text:
What is the repeated move stalemate?
I've heard of a rule where if the same move sequence is repeated 3 times (6 moves total) the game ends in a stale mate.
Is this a de facto rule or a convention adopted outside the formal rules?

It's a rule, from Wikipedia:
The relevant rule in the FIDE laws of chess is 9.2, which reads:

The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by the player having the move, when the same position, for at least the third time (not necessarily by sequential repetition of moves)

a. is about to appear, if he first writes his move on his scoresheet and declares to the arbiter his intention to make this move, or
b. has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.

Positions as in (a) and (b) are considered the same, if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares, and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same.
Positions are not [considered to be] the same if a pawn that could have been captured en passant can no longer be captured or if the right to castle has been changed. (FIDE 2005, Article 9.2)

While the rule does not require that the position occur thrice on nearly consecutive moves, it happens this way very often in practice, typically with one of the kings being put into perpetual check. The intermediate positions and moves do not matter – they can be the same or different. The rule applies to positions, not moves.
Also note that the draw has to be claimed, it's not automatic.

Beat me to it.  I think it's interesting that it's positions, not moves, and that it has happened in world championship matches: "The seventeenth,[1] eighteenth,[2] and twentieth[3] games of the 1972 World Championship match between Bobby Fischer and Boris Spassky were declared draws because of threefold repetition, although the twentieth game was an incorrect claim".  If that doesn't make it a legitimate rule I don't know what could!

@thesunneversets, Yeh, I got hosed once in a tournament bigtime because I thought it was moves.

The key is "the possible moves ... are the same." That takes into account the conditions about pawns and castling. I like to think of the rule as "Stop repeating those moves: it's boring."

Previously, a draw could only be claimed if the same sequence of moves occurred three times.  The rules were changed after World Champion and mathematician Max Euwe used the Thue-Morse sequence to show that, in theory, a game could go on infinitely long without ever repeating the same sequence of moves. Of course, since there are only finitely many positions, if a game goes on infinitely long then some position will have been repeated three times.

Interesting that the castling right is included in the things that must be the same.

This is a real rule. Though the wording is a bit different.
It doesn't refer to moves, but rather to positions. If the exact same position occurs three times during a game, it may be declared a draw. The positions do not have to occur in succession and every figure has to be in exact same spot.
Wikipedia: Threefold Repetition
Note the following interesting addendum:

In chess, in order for a position to be considered the same, each
  player must have the same set of legal moves each time, including the
  possible rights to castle and capture en passant.

Since the rights to capture en passant or castle can possibly vanish, this means that positions that look exactly the same, might not be for the purpose of this rule.

Terminology clarification: the three-fold repetition of position is one of the ways for a game to be drawn.   A stalemate (where an opponent has no legal moves on his turn) is another way for a game to be drawn.  Other ways to draw: 1) when neither side has sufficient mating material (like only kings left on the board, or one side has only a bishop or only a knight); 2) 50 moves have passed without a capture or pawn move; 3) mutual agreement of the players.


text:
Am I allowed to use archaic words in Quiddler/Scrabble?
While playing Quiddler tonight, I played both words "SIC" and "QUO". Both got challenged and both were in the dictionary that we agreed upon (dictionary.com).
But the question of whether I can use "QUO" because the dictionary defined it as "Verb - Archaic: Quoth."
I said it's allowed because it's in the dictionary and used in common vernacular.
My opponent said I couldn't use archaic English words because they are no longer part of the English language.
Is this true for Quiddler? Scrabble?

However, I highly suggest http://ninjawords.com/  instead of dictionary.com  Especially if you're playing something that wants obscure words like Balderdash.

The word legality rules of Quiddler appear to be slightly more relaxed than those of Scrabble - according to Wikipedia, capitalized adjectives such as "Iraqi" and "Scottish" are acceptable in Quiddler, where to the best of my knowledge they still aren't in Scrabble.
Archaic words, by contrast, have always been allowed in Scrabble.  Again per Wikipedia:

"Variant spellings, slang or offensive terms, archaic or obsolete
  terms, and specialized jargon words are allowed if they meet all other
  criteria for acceptability."

So I'd say they were definitely fair game for Quiddler too.  Having said all that, both Scrabble and Quiddler are games that lend themselves well to house rules.  If you're playing with your grandmother you're probably going to dial back on the offensive terms; likewise some people get so offended by the idea of allowing slang or archaisms that it can become easier just not to use them!
As a side note, the funny thing about "quo" is that I suspect most people try to use it as part of the phrase "status quo" - which would be a foreign phrase and therefore not acceptable!  But luckily your dictionary contains a legitimate form of it also.

is status quo not english native by now? I mean loanwords are a thing.

To add to thesunneversets' answer:
The words allowed in Quiddler are those in a pre-agreed dictionary of the players' choice.
Similarly for Scrabble, the players may agree on a dictionary.  However, there are also word lists compiled especially for Scrabble.  In (English language) tournaments in most countries, as well as for the World Scrabble Championship, SOWPODS is used. National tournaments in the USA, Canada and Thailand use TWL.

+1: It's far more important to agree on the dictionary than to know what dictionary the makers of the game like. Letters are letters; the game will work with any dictionary.

Scrabble has an official dictionary (the Official Scrabble Players Dictionary) to eliminate disputes of this kind.  It's available online on Hasbro's website.
I'd recommend sticking to this for any word-based game (such as Quiddler) that does not specify an alternative authoritative dictionary in the rules.

Note: "sic" is in the OSD 6th edition, but "quo" is not.

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/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
What's a good handicap for a less experienced player in an MTG Draft?
My drafting group has a few hardcore players like me who have been playing magic for a while. We've memorized almost all the commons and uncommons in the sets we're drafting (usually Innistrad or 2012), know a lot about how to win at drafts, know the good archetypes, and have a bit more deck-building experience compared to some of the other people we'd like to add to the group. The new people know the mechanics of the game and have played enough to know how to build a decent deck, but I'm worried that the rest of us will have a significant advantage that takes away from everyone's fun.
What handicaps can be used when drafting that give a weaker player about an equal chance at winning while removing as little of the fun as possible? Obviously we'll coach them a bit about the techniques we've used that have been effective, but until they're completely up to speed I don't want them to be annihilated and quit. Should we give them a handicap during the actual draft, like an extra few picks from another booster after the draft is over, or a handicap during the actual games? What handicapping techniques have you used that work well?

As written, this question seems to me to be asking for a discussion on house rules, which is not the ideal format for such a question. If the underlying question is "How can we fit less experienced players into drafts?", is that significantly different than the existing question on booster drafts?

To be contrarian: in my experience, if you're adding a sufficient number of new people (which it sounds like is the case here), I'd encourage not handicapping them at all.  My recommendation would actually be to start not with drafting but with some form of sealed-deck play (maybe a simple three-round league or the like), so that the new players have fewer decisions to make and can learn what the core elements of a limited deck are.  Once they understand the essentials of limited then just let them loose on a draft - the experienced players may well run the table, but the newer players should still be able to have interesting games with the experienced drafters and excellent games among each other (this is why you need a sufficient number of new people), and IMHO the (slightly) 'deep-end' approach (along with some measure of coaching, post-draft analysis, etc) is the best way to get truly interested players motivated to get better.
One plausible alternative, though, that might be worth looking at is some form of team draft/sealed, where each of the new players is paired with a more experienced player that they can directly watch, talk with, and learn from; 2HG is a tough format to draft (as opposed to playing sealed with), but it's a great and underutilized choice for this sort of thing.

+1 For Sealed. It's a much better introductory limited format, because of the lack of hidden information.

+1 Again for Sealed. This will introduce newer players to the limited pool deck construction without the added mini-game of hidden information, known archetypes, or even learning to adjust when you aren't getting you're colors.
If the players/event runners are open to it, the more experienced players are even allowed to help the newer ones construct from their pool, instead of competing during the drafting rounds.

Generally, I agree with Steven, the best thing to do is to coach them, but not give them an explicit handicap of any kind.  That way they will learn how it is really done.  Of course they will lose more often than they will win, but booster drafts are a bit more random than Constructed so they may win some as long as they know the basic rules, and anyone learning a new game should expect to lose a lot before they start winning.
With that said, if you really want to give them a handicap, you can use any of the nomral ones used in casual games as long as everyone agrees who counts as new and who counts as experienced.  For instance:

Give the new players 25 life instead of 20
Give the new players a starting and max hand size of 8 instead of 7.

I've done both of those before when playing against new players (though one or the other, both is probably a bit much).  Other options that I've heard of but haven't tried myself include letting the new player start the game with a basic land of their choice already in play.
And one I've never heard of anyone doing before but would probably work nicely for a booster drafter is let each of the new players start with an extra booster that is not drafted and just theirs.  It would give them a fair bit of additional flexibility in deck construction and protect them somewhat from poor draft choices without affecting the actual matches directly.
Edit: I've never tried it, but the more I think about it, the more I think giving the new players an extra non-drafted booster is the way I would do a handicap in a casual draft.  It won't affect the actual gameplay and you don't have to remember past the initial drafting who counts as new and who is experienced.

It sounds like your newer players' disadvantage will be mostly in the deck creation phase of the draft. I suggest handicapping the experienced players in this phase.

