit your turn?

You forfeit your turn.
From the rules (3 separate places):

You must bring all four of your pawns into HOME by
  exact count!
If at any time you cannot move, you forfeit your turn.
When moving along
  the outside track, you may not move your pawn
  forward beyond your own SAFETY ZONE entry.

Also a note under the rules for the 11 card:

You may forfeit your move if you do not wish to change
  places and it is impossible to go forward 11 spaces.


text:
Can a Pokémon attack more than once per turn?
Mewtwo-Ex has an ability called Energy Absorption, which costs one colorless energy to activate:

Attach an Energy card from your discard pile to this Pokémon.

So, say I start my turn with two energy attached to my Mewtwo-Ex.  Can I then activate this attack twice, and put two energy from my discard pile onto my Mewtwo-Ex in one turn?
If so, can I then turn this into a loop, and place every energy from my discard pile onto my Mewtwo in a single turn?

As stated in the official Pokémon TCG rulebook:

Once you attack, your turn is over (…)!

Pokémon TCG is a round-based game (just like Nintendo games) so you only get one attack as the last step of your turn. Even though you have enough energy to use an attack twice or to use two different attacks, you still need to choose only one attack and use it only once.

You know, this is all so obvious now in hindsight.  My son (who taught me) had been playing multiple attacks, so I was just confused.  My son could never be wrong!  Thanks.


text:
When playing Phase 10 with 2 or more players, how do we conclude the hand?
Why keep score for the points if on phase 10 there will be only one winner? I assume as soon as one person lays the phase 10 and goes out first he or she will be the winner regardless of the previous scores? No one can lay out phase 10 at the same time, right? How will there be a tie? In what situation?

Score is used when more than 1 player completes Phase 10 in the same hand. Completing a phase doesn't end the hand immediately; a player must go out by getting rid of all his or her cards. So a second player can complete Phase 10 after the first player has done so. Once a player goes out by getting rid of all of his or her cards; then if multiple players have completed Phase 10; score is used to determine winner.

GOING OUT: The player who gets rid of the last card in hand, by discarding or hitting, is said to go out. This player wins the hand. The winner of the hand, and any other players who also complete their Phase, will advance to the next Phase for the next hand.

and

If two or more players complete Phase 10 in the same hand, then the player with the fewest total points is the winner.

http://www.natlassoc.org/fun/games/phase10/phase10r.htm
Note that the terminology is a little confusing, because the rules say that whoever goes out "wins the hand", but "winning" the hand doesn't really mean anything other than getting 0 points for that hand. Anyone who completed the Phase moves on; and "winning" Phase 10 doesn't mean that you will win the game.


text:
Are there online tools to solve card-based puzzles?
There are "chess board editor" sites, which you can use to solve chess puzzles. Input chess position and move the pieces trying different combinations of moves. For example: http://www.caissa.com/chess-tools/pgn-editor.php
Is there the same thing for puzzles, which are based on card games? That means a tool, which would be more or less equivalent to physical card deck.
I need for Preferans, but may be Bridge-site or any other tricks-based game will be fine too.

Just to clarify, you're not asking for something that actually "solves" puzzles, you're just looking for an on-line tool that lets you simulate playing out hands etc?  For, like, reviewing situations and/or trying out new strategies?

Yes. The tool, which would be more or less equivalent to physical cards.

It's not the answert yet, but I'm developing cardforest.com as a place you can create and play card games. I think what you need is just a simplified version of a such game. PS, I'm considering making it open source and I'm looking for core developers

I am removing the tag [trick-taking-games] per this meta thread. Unfortunately, I need to add a tag back in and [recommendations] is the one that seems the most apt. So I'm voting to close this as a recommendation question.

Tabletop Simulator gives you a sandbox board game world, so you could use it to solve card puzzles. However, it is not free.
For a free version you can try using this website. It doesn't have the best user experience, but it does the trick.


text:
Can I tap a card after I assign it to block?
During the combat phase, after I assign a blocker, can I then tap that blocker for its activated ability? What would happen? For example, say that a 1/1 Saproling token equipped with Healer's Headress is assigned to block an attacking 3/1 Blade of the Sixth Pride, but after it's assigned, the Saproling is tapped to prevent one damage to it. Is that legal? Would anything change if the attacking creature had first strike, like Ambush Party?

@bwarner True, the questions do ask the same thing. I am flagging as well, even though it's my own question.

During the combat phase, after I assign a blocker, can I then tap that blocker for its activated ability?

Yes.  Blockers only need to be untapped when they're actually declared as blockers; after that, tapping & untapping have no effect on blocking or any other parts of combat.

506.4b Tapping or untapping a creature that’s already been declared as an attacker or blocker doesn’t remove it from combat and doesn’t prevent its combat damage.

What would happen?

The activated ability would go on the stack, like normal.

For example, say that a 1/1 Saproling token equipped with Healer's Headress is assigned to block an attacking 3/1 Blade of the Sixth Pride, but after it's assigned, the Saproling is tapped to prevent one damage to it. Is that legal?

Yes.

Would anything change if the attacking creature had first strike, like Ambush Party?

No.

First strike indeed doesn't change anything in this example, but just for completeness, it does create one more opportunity to do things like tapping for the ability: you'll get another chance after first strike damage (well, assuming the creature with the ability hasn't died yet) but before regular combat damage, and in weird corner cases that might actually be what you want.


text:
What should be taken into consideration when mixing Fluxx sets?
What should be taken into consideration when mixing fluxx sets?
I played a game of Stoner and Zombie fluxx mixed the other day, and I found it super fun. It add variance to the theming, and especially with the Stoner fluxx (if you're playing with the, ahem, special rules) and stretches it out.
What are the potential pitfalls of mixing sets, and what else should be taken into consideration?

Possible duplicate of Can Monty Python Fluxx be used with the regular Fluxx deck, or is it a separate game?

@AndyT That question should be closed as a duplicate of this question. The question you marked as the target is a more specific question and this is a broader question that would serve as a better duplicate target.

@JoeW - 50:50 decision. Personally I think closing a question with the banner "this question already has an answer here" where the "here" was asked 5 years later is a bit counter intuitive. And the older question also had a higher voted answer and an accepted answer.

@AndyT counter intuitive yes, but we are suppose to weigh how specific vs how general the questions are along with how long it had been out there to decide which to close.

Mixing Fluxx sets is fun, but it will:

probably make the games take longer since you have half as much chance of getting a relevant keeper.  The more sets you add the lower the chances of getting the card you want will be.   With 3 decks your chances are 1/3.  With 4 decks your chances are 1/4.  And so on.  [Thanks to @SocioMatt for encouraging this generalization.]
get weird.  Some sets, like Star Fluxx, have keepers with superpowers which might overpower the other set you mix with it.  Reports indicate that Monty Python Fluxx doesn't mix well.
Stoner Fluxx and some non-English Fluxx editions have different backs which might let your opponent figure out which cards you don't have more easily.

I'd point out that your chance of getting a relevant keeper gets worse the more sets you mix. Mixing three sets means 1/3 of the keepers go with 1/3 of the goals (roughly). For this reason, games will get longer, on average, the more sets you add. So if you want to play a four hour game of Fluxx, shuffle those 20 versions together.

If the different backs issue really matters to the OP (it might not, especially for a relatively casual game like Fluxx), it could presumably be solved by using card sleeves with opaque backs. Or by getting the 2.0 version of Stoner Fluxx, which apparently has the same backs as regular Fluxx.

Mixing sets may also make it harder to get rid of Creepers since sets that have few/no Creepers also have little/no Creeper removal. (This becomes especially relevant when mixing in Batman Fluxx, where all Creepers keep all players from winning)

I wouldn't say different backs are that big an issue, while having the same back would be preferable, mixing 2 decks of 90ish cards (84-100 according to wikipedia) will give you very little chance of knowing exactly which card, though it does double the odds from half a percent to a percent. The only information you will have about a hand 100% certain is if that player only has cards from one of the sets.

Apply some houserules to make it easier to achieve goals
Mixing Fluxx sets works great for the most part and can be a lot of fun. The biggest issue is that it's harder to get the combination of keepers in order to achieve a single goal. Therefore, our group plays by the following rules:

Starting hand is 3 + the number of additional sets.
The number of goals allowed in play are 1 + the number of additional sets. "Double Agenda" and similar cards that allow two goals are treated as "+1 Goal Limit" cards. If the limit is reached, adding a goal allows you to replace any goal.*
Sometimes, there are unexpected interactions between sets. Players may agree by majority vote that a card from one set counts as a card for another one.