Impose a time limit per pick on the experienced players
Impose a time limit for deck creation after the draft on the experienced players
Give the new players more flexibility around side boarding between games
Consider increasing the minimum deck size for the experienced players, this will force them to include more of their weaker cards.

The idea is to make it harder for the experienced drafters to build a great deck, without having to impose house rules on the actual games. It also has the added benefit of pushing the draft skills of these players even further.

What does "Give the new players more flexibility around side boarding between games" mean? Are you talking about sideboarding between matches? The phrase for this is "continuous construction". You can read about it here.

One big component of drafting is teaching them some of the basics.  Check out my question and the answers here for what you could teach them: What are good strategies for booster drafts?
Another big component of draft is simply knowing what’s out there.  If you’ll be drafting Innistrad, there’s nothing better you could truly prepare them with than to crack open a box of boosters (maybe even some pack wars) to get them familiar with what’s available in the set.  Knowing what’s in the draft will give players a significant increase in deck building ability than going in cold.

most handicap systems handicap permanently, 1 less card, 1 smaller hand, 5 less life etc.
this usally can be majorly detrimental.
also most effects are to clunky -1 card may be too little, but -2 too much mainly as the effect is permanant.
I suggest a delayed return to normality.
in my example your draw is behind (nearly-it moves to the end of the turn) 1 turn, your hand size is X smaller, decreasing by 1 each turn until the handicap has faded. at this point the draw delay is removed.
as its granualer you can have multiple players with multiple hadicaps and the handcaps can shift to adjust for skill/deck improvement.
I havent tested it too well but i believe that the max rating is likely 10 more than the weakest player. above 7 the negatives level off a little.

POWER RATING
1)Each player/deck combination has a POWER rating. Starting rating is 0*
2)High POWER ratings indicate better players and/or decks.
3)when a game is won, if any losing player has zero POWER increase your power by 1/3 of number of players beaten, rounded up. Otherwise all losing players decrease thier POWER by 1**
PLAYING
1)calculate your game handicap:minus the lowest POWER of the people playing from your POWER.
2)all players draw the largest off 7 or the highest handicap.
3)Mulligan as needed.
4)shuffle you hand and deal your handicap amount into a seperate pile(your handicap location or HL)
5)As long as there are cards in an HL the maximum hand size is equal to the largest off 7 or the highest handicap.***
6)during your draw phase if you have an HL you draw one less card and move one card from your libray to your HL****
7)at the end of your turn, after discard, draw two cards from your HL.
NOTES
*Ratings are for deck\player so if a deck changes hands or is significatly altered POWER is reset.
**this means +1 power for 2-4 player games,+2 for 5 - 7 player +3 for 10 - 12 player etc.
***In high handicap games, the max hand size change does not apply, in the turn of the player who clears thier HL as the discard phase has passed.

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


text:
What has been your experience with random villager roles in Werewolf?
In Werewolves there are many Villager roles: normally we play essentially the same roles every time and the players know exactly which are the roles that are going to be used.
If you have 8 players you could choose to play with, for example, 2 wolves, 3 plain villagers and 3 "special villagers" taking at random the 3 special villagers from a pool of say, 6 possible ones.
The main advantage of this variant is that no one knows if a specific role even exists in that round until the end of the round, which may or may not be fun.
The downsides include

the moderator will have to spend more time calling for all the possible roles
using cards from a poker set becomes more of an issue with more roles, so you'll probably want to have cards that actually say which role you are

Additionally, the wolves can fake to be villagers much more easily.
What do you think about this variant?  Have you ever tried anything like this?  What elements were fun at first but weren't in the long run?

It's true that using standard playing cards with custom roles gets confusing.  I suggest using printed roles.  I can recommend this free set:  http://werewolfdarkarts.com/

I've found that if you introduce too much chaos it becomes way, way more difficult for the villagers to figure out what's going on. Even if they were picking 3 roles from among 4 you've added enough chaos that you'll likely need at least one more villager (depending on the roles).
I've played it that way a few times and it's been kind of fun, but it throws deduction and intuition out the window, leaving it pretty much entirely a game of chance. Which, of course, the villagers almost always lose since only the wolves have any real idea of what's going on.

Oh, thanks. I'll try to play it with "just 1 more role", like you did, then - if at all.

downvote: I've played Wereworld many times with different groups of varying levels with a variety of special cards.  Choosing sides wasn't any easier or more difficult.  The trick is balancing 'good' specials and bad specials.  Certain good specials actually make it way easier to figure out who the werewolves are.

@NealTibrewala What do you mean "choosing sides wasn't any easier or more difficult"?

Sorry for the confusing wording there.  I meant that determining which players are on the good or evil sides wasn't more difficult because of this 'chaos' theory.  I say 'sides' because in the games I play we often have additional 'evil' player roles (not just werewolves), so we talk about what 'side' you're on, and not 'if you're a werewolf'.

@NealTibrewala Different experiences, obviously. I've played about 300 times with various groups and my experience is that when you add random additional roles that no one knows are in the game, as in the original post, the villagers are almost guaranteed to lose.

@MatthewFrederick - I'm interested to know what rules you play by in your group and what ratio of Werewolves to Peasants you play with? I too have played hundreds of games and my experience is contrary to yours. I find that random roles allows for more flexibility as a Werewolf and prevents the game from reaching a state where a player can come out as a special character at the right time and if no one else comes out as that character, that player becomes very heavily trusted for the remainder of the game, and is likely to be killed in the night by the wolves because of it.

I think this really all depends on how experienced your group of players are. I have played Werewolf for a few years now, and there were times when we were playing with the same group of people so regularly that we actually came up with this idea of random special characters as a way to keep the game from ending up being all about deduction.
There were plenty of games where we would be down to the late mid-game // end-game and there would be this "mass reveal" from the villagers, where all special characters would come out and say who they were (without revealing their cards of course) and it just made the game way too easy for the Villagers.
I found that doing this really helps the game out -if- your group of players tends to get very deductive as the game comes closer to the end. Just be careful to make sure you aren't ending up with possibilities that keep the game unbalanced. (Like by chance having a set of villagers that don't have a Healer or Seer on their side)..
Enjoy!

I love the introduction of additional roles on both the good and evil sides.
Here's a run down on possible mechanical variations:

Additional good roles (e.g. bodyguard, seer, witch) - By themselves, one or two adds something to the game, especially in a big group, but can unbalance the game towards 'good'
Additional evil roles (e.g. cultists, sorceress) - Good for balancing out evil when good roles are in place, plus the additional element of perhaps the werewolves not knowing who's on their 'side' makes it more fun for them in the daytime.
Random Roles - Random roles allows the game to deviate from fixed dominant strategy for certain known roles, and allows more deception (werewolves can pretend to be good roles not in the game as a defense)
No-reveal games - In these games, when someone is killed the group doesn't find out what they were.  (The moderator will declare victory when its obtained).  This version is much more difficult for both sides and completely changes role strategies.  Suggested only for experienced players.

Overall, any of these things depend on the group and balancing the roles.  Nothing particularly becomes stale because you can simply change the mix of cards to effect a different game.

No-reveal for me is a given, I never considered playing without it. I fear the game would be pretty horrible otherwise.

No-reveal prevents beginners from learning from their actions as the game progresses, and instead only allows learning across games.  This longer cycle makes it more difficult to achieve proficiency.  I assure you the game is still very fun without it.

In my experience, people didn't have problems learning anyway.

I first started playing Werewolf in a 'reveal' group and after only a handful of games we had all gotten so good that it was almost impossible for the Werewolves to win a game. After two games in a row where we killed a Werewolf day one and then killed the rest of the wolves back to back to back, we decided that none of us would ever play 'reveal' again in our careers of Werewolf =)

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


text:
Can you look at a Bonus Marker before placing it on the board?
In Hansa Teutonica, I know that for the initial three golden Bonus Markers (I think that's the right term for the English version), you place them on the specified beginning locations face down, then flip them up. When you claim a route and take the Bonus Marker that is on that route, you immediately draw one from the pile of Bonus Markers, where they lay face down.
Are you allowed to look at the Bonus Marker before you place it on a new route on the board? Our group couldn't find anything in the rules explicitly addressing this, so we've been playing under the assumption that we're allowed to look at it before deciding where we want to place it, but I'd like some confirmation, as it would impact tactical play.
We're playing the Dutch version (Hanzesteden), in case that may account for a missed translation or somesuch.

My group has always played that you could look, but while digging through the rulebook to support that decision, I've come to the conclusion that the opposite is true and that you cannot look.
From the English rules:

For each bonus marker a player obtains during his turn, he should draw
  a new bonus marker from the supply and put it face down on the tin
  plate on his player mat without looking at it. Before the next player
  starts his turn, these bonus marker(s) should be placed next to any
  route(s) of the player’s choice that meet the following three
  conditions: (i) no bonus marker is already on that trade route, (ii)
  no resource is located on that trade route (i.e., all fields need to
  be empty) and (iii) there is at least one available (i.e. open) Office
  space in an adjacent city to the route.