For instance, the "Long Live the Captain!" (Pirate Fluxx) New Rule gives +1 Draw if "The Captain's Hat" is on the table. We decided by majority vote that if "The Captain" (Star Fluxx) is out, it is considered a substitute and is treated as if it were "The Captain's Hat". This does not count towards Goal cards though, and if both are out, the substitute no longer counts.
Similarly, the "Armada" Goal (Pirate Fluxx) requires you to have three ships out. We decided by majority vote that the "Starship" (Star Fluxx) may be considered one of the three ships.
If a ruling seems broken, a majority vote can undo the new rule as well.

In general, we haven't had problems with mixing sets under these rules. Regarding the concern about some sets having Keepers with special powers, we found that in general they were targets for stealing, while players tended to quietly win with Keepers without powers.
Also, all decks aside from Fluxx 1.0 and Stoner Fluxx 1.0 have the same card backs, so there shouldn't be any issue with compatibility (Stoner Fluxx 2.0 has the regular Fluxx card backs).
* We tried only allowing one goal per set to be out at a time, and a new goal must replace an existing goal from the same set if one is out. However, we found this didn't quite work out because sometimes you really wanted to eliminate a particular goal, but were forced to eliminate another. Another rule that allows for diversity of goals without restricting players may be desirable.


text:
Is Jenga a cooperative or competitive game?
Jenga, in my impression, is most commonly interpreted as a competitive game, where the person who topples the tower is the loser.
However, one can make the argument that it can be seen as a cooperative game, and the common goal is to make the highest tower possible.
The distinction has a radical impact on the way the game is played.
If the game is cooperative, players are incentivised to take and place bricks in a manner that makes it as easy as possible for the other players.
On the other hand, if the game is competitive, players are incentivised to make the tower as gnarly and difficult for the other players (eg by twisting the top half of the tower when removing the a brick).
Are there any Jenga competitions that shed light on how the game is played in this respect?

What does “twisting the top half of the tower when removing a brick” mean?

@SevenSidedDie You can use the friction of the brick to move the top half of the tower drastically - making it harder for everyone else.

Jenga, as designed, is most certainly a competitive game. The rules released with the game have stayed consistent over the years and have never described how to play in a cooperative manner.
Most versions of the rules (such as the 2000 version) have a "Solo Play" variant that might also be able to be played cooperatively with multiple players:

Play alone for practice! Can you top your record height before the
  tower falls?

Carefully remove one block from any level. Use a steady hand to stack it on top.
Continue to remove and stack blocks to build the tower taller…and shakier.
How tall is too tall? Find out when the tower falls!

One Jenga review described playing a variation of this during a team building event where teams of 3 played cooperatively for a high score:

I first encountered Jenga in a corporate team building activity. The group was split into teams of three. Each team was given a Jenga set. The objective of the game was for each team, following the standard Jenga rules, to try to build the tower as high as they could. The team that built the tallest tower, without the tower collapsing, won the game.


text:
Positional based, strategical card games?
There was a CCG called Warlord: Saga of the Storm that I played briefly in its relevancy. It was the only CCG I played where positioning was a main element. Ranged attacks, etc. The accompanying image is low quality, but shows an example of unit placement based on ranks.
Mostly I am just wondering if this concept saw light in other card games. A board game like Mage Wars uses placement with cards, but also requires a board.
I also wonder if there are traditional playing card games with the element of strategical card placement?

The On the Edge CCG used ranks and files that had an effect on gameplay.

Why is this on hold?

Pixel Tactics does this.

@user30903 it is flagged because it's asking for recommendations, essentially a poll, and that's frowned on here

A better way to answer this sort of question would be to figure out the relevant tag on boardgamegeek, and search games with that tag. Unfortunately in this case I couldn't find a relevant tag or set thereof, but I would still argue that the bgg tag/discovery system is the right approach for this type of information, rather than asking here.

I do find a gray line between "best 3 player card games?" and "know of any other games in this very niche genre that I can't even think of more than 2-3 others". However, gray line or not, I do agree BGG is a nice place to ask this sort of thing.


text:
When you go out in Tichu, does the current round continue?
Pretend 10-10 is played and then I go out with J-J. Does the current round continue (players playing Q-Q or higher, etc), hence I would not claim the cards, or does it end (me still obviously being out) and the next player will lead?