You could still argue it's up for debate since it doesn't explicitly state that you cannot look at it before placing it, but based on the fact that you can't look at it when you receive it, and it never states that you can look at it, I think the implied answer is that no, you cannot look.


text:
If I am building a road and I use the same tile twice, do I count that tile twice in order to determine the length of the road?
It normally doesn't make a huge difference, but I just got the King expansion, which gives major bonuses for those people who build the largest city and the longest road, and this slight difference in scoring may change the outcome of the game.
The situation is similar when it comes to cities that use the same tile twice. In that case though, it seems to me that you wouldn't count the tile twice; the size of the city can be measured as the number of tiles it spans.
However, when it comes to the road, it's not about size, but about length. If you score a point for every tile that you go through, and your road is long enough to circle back to a tile you already scored, do you score it again?
What are the "official" rules about this?

No, just count them once.
From the rules at the bottom of page 2:

The player who has a thief on a completed road scores one
  point for each tile in the completed road (count the
  number of tiles; separate segments on a tile count just
  once).

Also the Carcassonne Annotated Rules confirms that the King expansion uses the same definition for "longest"; IE, count the tiles.

And here is a problem. In all English-based rulebooks I have seen a tile-based approach for scoring road/city/everything. In some European rules, there is a approach to score points per segment of construction. Official rules says that you score per tile, so if construction have a tile with two or more segments and spans on each of hem You score only for a tile.
However be advised that some of European gamers could score differently.


text:
What happens when Annihilation is played in combat on a monster that is not the last played card?
In Munchkin, what is the effect of Annihilation card when played in combat with multiple monsters, targeting a monster that is not the last played card? Will its power still count for combat resolution?

P.S. is there a centralised resource with card explanations?

If you target any monster in a multi monster combat situation that monster will be removed from the game. Since it was removed from the game it will no longer have any impact on the combat that is taking place.

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


text:
Brigette Supporter: Does Pokemon GX considered EX?
When using Brigette supporter card, how many basic GX should I search? Do I need to search only (1) considering it an Ex or (3) considering it as non-EX basic?
I have GX pokemons in my deck and don't know how many of them should I get with that supporter's effect.

I don't know if there are more comprehensive rules anywhere, but from a quick search I couldn't see any indication that Gx count as Ex, so I think you'd search for 3.

In Pokémon, new game mechanics are introduced from time to time, but this does not mean that they need to interact or be somehow backward-compatible. For most of the time, they are separate.
Pokémon-GX is a different card to Pokémon-EX cards and thus you can find up to 3 Basic Pokémon including Pokémon-GX cards with Brigette.

This thing is awesomesauce! I just hope that they won't do any change in Brigette card's text or rules because of GXs. Hahaha xD

To add an official source, this is confirmed on the Pokemon webpage at: http://www.pokemon.com/us/strategy/big-changes-in-pokemon-tcg-sunmoon/ "Things that specifically call out Pokémon-EX, such as Carbink's Safeguard Ability, do not apply to Pokémon-GX. That means you can use a Brigette Supporter card to search for three Basic Pokémon-GX and put them onto your Bench!"

Most GX cards are NOT basic, so Brigette is not going to be that helpful to you.  Many GX cards are stage 1 or stage 2.

Ignoring the premise of the question does not answer it. This is a comment on tactical choice, not an answer.

Good point - out of the initial 12 GX pokemon with Sun and Moon, only 3 are basic - Snorlax GX, Tauros GX and Lapras GX. There will likely be more basic GX pokemon in future sets.

It depends on the type of deck. Brigette is a good card for my 2 different decks.


text:
Contract Bridge Games Verses Party Bridge Scoring?
In scoring contract rubber bridge, if you make 2 or more games out of 3 you get 500/700 pts for a rubber.  If you make 2 games consecutively before your opponents make a game at all you get 700 pts.  But if your opponents get a game before you make 2 games in a row you only get a 500 rubber.  My question is: in party bridge do you score this the same or do you score 300 pts to each parnership that scores a game and then an additional 200 or 400pts depending on if  they score another game before opponents can score a game? In other words, do you get any additional points for making a game if you don't win the rubber, other than the 100 or 120 below the line?

Is "party bridge" just rubber bridge played socially, or does it have a separate meaning?

@TimLymington: The usual understanding is that "party bridge" refers to scoring by "four-deal-sets" instead of rubbers, so that players can be moved around between tables every 30 minutes or so. There are variations, but all utilize some form of Chicago Scoring The player movement is usually "progressive", with winners of each round moving up a table and losers moving down. Often players switch partners as they arrive at a table after moving.

Neither - as each hand is scored individually for the Game Bonus of 300 Non Vulnerable and 500 Vulnerable.
One option that I have seen played is to carry part-scores forward after any of the first three deals of a set instead of awarding a Part Score Bonus of 50. When this is done the Part Score Bonus is 100 rather than 50 on the Fourth hand, when the set is closed off. Be sure to discuss in advance with your partner and opponents if this option is in effect.

If a rubber is finished, there is no additional bonus for making a game: if you won, it is part of the rubber bonus, and if you lost it has reduced the opponents' bonus from 700 to 500.
But if for some reason a rubber has to end before one side has won two games, a bonus is awarded in the final score, of 300 for a game and 50 for a part-score. (See Bridgewebs' scoring rules.)


text:
Timing a backstab in Diplomacy
When is a good time to backstab an ally in Diplomacy?
Should I backstab if I can grab a Supply Centre or two, or should I wait for an opportunity to eliminate an enemy?

I hope this falls into "good subjective"

There are lots of good (and bad) times to back stab, I'm not sure there is an out and out correct answer. This is one of the fun aspects of Diplomacy: its variation.
However, early back stabbing is probably almost always best avoided, as you will probably lose credibility with the other players if they think you are unreliable.
Sometimes the best back stabs are against players you have had very long alliances with, when they least expect it.
I also sometimes wait until I have a (usually hidden) alliance with another player, against the same player I am planning to back stab. That way they get hit with a double whammy and you have an extra level of insurance.
Finally, just past the 5th playing hour, as the tiredness and alcohol kicks in, if my experiences are anything to go by, is usually a good time to back stab and lose friends ;)

The rule of thumb has always been:
Never backstab an opponent in a way that leaves them capable of retaliation.

You should only backstab an ally if that means the difference between losing or winning the game. So you shouldn't backstab for 1 or 2 centers. Settle for 3 or more and be sure you can grab them and keep them too. And to mention the obvious, do not backstab in the spring.
If you backstab often, players remember and refuse to ally with you (or at least the aliances aren't that stable). If you never backstab, players remember too and just walk over you.

I highly disagree with your last sentence ("If you never backstab, players... just walk over you").  If you play with enough of the same players repeatedly that inter-game memory matters, not backstabbing and taking vengeance on those that backstabbed you in future games is the best way to win (see the repeated prisoner's dilemma in game theory for more)

I tend to find that beginners backstab too early, and do so to just grab an SC or two.  Real experts seem to play with much more fluid alliance systems where it's not entirely clear what a backstab would be.
But as an intermediate player, my usual plan is to try to backstab just as we eliminate our first victim, or a little later - somewhere in the 7-10 SC range.
Time the backstab to cripple the former ally, so you can eliminate them pretty quickly, and you're well on the way to winning.

A tried-and-true expert strategy is to make all alliances fixed-term rather than indefinite, often for just a single season or year. By the nature of the game, these short-term alliances will tend to direct their attention to all long-term alliances for self preservation, which rapidly eliminates those players who fail to engage n this strategy. Then the pros divvy up Europe for themselves and get down to the big ante game.

The problem with backstabbing in a "best time to backstab" is that your ally might also backstab you or be expecting you to backstab.
I once backstabbed France when I was England. We could have won a two way victory. But I saw He was getting stronger much faster than me, so I backstabbed him and evened our strenghts. The problem was that now I totally lost credibility and was in danger of having to fight my former ally and the third player who was left. We ended up in a three way victory.
So to provide an answer to your question. I think that the best time for a backstab is when you can make it look like to everyone else that you were doing the right thing. And/or already have other allies upon who you can rely.

At Wikiquotes here we can get a lesson from the master, which is...

Upon this, one has to remark that men ought either to be well treated or crushed, because they can avenge themselves of lighter injuries, of more serious ones they cannot; therefore the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge.

Good question! Here are my thoughts . . .
First and foremost, is the game being played in person? Second, is the game played with the same group of people? And lastly, do you intend to win the game?
These questions are important to answer before even deciding when and how to back-stab! I will explain each one.
Playing in person is very different from playing online or through mail. This is because the personalities and emotions of the players are more evident and intense. That being said, it is generally more difficult to play harshly in person. Therefore, an effective back-stab in person must be quick, efficient, deadly, and unrecoverable. This is to ensure that the victim does endure prolonged harm and frustration. After all, it is only a game! (Do not be a bully.)
Next, do you play with the same group of people? This is the most important question to ask yourself. Why? Well, Diplomacy is a game of reputation. Your reputation ultimately decides whether or not you will the next game, and the game to follow. Simply put, no one wants to ally with that one player who always back-stabs early or prematurely. Players want mature partners, who play to win, not ruin the game for others. That being said, never back-stab early or prematurely when playing with the same group of players. (You do not want to ruin your reputation. Always give a good impression!)
Lastly, are you playing to win? If you are not, then why bother back-stabbing? Back-stab for the win.
Those are my thoughts on how to approach the subject. I hope I was able to help you.