Yes. The current round continues and someone else can win the trick, unless you're the third player to go out, in which a new round begins.

As Lobsang mentioned: yes, the round continues.
If everybody passes, you (player of J-J) would take the trick, then cede the lead of the next hand to the player next in order, since you have nothing left to play.


text:
When do you collect income in Patchwork?
I find a slight ambiguity in the manual for Patchwork regarding when the special event spaces are triggered. From the rules:

The Time Board
Regardless of the action you take you always move your time token on the time board. Some spaces of the time board are marked. Whenever you move onto or past one of those spaces, resolve the corresponding event.

The problem is that the markers for the marked spaces are actually placed between two spaces. When exactly does the button pay out? The same applies to the special patches. In the example Green has definitely moved onto or past the button, but has Yellow? It is also possible that the button itself is a space.

Maybe this is a situation for a house rule, or I could just be missing something.

Button markings intentionally placed between spaces to make it explicitly clear when you cross them. I'm not familiar with english rules, looks like really bad wording, but whole game design is very clear and elegant, just rereading rules usually answers all questions.

Because of the "onto" translation error, we initially played it where either space next to the button scores. The game still worked well, and in my opinion, added an additional fun layer of strategy. Trying to claim pieces that allowed you to land on the space before the button was key, as you scored again when crossing the button. And also making moves that prevented your opponent from getting to score twice on the same button was also important. Anyway, it may serve as an interesting house rule or game variation if anyone wants to try it that way.

Wow, those English rules are badly worded - under these rules, optimal play would be landing just in front of the buttons to get a second payout when you move past them!

The English rules aren't very specific here so I looked at the German rules by the same publisher. They use the word 'überqweren', which means 'to cross' (as one would with borders).
I don't know why it says 'onto' in the English rules, it's not possible to land on buttons or special squares.
According to the link that Znorg provided, this is because in an early prototype version of the game the markings were on specific spaces. This was later changed, but overlooked when the rules got their review.
The correct reading is this:

There are markings between some spaces of the time board. Whenever you move past one of these markings, resolve the corresponding event.

This is correct. The "onto" was a translation error: https://boardgamegeek.com/article/17259172#17259172

I think you can interpret the rule in one of two ways:

The button is placed on both spaces. Then, you can grab money every time you hit one of those spaces (in the case of a patch, the first one to land on one of the spaces grabs the patch).
(The interpretation I use) You must pass the button to obtain coins (the first one to pass a batch grabs the patch).

Just agree on an interpretation with your opponent before you start playing .

There is only one correct way. If you cross button makring - you recieve income. Ofc you can houserule otherwise, but than it has nothing to do with official game rules.

@Deo - The English version of the official game rules is unclear. Read the question, which quotes them. Francesco's answer is perfectly valid based on the English version of the rules. Your comment that "there is only one correct way" is a load of rubbish. freevkd's answer with the original German rules gives a useful interpretation for someone with the English version, but it is open to the players' interpretation as to whether it actually overrules the English rules.

@AndyT You may play with any houserules you want, but there is one way creator of the game intended it to be played - this is what I mean by "correct way". How badly english rules communicate this is another concern, but if you don't follow designer's rules you are just playing a different game.

@Deo - I have a set of monopoly where the income for the third yellow, unimproved, is £22: that's what it says on the card. Most other sets of monopoly have it as £24 (or $24 etc.). When playing with my set, the owner of the third yellow gets £22 because that is the rule of set I am playing. It is not a house rule, it is a version rule. No, it is not the intention of the designer: the pattern of rent clearly shows it should be £24, as does every other set. But you play the game with the rules in front of you.

@AndyT Wow, that is amusing. We clearly have very different views on the subject. My copy of Kingsburg had sawmill printed with "3 gold for 1 wood" instead of "2 gold for 1 wood", like in english version. And I just fixed it instead of playing broken game, but to each their own.

If you are stacked up on the same space, the player on top does not receive income because his turn is not over. If you land on either of the 2 spaces the income button is touching then you receive income. Both squares the button touches allow for income.

This is just plain wrong. You recieve income after an action which caused you to move past the button mark. That's it. The button mark doesn't apply to neighbouring spaces, it only matters if you cross it or not. Doesn't matter if you land on top of other player, if you do you just get to go again, but it has nothing to do with income.


text:
Space combat game with standard deck of cards
About a year ago I was clicking around on the net and I found someone's personal blog with a description of an invented card game.  It was played with a normal deck of cards.  Face cards were ships, and they could be augmented with shields, phasers, torpedos etc... which were represented by the pip cards.  I've searched for hours and can't find it.  Has anybody seen this game?

I feel like i read something about this on a looney labs related blog; maybe wonderland or one of their personal blogs. Maybe a game designer's process blog?

I seem to recall it was an obscure post on a personal blog, and the game inventor played it with his kids

Sounds like it could be InterPlaNet War by John Buenavides. His description:

54 cards. The deck will have markings on the corners equivalent to a
  standard deck of playing cards. Each player takes a suit to represent
  his army: Martians (Spades), Terrans (Diamonds), Jovians (Clubs), or
  Venusians (Hearts). One card will represent your home Colony, the
  other 12 cards represent your Cohorts -- your combat units

And looking at the pics, the face cards are indeed marked as ships. And some of the cards reference torpedoes.
Here's his post on the BGG forums back in 2012. The links he provides to PnP files are all google drive links, though, which seem to be private now.


text:
Can I cast Enchant Creature cards on Enchantment Creatures (Bestow) that are on another creature?
Say I have a Nessian Courser which is enchanted by a Nylea's Emmissary. I want to cast an Enchantment - Aura on the Nylea's Emissary, for example: Ordeal of Thassa.

Perhaps for some reason, I know that the Nessian Courser is going to die at the end of the turn, or I just want to diversify my play so that one burn spell won't cost me two cards. Can I cast an Ordeal of Thassa on the EMISSARY? It is technically a creature, even though it's being used as an enchantment currently.
I wouldn't imagine that the Nessian Courser would get the bonus from the Ordeal of Thassa, but I would expect that the Nylea's Emissary would retain the Ordeal when the Nessian Courser dies and it bounces off.
Is this possible, and if so is my understanding of how it works correct? Thanks!

No, because whilst Nylea's Emissary is bestowed on another creature, it isn't itself a creature - it's just an Enchantment — Aura.
Its card type might be Enchantment Creature — Cat, but whilst it's bestowed, that's overwritten to just make it an Enchantment — Aura. That's thanks to the following two rules:

702.102a (the expanded definition of Bestow): [snipped] "Bestow [cost]" means "You may cast this card by paying [cost] rather than its mana cost." and "If you chose to pay this spell's bestow cost, it becomes an Aura enchantment and gains enchant creature.

205.1a: Some effects set an object's card type. In such cases, the new card type(s) replaces any existing card types.

The text I've bolded is something Nylea's reminder text points out, though it doesn't explicitly say how it remains an enchantment in the reminder text.
As a result, whilst Nylea's Emissary is a bestowed permanent, it's just an aura and not a creature. Note in particular the "it becomes a creature again" statement in Bestow's reminder text - that wouldn't make much sense if it was a creature to begin with.
Furthermore, Thassa's emissary says "Enchant creature". Whenever something simply says "creature", it means a permanent on the battlefield that's a creature. Nylea's Emissary isn't a creature whilst it's bestowed, so it can't be enchanted. This is flipside of the mechanic that allows a Mutavault to be enchanted with something that says Enchant creature whilst in creature mode, even if its card type doesn't include "Creature".

Another relevant rules reference here is 205.1a: "Some effects set an object's card type. In such cases, the new card type(s) replaces any existing card types."


text:
How does the last turn of an epoch run in Priests of Ra?
Just bought Priests of Ra and am really enjoying it, but am not quite sure how the final turn of each epoch should be played. The rules state an epoch ends when the final sun is flipped over, so what happens when the second to last sun is flipped over? Does the player with one remaining sun get to keep drawing tiles on his own, and can call "Ra" and bid on them with no-one opposing him? This seems a little odd.

FYI sometimes there's more than one player left when there's only one sun left to go.

@ruds How could this happen? Surely the number if only one player has a sun left, by definition they can be the only one remaining?