The best time to "backstab" is at the end of a three way alliance.
Let's say Italy, Russia, and Turkey are allied against Austria Hungary. After that country is gone, two of the allies might gang up on the third. (Unless there are "personalities" involved, Italy and Turkey against Russia is the least likely.) In any event, the old schoolyard proverb is applicable: You don't want to be the odd man in a three way fight.
And if it is TWO backstabbers against one, you won't get nearly as much opprobrium, either alone, or both put together, as if either of you had backstabbed individually.

Perhaps I'm jaded from online play but I have found that reputation seems to matter little online (in person it makes a big difference). I have literally been the victim of 1st turn lies and betrayals in every online game I've played. I believe I've had about a 3 to one ratio of unkept vs kept early move promises. But as far as can tell no one seems less likely to work with these players because of it. The reason is simple: they are all doing the same thing and expect that everyone is. So it seems everyone is backstabbing near constantly and the only consideration seems to be who can offer immediate payback. If you can't offer much payback (especially central powers early), you get carved up quick.
So I feel like online people play as if trust starts out at zero and stays there.

If you play many games of diplomacy with enough of a recurring play group, the question of timing actually becomes one of "in which games to backstab?"  Better yet, the question is "should you backstab?"  That boils down to a question of whether you want to win or want to have friends after the game is over.
In either case, the relevant piece of research to look into is the Repeated Prisoner's Dilemma, as that is essentially what a series of games of Diplomacy games with the same playgroup boils down to.  Tit-for-Tat is a highly effective strategy in such a situation.  That is to say, don't ever backstab first; only backstab to punish others for backstabbing you in a previous game, and make it very clear that is why you betrayed them.  In such a situation, you want to backstab in a way that will cause that player to lose the game, as the key to the strategy is to punish them for the harm their betrayal inflicted on you.  Doing so also does not require backstabbing at all; conventionally attacking them in an alliance can be just as effective.
In addition to Tit-for-Tat being a highly successful strategy in terms of winning more games, it's also a highly successful strategy in terms of keeping friends.  I have personally played by the credo of "I will never break a deal in Diplomacy and I hold everyone else to the same standard" (including but not limited to taking vengeance later on players who break deals with me later) for over about 15 years.  In doing so, I have friendships I have made from playing Diplomacy rather than friendships I have lost.
If playing online or in a tournament (i.e. with people you will likely never interact with again), save a backstab for when it will win you the game.  Solid alliances are hard to come by, and if you break a deal to gain a handful of supply centers, you have lost credibility with all other players.

The strategy you describe as working for over 15 years is not "tit-for-tat" but a variant of "grim trigger", trust until betrayed, then defect always after.

@Nij While you are technically correct, the conditional cooperation aspect of the strategy is what's relevant.  I've edited it slightly so as to not mislead game theory novices

@Nij  Tit-for-Tat and Grim Trigger have similar power to induce cooperation (especially if it is public what strategy you are playing).  Where the distinction matters is over the long-term.  But with enough games, even Tit-for-Tat has issues due to the chance of a betrayal being perceived when one was not intended (i.e. noise in the repeated prisoner's dilemma).  I decided to keep it to the game-theory basics here out of consideration for post length.


text:
What's the name of this board game about a Middle East oil war?
I'm trying to find a board game which I knew when I was a kid. Nobody let me play it.
It's played in the Middle East. It has oil pipelines to link territories, oil tanker ships, perhaps an oil drill, dictator (a hand), artillery (tank), a head piece (sorry I don't remember what it is), and if I'm not wrong it has a king and a warrior or spy too. I don't remember if it had money, dice, etc.
The objective, if I remember correctly, was to gain power, economy control, etc. It has some similarities to Risk and Diplomacy.

With help from Pat Ludwig's answer I found out the right game.
It's The Game of Nations.

This game probably was release to exploit the first oil big crisis in 1972. Good to know that the world changed :-)

Feel free to accept your own answer, to let people know that the question has been resolved!

Excellent!  I'm glad you found it.

@Brian: I will in 2 days when system allow.

Oh, right. I forgot that it doesn't allow you to do it as soon as you answer.

I have a couple guesses, I'm not sure either matches everything you listed though.
Oil: The Great Adventure

Petróleo

A couple GeekLists may have what you are looking for if I missed the mark.

Let's Play the Oil War
Oil Exploration Games


text:
Death Angels - Is the Force Field Overpowered?
We've been playing the new Space Hulk card game, "Death Angels" at our gaming sessions of late.  We've noticed that the Force Field card (the Librarian Support) seems to be a game-winner, to the extent that our strategies revolve around it 100% when it is available.  Since it can shut down a single swarm of an arbitrarily large size, and since swarms move collectively and merge when they arrive at the same square, our tactics tend to center around herding all the swarms onto a single square, then using "Force Field" infinitely to lock it down while we move through the Hulk at will and eventually reach the last room.
Upon reaching the last room, frequently the objective has nothing to do with killing all the 'stealers, so we auto-win.  On the few occasions where it does require killing all the stealers, the location card itself frequently provides an out, or we stack all of our support tokens on the librarian and have him 'chain-gun' the swarm down.
The card itself seems to have robbed the game of much of its challenge. Is this correct, or are we missing something about how the card works and how its mechanics interact with the game?

Perhaps "20 support tokens" was just an exaggeration, but there are only 12 support tokens available (Component Limitations, p30 of the rule book).

Yea, "like 20" was a bit of hyperbole.  Busted ;(

A player may not chose an Action card that he resolved during the previous game round (pg11 of the Rule Book)

Given that rule, how can you use Force Field indefinitely?

...by overlooking that rule.  Oh geez, that changes things dramatically.


text:
What's the etymology for the term "Bingo" in Scrabble?
Using all 7 tiles nets a Scrabble player a 50-point bonus and is sometimes referred to as a "Bingo". I'm curious: how did that term come into use and why does it have such meaning?

There is a good detail on Scrabble Bingo's on the Wikipedia page here.
Bingo is a game where each player is issued a card with numbers. A caller calls out numbers drawn at random and the player will cross of numbers on their card. The first person to have all of their numbers crossed off will shout out Bingo! So there is a parallel between this game where all of the numbers have been marked on the card and using all of your tiles in Scrabble.
You can read more about the game Bingo on its wiki page. Note the wiki page mentions that game has its earliest recording in 1776. It is my assumption it was long popular before Scrabble and that is why the term was borrowed for Scrabble because of the parallel mentioned above.
I checked the Online Etymology Dictionary and it says the origin of the phrase is unclear.
If you want to know more about the word itself you should try asking as a separate question on https://english.stackexchange.com/

As xiaohouzi (little monkey?) said, "bingo" comes from the game of Bingo. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word "bingo" comes from the word "bing" for a pile of something. In this case, presumably, it would be a pile of coins that you win for getting the right pattern on your card. The word "bing" is an old-fashioned word but still in use in northern England. Here's an example from Robert Burns's poem, The Brigs of Ayr. Robert Burns is a well-known Scottish poet.

'Twas when the stacks get on their winter hap,
And thack and rape secure the toil-won crap;
Potatoe-bings are snugged up frae skaith
O' coming Winter's biting, frosty breath;
The bees, rejoicing o'er their summer toils,
Unnumber'd buds an' flow'rs' delicious spoils,
Seal'd up with frugal care in massive waxen piles,
Are doom'd by Man, that tyrant o'er the weak,


text:
Is Mr. Jack balanced?
Is Mr. Jack a balanced game, or do experienced gamers tend to win more often with either the Inspector or Jack the Ripper?

Not a popular game I presume? I only played it last weekend for the first time, had never heard of it before, but it was a lot of fun and very well made too.

Excellent question: I play it a lot, often with the same people (my wife, family, friends). It's one of the few games for two that I really enjoy.
To answer your question, maybe we haven't fully explored the possible strategies, but we find that the game is quite biased in favour of the Inspector. Other people who have played with us seem to agree. Also, I discovered while browsing the web that there are extensions (referred to here, for example) that make the game more balanced.
On a related note, while Jack sometimes win, I have only once seen him win by escaping (and that was because of a terrible mistake made by the Inspector). All the other times I've seen Jack win, it was by reaching the last turn, or by the inspector accusing someone at random because time was short anyway.


text:
Pandemic: "Resilient Population" card
The "Resilient Population" card reads:

Take a card from the Infection Discard Pile and remove it from the game.

When you play the "Resilient Population" card, what exactly are you allowed to do?

The "Resilient Population" card lets you remove one city from the discard pile.  If you are afraid you're about to get an Epidemic (or you have just gotten one!) and have the existing discard pile shuffled back onto the top, you can remove the most dangerous city so that there's no risk of an outbreak.

Note that as explained in this question, you have to play it before the cards are reshuffled.


text:
What happens when I draw cards if I've built the Library and the Observatory?
In Citadels it's possible to build both the Library and Observatory:
Library

If you choose to draw cards when you take an action, you keep both of the cards you have drawn.

Observatory

If you choose to draw cards when you take an action, you draw three cards, keep one of your choice, and put the other two on the bottom of the deck.

What happens when I draw district cards when I have both districts in my city?  Do I draw three cards and keep all of them, or do I draw three cards and keep two of them?

Q: What if a player has both Library
and Observatory in his city? How do
their effects combine?
A: If this
player draws cards, he draws three and
keeps two.

(Source)
That's straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

This answer is unsatisfying, and feels like bad game design decisions. Because this is precisely what the rules are for the observatory, which means the library provides no additional value.

I'm inclined to say you should try and meet as much of the criteria as possible.  That said, you would:

Draw three cards
Keep both (both meaning two) of the cards
Put the remaining cards (one) on the bottom of the deck.

This answer is unsatisfying, and feels like bad game design decisions. Because this is precisely what the rules are for the observatory, which means the library provides no additional value.


text:
Dominion rule clarification: Repeater actions + choice actions
When using a "repeating" action, such as Throne room, with a "choice" action, such as Pawn or Nobles, can you make a different choice on each repeated action?
For example, Throne Room states:

Choose an action from your hand, play it twice.

Nobles states:

Choose one: +3 cards, +2 actions

After playing these two cards, can you make the choice to get +3 cards from the first play of Nobles, and +2 actions from the second play of Nobles triggered by Throne Room?
Also, if you may choose each time, what order are these actions resolved? Would I gain 3 cards, then the second Nobles choice is made, or are both Nobles actions simultaneous, so both choices have to be made before the first can be resolved?

I read this as follows:
"Play it twice" applied to Pawn means:

Play Pawn and then
Play Pawn again

I.e. there are two subsequent plays of pawn, which implies

You can make different choices during each play
Benefits you gain during the first play are available during the second play

As far as choice and action resolution goes, it's as though you have two of the card, and play them one after the other. Using Noble as the example in this case, one could choose to draw three cards during the first play, then, based on the cards you draw you could decide whether you want the +2 actions or three more cards. Nobles is my favorite card to stack with Throne Room, by far.
As another example, let's say you play a Golem on top of a Throne Room. You would draw through your deck until you get two action cards, then determine the order in which you want to play them, then resolve all their actions (if one of them were a Throne Room, you would also resolve the actions of the card you stack on it twice), then draw through your deck until you get two more action cards, then determine the order in which you want to play them, then resolve their actions, one after the other.
Also, it's important to note that what I'm saying here is really just an expanded version of S.P.Floyd - seanizer's answer, which was here before mine.


text:
What is the most balanced/competitive character set in Citadels?
In Citadels, most versions that are currently available for sale also include the Dark City expansion.  Since those extra characters are available, what arrangement of characters do you find the most balanced and competitive?
Please clarify your response by indicating why you've chosen to add or remove these particular characters to balance gameplay.

Nice question - I've only ever played with the "basic" configuration myself, so I'd be excited to hear if anyone has any favourite alternatives!

I've found the default characters are the most balanced set of characters.  While I haven't played with all of the extra characters, some of them significantly change how the game plays.  Bruno Faidutti, the creator of Citadels, says he prefers the default characters on the game's Rules FAQ on his website.  Quote:

Q: What is your favorite character mix?
A:
The 8 basic characters, plus the Queen or the Artist when playing with 6 or 7 players.
Q: What's the best character mix?
A:
Many players prefer the Witch over the Assassin, but I disagree. The Assassin is simpler and naughtier. I prefer the original set, sometimes with adding the Queen, and sometimes with replacing the Merchant with the Alchemist.

For the extra characters I have played with, I have a few impressions I can share with you.
Tax Collector:  I found without the threat of the thief, people started hoarding money.  This reduces some of the tension in the game.  Since players can't get robbed, they can save to build up to build the most expensive district.  Players were also careful to not have money to pay the tax collector after building.
Emperor: Since you can no longer take the crown for yourself, most people gave the crown to the player to their right.  This gave them a better choice of cards in the next character draft, while benefiting the player to the right.  The Emperor does make it fairer though how the crown is distributed, but it's also the only character ability the benefits someone else in the game.
Alchemist: The ability to get all your gold back you spend is great, but the Alchemist replaces the Merchant.  Since the Merchant can tax green properties and the Alchemist can't, this makes green districts the most worthless ones in the deck.  They can't be taxed and provide no special benefit.  Green also happens to be the most common color in the district deck
Finally while i haven't played with it, the Diplomat seems to be one of the most powerful characters in the game.  It will definitely change the dynamic of the game and make it harder to hold onto powerful purple districts.  That doesn't mean that any of these characters are bad, and the opportunity to try them out was a bad inclusion in the game.  I just think the default set of characters is the most balanced.

Nice.  I always start with the normal characters, and then switch new characters into the game one by one to keep the game fresh.  Usually, the assassin is the first to go, but I will keep these comments in mind.

I thought the tax collector made it so if the other player would have no gold at the end of their turn when they built the district, they would be unable to do so. Can you get out of paying the tax collector if you have no money?

I think the official rule interpretation allows you to build without paying taxes if you are out of money after building, but that seems to make the Tax Collector worthless.  Enacting some sort of house rule for the Tax Collector has always seemed like a good idea to me.  I actually asked a question about enacting a Tax Collector house rule on this site, but the question was closed.

I prefer the standard set with the Diplomat.
The Diplomat improves the game in two ways:

There's less luck. If I happen to get a great purple building, I can't expect to run away with the game because the Diplomat may take it from me. Also, 1-cost buildings are no longer complete garbage.
The Warlord's ability is worthless in a large game. Paying to harm an opponent just hands the game to everyone else.

You can also use the Navigator, but you should then switch the Magician for the Wizard --- drawing 4 district cards makes you so tasty a Magician target that you de facto don't have the option.
Other than those changes, I find it best to stick with the base set.
Incidentally, in my group the Witch is completely broken. Player 1 almost always chooses the Witch and is very likely to get the role she wants and avoid the Thief.

The warlord can destroy 1-cost districts for free, which isn't worthless at all! (If you pick on the leader, removing a colour grouping +1 cost is 4 points. And if you delay them getting 8, that's another 4 points.)

Everyone has equal access to the selected roles, so it's not so much the balance of the game that changes: only the metagame is affected.
Before we start the game, we put all the roles pairwise on the table. Then we randomly select a starting player who picks one role. Its counterpart is removed. We proceed clockwise until all roles have been picked.
This adds an extra dimension to the game, because you can tell something about a person by the roles they choose to include.
Afterwards if we're up for another game, we swap out all the character cards for their counterparts.

We play a lot of Citadels (3 games always, counting the points from previous games - makes 2nd and 3rd game from the start more competitive) and we have played with almost every combination so here is what I think:

Assassin or Witch

both can go
Assassin is simpler but sometimes makes my friends too frustrated - being killed twice in a few rounds makes them give up on the round
Witch is nicer since player receive their action gold (or cards) but seems like whoever is 1st will pick her by default which is boring a bit IMO

Thief or Tax Collector

Thief, thief, thief and only THIEF! Playing with the Tax Collector is just too simple, people build whatever they want by simply hoarding gold. Another aspect is that everyone do their best not to pay the tax so tax collector receives 1 gold max with 6 players

Magician or Wizard

both good but pick depending on what you pick for number 7
Navigator can't go with Magician (what's the point of taking 4 new cards when someone will steal them the next round probably), Wizard can go with Navigator or Architect and it's less fatal but still feared a lot

King or Emperor

I'm a bit biased here
personally I don't like the Emperor since somehow whenever we play with him one person keeps the crown for a very long time which is terrible
the problem with the Emperor is that when he is killed the crown doesn't move
combining Witch with the Emperor is better since bewitched Emperor moves the crown
King is safe, easy to understand and goes better with Queen (speaking from experience)
OT: killing the King is really stupid unless someone has 2-3 yellow districts

Bishop or Abbot

we tried playing with Tax-Emperor-Abbot thinking there's gonna be a lot of gold exchanging between players and that Emperor and Abbot will help TaxC get more gold - we were wrong; don't play TaxC
Abbot is interesting but it really lacks that protect that Bishop offers
Bishop is simple and yes, sometimes boring, but it makes the game more complex by not letting Warlord destroy a certain city that round and that's why Abbot is completely useless

Merchant or Alchemist

both can go but Merchant usually wins
Merchant's purpose is to get more gold - you get 1 extra plus 1 for every green district and let's face it, the deck is full of those
with Alchemist you don't receive more gold, you just get back what you had so building more expensive stuff is only gonna work with other coloured cards, and there aren't many when 6 is grey
with Alchemist, green district become useless and that's a turn off for the most of my friends
Never play with TaxC and Alchemist - its a disaster
Alchemist and Navigator also don't work, Thief can steal mass gold you got from playing Navigator then Alchemist but then that Thief has mass gold and with Alchemist our bank is sometimes completely depleted
just play Merchant regularly, and play Alchemist sometimes to spice it up

Architect of Navigator

I strongly suggest Architect because without it there is no chance of someone rushing at the end by having 5 districts than building 3 with the Architect and therefore ending the game (which we really like and are constantly killing the architect near the end)
Navigator isn't that bad thought, if you don't miss those 3 districts at once from Architect
you can still build 2 districts in one round with Wizard hey (that's one more reason why Wizard always goes with Navigator)

Warlord or Diplomat

Warlord is the only card which reduces the number of districts someone has in their city (Armory as well yes, but that's one 1 district in the whole deck) and therefore is viable for a dynamic game.
with Diplomat you have a cool swapping tool but the number of districts remains always the same
you can theoretically play Navigator and Diplomat (so that Architect can't build 3 districts) as opposed to Architect and Warlord but in my opinion Architect and Warlord are far more better
one gold districts are more useful in Diplomat game but if you can build a tavern for example when you are the Merchant you get that 1 gold you spent back and you shouldn't despair if it gets destroyed; if you collect the income twice it's your benefit

Queen or Artist

use Queen when there are 5-6 players, use Artist when there are more
using Queen when there are 7 or more players pretty much reduces the Queen's probability of success so use Artist
Artist can be used always actually and it's pretty much needed if you built low-cost purple districts that give some serious advantages (MUSEUM) and you want to make it harder for Warlord to destroy it
I bolded the Queen instead of the Artist simply because she is more fun

I've bolded the combination we stick to mostly

I think you have some typo on your Number 4. The Emperor always gives the crown to another player other than himself. Which I think it's more balance than the King.