Oh, I'm sorry, I've misread the question! I was thinking of the situation when there's only one more space for a Ra tile during the epoch.

It's a little odd, but an integral part of the game.  I'd also look out for "Grab" or "Simpsons slam dunk", which is a very similar card game (same designer) but played at speed.

Seems like yes, I was correct in my original question, the final player gets to keep drawing tiles until the epoch ends, e.g. by the Ra track filling up.
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/811805/last-person-have-sun-tile

It's sort of like a game of chicken -- do I take the current set or risk a Ra tile or plague coming up?


text:
Does monetary loss to everyone not affect your partner?
This source suggests any action which causes a monetary loss to everyone does not affect your partner. Is this true?

If you are playing by the official Cities rules, it clearly states

When a player puts in play a card which causes a monetary loss, the
  player’s  teammate must also pay that loss.

The thread you are referencing is talking about differences between the official rules and some unofficial team rules, stating that in their unofficial rules, the teammate does not have to pay the loss.


text:
Was a larger version of Chitin I: The Harvest Wars ever released?
I owned Metagaming's Chitin I: The Harvest Wars (MicroGame 2) when I was a kid. I have a possibly flawed recollection that a larger bookshelf game using the Hymenoptera universe was released or possibly just planned. Does anyone know anything about it? I may also be confusing this with a similar game 3M or Avalon Hill game.

From my own research, it appears that a larger game based on the Hymenoptera universe was planned. There were a range of Chitin 25mm miniatures in the prototyping stage when Martian Metals was destroyed in a fire, pushing the release back. As Metagaming itself unfortunately went out of business a few years later, the larger game was never released.
Source: http://theminiaturespage.com/boards/msg.mv?id=99895

I wrote a letter to Metagaming when I was a kid and they wrote back that additional games were planned in the series.
It's a shame that never happened. There's an article out on the web from a magazine that added ranged units.
It's my understanding the rights are for sale, but the asking price is high. Really high. Last I heard about it was late 90s or early 2000s... and it was in the $125K range.

You can get info at www.strategicwargames.org.
We have produced the long awaited Chitin Advanced Hymenoptera Game system.


text:
Custom boards for Eclipse
I was thinking of creating a custom player board for Eclipse as a gift for a friend of mine.
Looking it up online I found an image of something quite similar to what I wanted:

I have three questions.

Where would I find original graphics to modify?
How can I produce good quality boards?
Is this legal?

Note: This is not the exact board I want to make.  I will not use a Star Trek theme; I am planning to use another theme that is not trademarked.

1. Where would I find original graphics to modify?

You could use a scanner. Many home and office printers can act as a scanner, so it should be pretty easy to get access to one. 300dpi is sufficient, but avoid anything lower.
In this particular case, you could derive from this.

2. How can I produce good quality boards?

Depends on what material you want it printed. If you just want some thick paper, talk to your local print shop.

3. Is this legal?

The original board does get some Copyright protections.
This doesn't mean what you're doing is illegal. Fair use allows the use of works protected by Copyright. In the US, judges consider the following four factors to determine if a copyrighted work is allowed under by fair use:

The purpose and character of your use,
The nature of the copyrighted work,
The amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
The effect of the use upon the potential market.

Your custom boards are not a replacement for the game, so the tests lean in your favour.
And if you're doing this for yourself and maybe a few friends, there's really no issue.
Using Picard's picture is more questionable. But even if it's technically infringing, it's not really a problem unless you start producing many and/or selling them.

The developers have posted official goodies on this boardgamegeek page. I don't see a scoring track file, but there is a compact technology board in pdf format and other files you could take graphics from.
I'm not familiar with techniques on how to make a high-quality product, but I'm sure it will involve a decent colour printer, some heavy cardboard backing, glue, and probably a nice roller to smooth it out. ;-)
If it's for your own personal use and not for resale, I think you're in the clear using the developer-supplied pdf files above, but I am not a lawyer.


text:
Can Let's Kill Krampus still be purchased?
I pledged the first Let's Kill Krampus Kickstarter, which was unfortunately unsuccessful.  I didn't find out about the second Kickstarter until it had already ended, but it was successful, at least.  Recently, someone talking about the upcoming Krampus movie reminded me that LKK exists, so I went looking for it, assuming that it would have entered production after its successful Kickstarter, but I can't seem to find it anywhere.
Is Let's Kill Krampus available for purchase?