We now play with the Witch instead of the Assassin. The Assassin is too powerful. Get hit twice in a game and there's no chance for a comeback. With the Witch, the beweitched character still gets a little something and the Witch character guarantees you a role that round.
We also play with an enhanced Queen to make her as valuable as the other roles. If Queen is sitting next to King, she gets 3 gold. We add on: if she is sitting 1 away from King, she gets 2 gold.

I like to choose randomly to have a different setup each time. I agree with other commenters that the base set is easier, so I tend to just choose two of the expansion characters randomly before the game. I then put them in with the base set and remove their equivalents (e.g. if the Witch is randomly chosen, remove the Assassin). Each time I play the setup is a little different so it keeps the game quite interesting.
In my play experience, I've found that I'm not a fan of the Witch or the Emperor. The Witch is more powerful than the Assassin, who I think is powerful enough as it is. On the other hand I find the Emperor to be a little weak. The King is a good out if the start player keeps taking Assassin, or Thief if there is no Assassin, but at least then the King puts themselves in the driving seat, whereas the Emperor seems unnecessarily weaker.

Including Dark City extension, I personnaly love following deck:

Witch
Thief (mandatory role if Navigator enters in game)
Magician (stacking all cards with Navigator can be dangerous)
King (the Emperor could be interesting also depending on number of players)
Bishop (mandatory to protect against Diplomat, Abbot is not useful)
Alchimist (losing green district taxes but powerful in combination with Navigator)
Navigator (high rewards but high risk: being stolen
or betwitched)
Diplomat (swapping is more interesting than
destroying)

This set creates high tension game with a lot of money to steal. I think this is balanced and interesting for games with at least 4 players.

For me, it depends if I play a two players game or more.
In a two players game - Assassin is way too strong, so I prefer to use the witch (that way - if the other player gets hit, he still can make his action).
The warlord is stronger in a two player game, which is good, and it also makes the Bishop better. In a 3+ players game, I prefer the Diplomat because the warlord losses strength.

The first half of your answer addresses the question, though could use some clarification and support. The second half is a follow up question which should not be asked in the answer, Please take it out of your answer and post it as your own question, and reference this question in it if you wish.


text:
How do the expansions for Carcassonne change the game?
There are a ton of different expansions for the Carcassonne base game. What are some of the differences between them?

What does each one add to the game?
How does each one change the strategy and gameplay?
What new rules and tiles does each one add?

Not voting to close as a duplicate, but for additonal reference: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/1085/good-expansions-for-carcassonne

Abbey & Mayor
Introduces 6 "joker" abbey tiles. Six Mayor meeples, one for each player. Twelve new landscape tiles. Six wagon pieces, one for each player. And six barns, one for each player.
Wagons allow you to move from a road to an open city tile if you complete the road. This allows you to claim something new without using an extra turn.
The Mayor meeple can only be used on a city tile, and counts for an extra follower for every shield found on a city tile.
The six Abbey tiles allow you to fill a gap between a cross of tiles. It has to be surrounded from top, bottom, left, and right (diagonal is not necessary).
The barns allow you claim a farm on any corner where 4 green fields connect. Any farmers present on the farms at this point will get returned to their owners, and normal scoring rules will apply. The barn will remain, however, and score 4 points for each city at game end.
I think Abbey & Mayor has the most impact of all the expansion packs.
One of challenges of Carcassone was farming. Farming was a critical component to winning. But committing too many farmers, and getting into a farm-war early on, was quite expensive. You would lose many of your meeples until game end, which prevents you from using them at a critical junction later in the game. Striking the right balance between farming and other objectives was critical.
The barn invalidates this and allows you to be more reckless in the beginning to get a "point rush" until your farmers are eventually returned to you, freeing them up for other uses. Personally I'm not a fan of this feature; it places far too much emphasis on luck, and being the first to connect a barn is the most advantageous. This alters the beginning of the game where it's a race to farm and place a barn.
The Mayor meeple changes game fundamentals too. For every shield the Mayor meeple counts as an extra follower. This does make for interesting cut-throat gameplay. The game becomes far more aggressive where everyone is actively trying to steal others' cities.
This is also something I'm not pleased with. I feel, over all, the Abbey & Mayor shifts the balance of the game to a far more aggressive posture, and this could be annoying to some as they will rarely be left alone and must respond to aggression on every turn instead of trying to play their game.
Finally, the "joker" card, or Abbey tile, I feel is a cheap "get out of jail" card for the player, and invalidates some of your strategy if you like blocking your opponents while you work on your own objectives.
I am extremely competitive but I feel the game already has a fantastic balance with other expansions (Inns & Cathedrals, Builders & Traders) and this expansion just tips it a bit too far. My friends like this and as such I play this expansion very often.
Inns & Cathedrals
Introduces 18 new landscape tiles, and six large followers. The new tiles include two special cathedral tiles.
The landscape tiles now include Inns, which, if the road gets completed, let you score two points for each tile instead of one. This is a nice feature as it adds more value to road tiles, and shifts some of the emphasis from city building to road building. These tiles come with the added risk of, if they're not completed, not receiving any points for them. I think this is a nice feature in terms of risk/reward. It's very cool to watch others trying to join your long road that has an Inn for a share of the spoils!
Cathedrals applies the same concept to city building. The reward in this case is three points for each completed city tile, and no points for an incomplete city. This is fascinating because you can use cathedral tiles offensively to prevent opponents from earning points on their cities.
The large follower, which counts for two followers, is also intriguing since it presents you with a chance to steal your opponents points by taking over their cities, farms, or roads. You now have an incentive to be aggressive, whereas in the original Carcassone such insidious plotting required more careful planning and an extra turn to place two followers.
If you include Abbey & Mayor such strategies are somewhat mitigated since the Mayor will likely trump a large follower (the Mayor can only be used on a city tile). The Abbey, or "joker" card, will go some way to allow a player to complete their feature even if you strived to make this task difficult.
Traders & Builders
Introduces 24 more landscape tiles. Twenty trade good tokens (9 barrels, 6 grain, and 5 cloth). Six pig meeples, and six builder meeples.
The pig meeple is a great addition. It allows your to earn 1 additional point for every city connected to a farm. You must already have a farmer on the farm in order to place the pig.
The builder meeple is a fantastic addition and changes the gameplay substantially. You can add your builder to any city or road with a follower. On your next turn, if you can add to your city or road, you get an extra turn immediately for a maximum of two turns.
This is great because it adds an element of risk that plays into the largest part of the expansion: The trade goods. Each of the new added tiles has an icon denoting a trade good. The player who closes a city, irrespective of the owner, gets to keep whatever trade good tokens are denoted on the city tiles. If you close a city with two tiles that have barrels on them, for example, you get two barrel tokens. This is exciting because having a builder on a city gives you an extra turn that increases your chances of completing your city and gaining the tokens.
Whoever has the most of each token by game end earns 10 points for each type. If you have the most barrel and cloth tokens you gain an additional 20 points to your total.
This adds an incentive to close your opponents cities if you deem it beneficial to you, or damaging to your most threatening opponents. Closing a city with trade goods could deny your opponents points, or/and help you earn more points, or match their number of trade good tokens, thus invalidating their advantage. A lot of thought can be applied to how you manage this feature of the game.
I haven't played any of the other expansions, but I know of Tower, River II, Count, King & Cult, Princess & Dragon, Wheel of Fortune. I will give Tower a try this week and update my answer.
That said, of all of those I think the Count sounds most fascinating and will likely change gameplay drastically. It includes a separate set of pre-numbered tiles that must be assembled to create a castle. Your followers presence in the castle now and other events that take place on this castle now influence gameplay and scoring.

Upvoted for not only being an excellent answer, but also restricting yourself to the three BEST Carcassonne expansions.  These are the ones that everyone should know about!

@thesunneversets, thanks! I completely agree with you there. I have a few more in the box that I would like to try including The Count. I bought the big box over a year ago, but haven't played anything outside of those three.

This is a pretty vast question, as there must be at least a dozen expansions for Carcassonne now, ranging in style from the pretty logical to the completely whimsical (hello Catapult).  I'm afraid that I don't own ALL the expansions to Carcassone - if anyone here does, I salute them - so I can't give a truly definitive answer, so I'll give a brief description of what I think the various expansions in my old Big Box add.  And that should definitely be a good starting point.
The River is a small and pretty nonessential expansion.  Essentially it provides a new introductory phase to the game: instead of plunging the players right into the thick of random tile draw, they get a dozen fairly gentle and non-confrontational tiles to ease them into things.  This is probably good if you're playing with beginners; as a Carcassonne veteran I can't say I would really miss it.  I guess the main difference it makes is forcibly opening up the board the beginning, instead of starting players off all in the same area.... creating a play environment that's less instantly competitive.
Inns & Cathedrals introduces Inns and Cathedrals, of course, but its main contribution is really the Big Follower, which makes for a much MORE cutthroat and competitive game.  Without the Big Follower it's really quite hard to muscle in on someone's city and steal all their points from under their nose.  With him it's a constant threat.  The inns and cathedrals add tiles to the game that basically double the value of roads or cities if you complete them... or give you nothing if you don't complete.  This kind of thing obviously appeals to gambling types... and also people who love to sabotage the overly ambitious projects of others!  I personally think the Inns tend to have a fairly minor impact on the game, but the Cathedrals are crucial - if one or more players start constructing a vast urban megalopolis that stands to gain them dozens of points, the chance to build a Cathedral and reduce all their plans to nothing - or possibly give them an insuperable lead, if you've underestimated their skills! - adds so much extra tension and strategy to the game.
Traders & Builders is another seemingly small expansion that in fact adds a ton of interest and options to the game.  Traders give players a strong incentive to complete each other's cities - something that would be ridiculous in the basic game.  The pig, like the inns, I can take or leave - it enables a few more points to be earned on top of a farmer dominated strategy, as long as you can maintain control of your vast pasture, that is!  Builders though are massive - with a builder in play you can get two turns for the price of one every time you expand a city or a road with a builder on it.  This is such a major effect that everyone has to try their damnedest to keep their builder in action - while trying to shut down other people's builders at the earliest opportunity!  As you can probably tell by now, I really like expansions that increase the potential for interaction and aggressive competition in Carcassonne.  Some people (my wife for instance!) hate games that feel too competitive - if you'd rather just work away on your Carcassonne game in one corner of the board, while the other players leave you to it, then you should take any recommendations by me with a pinch of salt...
I'm going to get a bit less verbose from here on in, because for me, the "ideal" Carcassonne setup is Inns, Cathedrals, Traders and Builders, with or without the River.  However my box does also contain:
The Princess & The Dragon, which will appeal strongly to those who like a storytelling component to the game.  This expansion, for me, feels less tactical and more about the "coolness" appeal of a giant red dragon rampaging over the board eating meeples.  (I do really love the sheer size of the dragon meeple!)
The Tower always struck me as a pretty bad expansion, and I believe it's been retired from more recent editions of the Big Box than mine.  Basically you're building high towers over the board: the higher your followers are, the further they can "reach" to kidnap and hold to ransom opposing followers.  This always seemed really abstract and counterintuitive to me; it didn't seem to work especially well in the two player game that I tried it in, though it might be more fun in a many-player game.  The expansion also contained a completely non-essential Tower component in which you can stack your game tiles, which I resented (presumably) being charged extra for!
Of the other expansions: I own "The Count", but have actually never played with it, as it seems to have a really complicated game of political manoeuvring and oneupmanship in it, and quite often I want to play Carcassonne because it's fairly simple and elegant!  One expansion that I don't own and have played with only once, but which I was favourably impressed with, was "Abbey & Mayor".  In particular I remember it introduced Abbey tiles which can be used to fill in difficult gaps... independently of whether cruel players have boxed you in with near-impossible demands on the final tile to complete your city!  This is obviously a huge change and one that no one can afford to ignore; I love expansions that are that game-changing.
Additionally, there was also something (Barns I think?) which enabled farms to be scored, and farmers to return to people's hands before the end of the game, which has similar ground-breaking implications on potential strategies for the game.  The next Carcassonne expansion I buy will definitely be this one.

One final word how the expansions change the game: all of them contain a few or quite a lot of new tiles, which are much more complex than ones found in the basic set.  In the basic set, you can "trap" people's followers pretty effectively by making it impossible for them to find the right tile to complete their city.  Once you add in a few expansions, there are enough truly wacky tiles out there that, no matter what crazy limitations you place on a space, there's probably something out there that can fill it.  (Or an Abbey!)  The expansions therefore add an element of randomness to proceedings in that you can never be sure if a city is doomed or if you will draw into the perfect mad piece to finish it.  Some might not like that element of luck but I think most quite enjoy the possibility that, against all the odds and the machinations of the other players, the gods may smile and deliver that one-tile-in-a-hundred into their lap :D

If you have only the basic game then Inns and Cathedrals also add followers for the 6th player (gray) and the 50/100 point cards as well, so that expansion is worth even if you don't intend on using the additional cards / big followers

Most of the expansions have already been covered in the other answers, but I feel The Count warrants a little extra commentary.
The most significant impact this expansion has is it gives players a strong incentive to complete other players' features (cities, roads, cloisters)--Whenever you play a tile that grants points to another player, you have the option of putting a follower in the big city ("Carcassonne" proper), which can then be brought in as a sort of reinforcement to earn you points on another feature later.
IMO, this one rounds out the strategy of the game the best, since it really speeds up game play and keeps the points rolling in more regularly.  I probably play with it 4 out of 5 games I play.

I really should try playing with the Count some time soon, I have owned it for months and years after all!  My group tends to find Carcassonne to have too many "annoying" and "fiddly" rules in the first place, so it might be a hard sell, but I'm going to have to try.


text:
Can you avoid the Boss in Munchkin Quest?
Are you able to use magic/tricks (e.g. a Teleport spell) to circumvent the final creature, and thus win the game?

The rules seem pretty clear on this:

No card or power will let you bypass this combat!
  The Boss ignores any rules, cards, or powers that
  would take it out of the Entrance. It can never be
  controlled and will never ignore a Level 10
  munchkin for any reason, even if its card says it will.
  It always fights.

You pretty much have to fight the boss... while teleporting him away would be the Munchkinly thing to do, you'll have to slug it out with the boss.


text:
In Shadow Hunters, can Bob’s special ability be triggered before damage is reduced?
If Bob attacks a character equipped with the Holy Robe and rolls a 2 for damage, can Bob's special ability be immediately triggered? Or, does the Holy Robe reduce the damage Bob would inflict before Bob can choose to activate his special ability?
Bob's special ability:

If you inflict 2 or more damage to a character, you may take an Equipment card of your choice from that character instead of giving them damage.

Holy Robe's ext:

Your attacks do 1 less damage and the amount of damage you receive from attacks is reduced by 1 point.

I would say no, Bob's special ability does not trigger.
Bob's ability requires you to inflict 2 or more damage, and while you may roll 2 damage, you only inflict 1 point of damage.


text:
Do bonus coin powers include territories controlled by races in decline?
Some of the special powers give bonus coins based on regions you "occupy at turn end." Does this include regions controlled by your previous race that has gone into decline?
For example, if you have a race in decline that occupies two forest regions and your current active race has the Forest power, do you get two additional coins for the forest regions?

No,
Each race is separate.  In this case you would not get the additional coins for forests controlled by the race in decline.
From the rules, page 5

The Regions these In Decline tokens occupy also each contribute
  1 Victory coin to the player; Though the Race banner and Special
  Power benefits no longer contribute any bonus coins, unless
  explicitly stated otherwise in said Race or Special Power benefit.

This doesn't quite answer my question.  As I read that rule it is talking about the race banner and special power of the race that went into decline.  I was thinking about a situation where your current active race has a bonus power that covers territories controlled by your race in decline.

Ah, but as I re-read the rules, the graphic on page 5 demonstrates exactly the situations I was concerned with!


text:
How can I balance mandatory quests in two-player games of Lords of Waterdeep?
I am looking for a variant to balance out mandatory quests when playing 2 player. I understand that normally they are powerful, and exist as a catch up mechanic, allowing all players to target the leader.
This does not work in a two-player game.  In a three-player game when a mandatory quest is played, the biggest winner is the player not involved in the play. In a two-player game the biggest winner is the player playing the card.
What I find bad is not that mandatory quests are powerful, but how weak all the other Intrigue cards are.  Instead of getting a boost, they are mostly weakened.  Cards that get you agents and points get you less.  Cards that give things to opponents, make you give things to "all" opponents.
This seems to make the game much more luck-based, as drawing mandatory quests is just so much better than any other Intrigue card.  This is the aspect that I really dislike.
One solution might be to create a dummy player. This player would always do what the person playing the Intrigue card wants, giving agents or VP for instance. I would like to know if there are any other ways that would balance the cards out better.

IMO take them out entirely.  And if you ever find a worker-placement game that actually scales down to two players really well, let me know!!!