The answer indicates that the game did exist at some point, so I've created the tag [tag:lets-kill-krumpus]

It is possible, but you need to contact the developers for information.
Based on the last social media post I can find from the company.

Hi folks, sorry if you couldn't reach us by email, we closed our
  website and it was linked to our Gmail, so we're figuring out some
  kinks there. We are not planning new releases or production runs at
  this time, but we do have some stock of LKK still available; we'll
  post more details soon for anyone interested!

this post was made on facebook December 20, 2014, so they may have already sold out.
https://www.facebook.com/ThreeFatesGames/


text:
Differences between Axis and Allies 1941 and classic edition
This may seem obvious, but apparently Axis and Allies 1941 has eliminated the construction of factories, and AA guns?
How do these changes affect the play of the game as compared to say, the Classic Edition?

What problem are you asking us to solve, exactly? (If it has, what about it?)

@doppelgreener - The questioner is asking for people knowledgable of both games to answer the question.  How does the rule change affect play?

@Pat That question wasn't there when I left my comment, it was inserted by the answerer below (and not by the question asker, which makes this a wild guess, albeit one that's likely to be correct)

As demonstrated by your comment on Tom's answer, his "guess" as to what you were really trying to find out was wrong. We shouldn't have to parse your comments on an answer just to determine what question you are really asking. Try asking a real question, plainly and clearly: Was X removed from the game? Why was X removed from the game? When was X removed from the game? What does X cost? What is the combat value of X?

AA guns tend to reduce the value of "strategic" bombing. Hence you would do this more (and spend more researching heavy bombers) than in other versions of the game.
There are many players that believe that heavy bombers unbalance the game, and one should not be allowed to research them. If they are disallowed, AA guns would be less necessary, and can be eliminated from the game to simplify it.
The construction of factories is most important for Japan and Britain, who start with only one (everyone else starts with two). Hence, it makes these two countries harder to play.
There are some problems with the Factory Rule. The first is that one costs a "flat" 15 IPCs to build. But that doesn't reflect the fact that factories are easier to build in some places than others (e.g. in "real life," it's almost impossible to build factory in Sinkiang). Second, most countries would not "export" aerospace technology, meaning that realistically, it would be possible only to produce infantry, but not airplanes in a foreign factory.

To be frank, it does not seem the question has actually been answered. My game is A&A 1941, a new version. I suppose there are various other versions including "classic." But I am still not totally clear that my game has eliminated AA and factories (which I remember always having in games I played over 15 years ago; much could have changed since then). To me it's a loss (the factories and AA are not in my game, so I assume the are no longer used). These were valuable and fun additions to the game, and I can't understand why they would be removed.

And in fact, I am thinking of just adding them to my game--and I will need to know how much they cost, what their combat values were, what their other uses were, etc.

@dpendery: I have expanded my answer to include "issues" I have with "factories," bombers, and AA guns.

@dpendery http://axisallies.com/rule-books/ has all the details you need. Specifically, IPCs cost 15, can only be placed on territory you owned at the start of turn, units can only be placed on an IPC you owned at the start of your turn, and only 1 unit per income of the territory if not a starting IPC. Given the short number of turns, we found this restriction made them nearly useless.

AA guns cost 5, are limited to 1 / territory, can move 1 territory per move, and each gun a plane passes over on the way TO but not FROM a bombing run or combat gets a die rolled against it by that gun, a 1 indicates the plane is lost. [Both of these answers are from the 2nd edition, the one I grew up with.)

My impression is that the lack of factory construction and AA guns is a astrisk on the real change of the game, that there are half as many units and a third as much income.  This reduction in units and money makes the game far more luck based than previous editions.  You both have fewer die rolls leading to more deviation from your expected value, and you have very limited ability to replace loses.  The game can easily be decided on the first round due to very good or bad rolling.
I am not saying that the game is not fun, we love it!  But the out-sized effect of the die roll overshadows the lack of factory and AA (which you'll never have the spare cash to build anyway).


text:
Can Sid Meier's Civilization (2010) be played cooperatively?
Is it possible to play Sid Meier's Civilization as a team game?
Are there some specific rules that must be thought about?
As I can see this:

play by normal rules.
two players will both win if one of them wins.
only open communication is allowed.

Civilization can certainly be made a 2x2 team game.  The rules you wrote will work.  One slight addition:

Rules and culture cards referring to "an opponent" (such as A Gift From Afar or Disoriented) refer only to players on the other team.  If it refers to "another player", it can be used on a player on the opposing team or your ally (such as Exchange of Ideas).

Some things that would make it more strategic or interesting:

A players gains the benefit of his/her allies technology (if your ally has a technology and you don't, you play as if you had that technology, so can buy buildings/units on it, use it's abilities, and gather coins as if you had it).

Whether or not you allow trade between non allied players is up to you; I think it is more interesting to leave that as allowed and just rely on the competition between the teams to discourage it.
Whether allies start on adjacent corners or opposite corners is also of interest, though I think adjacent corners will be a better game play experience.
Playing it as a team game might change the balance of some of the win conditions.  Military victory probably gains some strength over the economic victory, as military cooperation is easier.  That said, having an ally that can just feed resources or culture points to the other could actually make the cultural victory distinctly easier.  And technology sharing probably makes the economic victory easier.  That there isn't anything obviously unbalanced about this means that it is an interesting variant and would require play to determine.

The original question could have been read as to whether or not Civilization the Board Game could have been played as a full co-op board game.
One of the fundamental tenants of a fully cooperative board game (like Pandemic) is that there is a way for all players to lose.  Civilization the Board Game has no built-in mechanic for all players to lose, so would not work as a full co-op game without serious modification.  If you are looking for something that feels vaguely similar but with more aspects of full co-op games, try Archipelago.


text:
How do casinos split uneven bet?
For example if I bet $5 and get a blackjack that pays 3:2, this means that I should get payed 7.5.
The problem is that the there is no $0.5 dollar chip. How this situation is handled in the casinos?

From Wikipedia:

$2.50 chips are mostly used for blackjacktables, since a "natural" (a 21 on the first two cards dealt to a player) typically pays 3:2 and most wagers are in increments of $5. However, the Tropicana Casino and Borgatain Atlantic City, New Jersey, and others, have used $2.50 (pink) chips in $7.50 to $15 and $10 to $20 poker games.

They have $2.50 chips especially for the case you're describing.

I don't know how American casinos handle this, but in Austria there is the same problem with euros. There is no 0,5 euro chip, so you simply get a regular 50 cent coin.

It really depends.  I've seen some casinos pay 7.50 with a 5, two 1s and a half-dollar coin, I've even seen casinos that actually had a $2.50 chip.  These were all in California.

I've been to casinos in Las Vegas and Wisconsin and I think they have all had 50-cent chips at the blackjack table.  If they don't, you can work around the problem by betting an even amount.  For example, playing 6 dollars a hand at a table with a 5-dollar minimum won't have a significant impact on how much you win or lose.

In Las Vegas, the craps table was very clear that they round down to the nearest whole dollar.  I can't tell you if that's based on casino policy and/or local law, and you didn't state where you are.


text:
World of Warriors - how to play?
I've been googling away, but I just can't find any resources that explain the rules of how to play World of Warriors (the Topps card game, not that app).
Does anyone know a resource? Or could anyone explain the rules?

WORLD OF WARRIORS is a game for 2 players. The aim of the game is to defeat your opponent’s team of warriors.
Choose 12 warrior cards each and place them face down into 3 piles of 4 cards. Decide who will go first.
Player 1 picks their first warrior to attack with. If player 1's warrior's attack is greater than player 2's warrior's health, they win and place their card in the won pile. The loser places their card in their lost pile.
Players should also compare elements. If player 1’s element is stronger than player 2 they can add their elemental power boost to their attack score. If player 2’s element is stronger than player 1 they can add the elemental power boost to their health score.

fire is strong against earth, and weak against water. Air has no effect.
earth is strong against air, and weak against fire. Water has no effect.
air is strong against water, and weak against earth. Fire has no effect.
￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼￼water is strong against fire, and weak against air. Earth has no effect.

If there is a draw, refer to the Armour score.
You can use one talisman card per game. The talisman boost rating is added onto your warrior's attack or health score.
Play continues, taking it in turns to attack the other warrior’s health.