Le Havre is great if that counts as worker placement

First, I agree that Mandatory Quests can be a little unbalancing. I've never played 2-player, but I can see how they could be even worse in that case. I've seen a handful of alternatives, any of which may work for you and your opponent:

Don't use them. Remove them from the Intrigue deck beforehand, or discard and draw again if you draw one during the game.
Allow, but penalise, completing other quests while they're in play. Make them not mandatory. Allow the receiver of the Mandatory Quest to complete other quests, but any VP reward is reduced by, for instance, the VP reward of the Mandatory Quest, until they complete the Mandatory Quest to remove this penalty.
Allow other quests, but penalise taking time over the Mandatory Quest. Allow other quests to be completed, but at the end of every one of your turns when you have an incomplete Mandatory Quest in front of you, lose some VP. You could lose 1 VP the first turn, 2 the second and so on, tracking with VP chips if necessary (or think of a flat rate per turn - 2 VP maybe? - if you prefer). You could probably ignore a Mandatory Quest late in the game (when they're most annoying, in my experience), but early Mandatory Quests should be completed before they snowball.
Allow counters. You can reveal a Mandatory Quest from your hand to cancel out being given one. Both are discarded. This would reduce how often they're played, since you may keep one in your hand in defence.

Hopefully one of these suggestions will help you out, or inspire you to come up with your own solution that you feel is right!

should be "you can play a Mandatory Quest (at Waterdeep Harbor) to cancel both one you have in hand and the one you just played". I.e. if each player has a MQ in play, they each discard a MQ.

2 and 3 sound like they would actually make Mandatory Quests even worse to receive.

Late answer, but how about allow other quests and for every mandatory quest not competed at the end of each round, deduct 2 points.  So an annoying penalty that can get progressive worse, but not devastating, and can be ignored, especially late in the game.

Hey Dan, welcome to B&CG!

I like some of the suggestions here and wanted to throw in one more.
My wife and I play with a dummy player specifically for the Intrigue Cards whereby you say, remove Orange from each player - and you get Orange for each player that has none.  The "Dummy" player always has none, making these cards worthwhile.
Also, with respect to cards where you're given 4 Gold for 4 points or whatever, we've assigned these values.
White/Purple - 8 points
Orange/Black - 4 points
4 Gold - 8 Points


text:
In The Resistance is it always a bad idea for the spies to fail the first mission?
My first thought was that it was always a bad idea to fail the first mission as a spy. As there are only two people on the mission, the spy has revealed himself to one of the players.
With 5 players though, it seems like the spies give too much away when succeeding. Is failing the first mission (as a spy) a bad idea even in a 5-player game?
Are there any other situations?

No.
You should almost never let the first mission succeed as a spy. So what if your opponents know that one of the participants is a spy? They don't know which one, and they won't be able to win without figuring out which of you it is.
By making the first mission fail, you give your opponents fewer opportunities to make mistakes as the game progresses. This greatly outweighs the fact that failing a later mission reveals less information.
You do need to get your acting skills into high gear immediately after the mission is revealed as a failure, however. You have to pretend it's obvious to you that your mission-mate was a spy, and appear extremely frustrated if the other players side with her. This can be challenging, but you can't afford to sacrifice a victory point to avoid it.

Having played the game many more tines, i can now see how accurate your answer is

One thing to mention is that breaking a set pattern of always failing the first mission can be a good thing. I have seen some very good games where a spy will let the first 2 missions succeeded and then watch the chaos and confusion when the next 3 missions fail. Having a group of people trying to determine the who the spy is after the first 2 missions worked when missions 3 and 4 both fail can be very enjoyable.

In The Resistance, the biggest danger is having a consistent strategy that is predictable. As a spy, I usually don't fail the first mission if there's only one other person on it, but sometimes I will. If there are 2 other players on it I'm much more likely to sabotage, but still not every time. Being on a successful mission almost guarantees that I'll be included in later missions with more people allowing me to cast doubt more effectively on others because "I was on that successful mission!"
In groups where people tend to play too consistently I find myself getting bored; it seems like the game is determined completely by luck of who gets picked to go on missions.

This is a great answer. If you do the same thing every time as a spy, you will be easier to spot. You need to mix it up a bit.

No,
I disagree with the answer that says to always fail the first one. Unpredictability is usually a huge part of the strategy for the evil team.
I played a game just last night where the first quest was 2 people, both evil. They passed the mission added a third good person, passed the second mission. Then managed to sail through the rest of the game without suspicion and fail the next 3 missions consecutively.
I think it depends a lot on the situation. If I'm evil and on the first team sometimes I will fail it if I have another evil person on the team, so we can just cast suspicion on each other and hopefully the good team will never suspect us both, but this involves signaling so we don't both fail it.
I'll also fail it if I think I can convince everyone one of the other team members is guilty.
But depending on the order it can be beneficial to pass the first mission, also sometimes I end up on a team with someone I know is extremely vocal and once they know I'm evil will stop at nothing to have me off the team, so if it is a team of 2 I'm usually more wary to fail it.
Another thing to keep in mind is if you are playing the Avalon addition and are Mordred you could give yourself away to Merlin, which is a huge disadvantage for the evil team. Its better to get a known evil person on the team to fail it or hide in a team of 4.

I'd say no.
I've never played with just 5 players - only with 6, 7 and 8. And we're all still pretty new to the game seeing as the spies have always won and hardly any teams get rejected.
Basically, the question is if an early start is better than reduced suspicion. In most of our games the first missions have succeeded, even though some contained spies. In our later games the spies usually only won with the 4th or 5th missions, so I'd guess that with more proficient resistance players it becomes more lucrative to fail the first mission.
Five players is a difficult situation though, since there is only one other spy. I'd say that you should probably not fail the mission unless you or the other spy are directly after the second mission member. You'll want to quickly establish evidence that you are not the spy.

If "hardly any teams are rejected", it's no wonder the spies are constantly winning. A golden rule of thumb to new players: if a mission is unanimously approved, there is 100% a spy in the mission.


text:
Can Spoils be trashed by Counterfeit?
I'm looking for an authoritative answer here. Where does the Spoils card end up after being played twice by Counterfeit?
In fact, can Spoils be trashed at all? My understanding is that yes it can when it isn't played, e.g. in order to increase the value of Forager.

Spoils is played twice, but is returned to the Spoils pile and not trashed.
Spoils is a treasure providing three coins that reads:

When you play this, return it to the Spoils pile.

Counterfeit reads:

When you play this, you may play a Treasure from your hand twice. If you do, trash that Treasure.

According to the Dark Ages rulebook (PDF), page 11:

If you use Counterfeit to play Spoils twice, you will get [six coins], (in addition to the [one coin] from Counterfeit) and return Spoils to the Spoils pile; you will be unable to trash it.

To answer your second question, Spoils can be trashed, but not when it is played, exactly as you expect.

From what you described, it sounds like Spoils cannot be trashed, so I'm confused by your last statement. Can you give some examples of how/what cards can trash a Spoils?

@Jeremy Sure. Playing a Spoils will return it to the pile, which means that trashing effects that happen after it's played (e.g. Counterfeit's) will "lose track" of the Spoils since it's moved from where it's expected to be. Other effects, such as Chapel which trash card(s) from your hand, can be used on Spoils, as well as attacks like Thief (which targets others' treasures) or Remodel (trash-for-benefit). Generally speaking, any trash effect that occurs without/before playing Spoils will work as expected.


text:
Do I need to sacrifice again if I copy Goblin Grenade?
Let's say that I cast Goblin Grenade, sacrificing a goblin to pay it's additional cost.  Then, before it resolves I cast Increasing Vengeance, which allows me to copy the Goblin Grenade.  Since I've already paid the additional cost of Goblin Grenade, do I have to pay it again?

No, you do not need to pay additional costs for a copied spell. A similar example of Fling exists in the comprehensive rules, that is close enough to Goblin Grenade for illustration purposes.

706.10. To copy a spell or activated ability means to put a copy of it onto the stack; a copy of a spell isn’t cast and a copy of an activated ability isn’t activated. A copy of a spell or ability copies both the characteristics of the spell or ability and all decisions made for it, including modes, targets, the value of X, and additional or alternative costs. (See rule 601, “Casting Spells.”)

Example: Fling is an instant that reads, “As an additional cost to cast Fling, sacrifice a creature” and “Fling deals damage equal to the sacrificed creature’s power to target creature or player.” When determining how much damage a copy of Fling deals, it checks the power of the creature sacrificed to pay for the original Fling.

You don't need to sacrifice another Goblin or pay any other costs.
Additional costs are paid as part of casting a spell. When you copy a spell with Increasing Vengeance, the copy just pops into existence straight on the stack. Technically speaking, it's never "cast" at all.

If you put a copy of a spell on the stack, you can't pay regular, alternative, or additional costs. It's not a choice. This is relevant when you don't copy an existing spell but put it on the stack by other means, such as Isochron Scepter. For example, a Fling put on the stack through an Isochron Scepter Imprint cannot deal damage because you can't sacrifice a creature to it.

@Hackworth Where you'd going is correct, but Isochron Scepter is an incorrect example.  The scepter doesn't copy a spell, it casts a copy of a card, Fling works fine on it.

@Hackworth The rulings on isochron scepter very specifically state you can pay additional costs. Of the 145 cards that reference casting spells or copies of spells without some kind of payment, every one of them specifies that it is done without paying the mana cost - any additional costs must be paid.

The same is true for the 129 cards with the keywords Cascade, Cipher, Rebound, Ripple, and Suspend which all allow casts without paying, and specify mana costs in their rules. There is no current effect in magic that allows the casting of spells completely without the payment of any costs, simply most cards only have a mana cost to prevent and most people start to think of that as the whole cost.