text:
Are encounters naturally weighted against players and how do we 'fix' it?
I've been having a great deal of trouble when it comes to playing campaign mode with our current group.  Initially, we were doing well, and I think most of it had to do with a learning curve for the game on both sides of the table (players and overlord).  We won two games, lost one, then won our Interlude.
Then the game became impossible.  I think it was a combination of the game getting exponentially tougher and our Overlord actively trying to screw us.  Granted, the game is modeled with an Overlord vs Players dynamic, but this was an unbalancing amount of difficulty.
To explain: We were trying the Act II quest to search for the Dawnblade.  We had to get up to an altar and stand on it and wait for the sunlight to hit it.  The Overlord chose spiders as our open group (because moving past them costs fatigue) and then chose Merriods (since they can immobilize you) and zombies (to help clog up holes on the battlefield).
Without getting into too much party composition, our first turn went fine with us removing most of the spiders.  But the next turn had him spawning the master spider again, a zombie, and then a Merriod behind us.  Two of us go immobilized, and the other two were scrambling to get to the altar before he stopped us.  But, as you can imagine, the dice were not nice to us at all, the immobilized people went down, and we lost the encounter.
In hindsight, it wasn't a fair fight at all, since there was no good way of us getting to the altar with the abilities we had or the gear we'd managed to get.  He had us beat on every front, and even if we got lucky, he could plug up holes faster than we could kill monsters.  Suffice it to say, he was able to win the next encounter in three turns, because he used the same tactic and rolled to finish the encounter on the first turn he got to the objective.
So, in summary, I've found that the game is very heavily weighted against the players in almost every encounter, unless the Overlord is playing to have fun and not playing to win.  If the Overlord plays to win, the players really don't stand much of a chance.  And some encounters seem to require certain skills and tactics to even make them viable.  So, am I missing something that the players should get above monsters?  Or is this just how the game is designed and I need to work with it?

As a side note, I think this question is evidence that we now need a Descent-2nd-ed tag, since this question would be very different and have a different answer in the old edition.  Added for now, pending ideas by anyone.

@Tynam - I've rolled back the retag.  See our recent meta discussion for details.

@Pat: Good point; I'd forgotten about that discussion.  Repeat ten times: I shall not retag before coffee.

@Tynam - no worries.  I haven't played the game, but surfing BGG to determine the extent of the different versions it does seem like the full name of the game is Descent:Journeys in the Dark.  Unfortunately, that is more than 25 characters.  How would you feel about descent-journeys-in-dark ?  I can rename the tag to catch all questions at once

@PatLudwig: Hmmm... technically better by our usual conventions, but I'm not sure it's necessary - 'descent' is findable and unambiguous.  (The 'Journeys in the Dark' subtitle applies to both editions anyway, so it doesn't hurt; I'm just not sure it helps.  And I've never heard someone actually use it in conversation.)

I'm not really familiar with the rules but I think there is a reinforcement marker for the overlord preventing him to "plug the holes" too quickly. If you can't manage to kill the monsters fast enough then I fail to understand how.

It honestly depends on what characters the players get, where the reinforcement locations are, and what the Overlord gets to use for reinforcements.  I've had many situations where the overlord simply blocks up something with a big baddie we killed that turn.  And since the game runs on a very tight timeline, you run the problem of needing to kill the stray monsters and complete objectives and keeping yourself up.  There seems to be too many things the players need to focus on and not so much the Overlord.

Yes, Descent (both First and Second Editions) is weighted against the Heroes.
Descent is a board game designed to play like a Role-Playing Game (RPG), so it includes the classic thematic elements of heroic player-characters striving against an unknown evil entity seeking to do Evil Things with the aid of his endless ranks of minions.
In most RPGs, the monsters will frequently have abilities or stats that the players can only achieve at much later levels, or sometimes never obtain. This is designed to force the players to adapt to overcome the situation, to use teamwork, tactics, and preparation to collectively achieve what no individual could otherwise.
It sounds like what happened to your party was that the Overlord caught you in a standard RPG pitfall: The party became too narrowly focused. Maybe there were no ranged attackers, in favor of heavy-hitting melee? Maybe there was nobody with high Might because everyone focused on Awareness? There's all kinds of ways to leave 'gaps' in your group's abilities, but the important part for you as a heroic player is to learn to overcome them, either by conquering them when they arise or protecting against them ever becoming an issue.
One of the typical ploys in Role Playing is to present the players with a 'teaser' of something evil coming up, just enough so that they can possibly plan and prepare to survive it: a corpse found at the entrance to a dark cave covered in massive spiderwebs (indicating serious spiders inside), or a hallway covered in scorch marks ending in a door burned down to the hinges (indicating a fiery foe awaiting invaders). The problem is, if the players do not respond to this teaser or are unable to adapt to the situation, The Bad Guy is going to beat them. Badly. Defeat happens.
The important thing to take away from a defeat like that (either as a character who somehow survives or at least as a player preparing for their next character) is to look at what happened, look at your available options (skills/feats/abilities, equipment, etc) and try to work out a way to defeat the tactic the next time you see it happening. Perhaps some form of ranged/reach attack so you can still remove threats while immobilized; perhaps a plan to focus-fire on anything that appears behind your team to make sure it can't harass you; or perhaps just changing your plans for who-moves-where to better provide protection for the whole team.
Yes, Descent is weighted against the Heroes. That's the whole difficulty of balancing any RPG or Role-Play-like game: finding the point where the Heroes *can* win, but so can the Overlord, and the difference is teamwork, tactics, and creativity.

Descent is an unbalanced game in favour of the Overlord.
My friends and I made these adjustments that may help you as well:

There is no selling half-price problem - we started selling items 1:1 or with a 25 gold penalty per item sold. Actually buying is much more fun than dreaming about items and never trying them in action.
One relic item per lieutenant and no relic in play when lieutenant is not present on the board - for OL of course (I believe it is mentioned in the rule book but it is not clear as some relics give credit to the lieutenant and some to OL, hence in the beginning we started with treating them as OL extra cards on a side, than moved back to the no lieutenant-no card rule).
It is good to ban dragons most of the time as even one of them gives OL too much credit - I played card: extra fatigue after succesful attack for this turn, double move on dragon, double attack on dragon and had heroes in one line. Adding card that add surge to attack just finished this quest. They were all dead in one move with dragon standing upon them waiting for anyone to reanimate. My suggestion - when there is no Dragon Cave in a quest there are no dragons to be used. It is definitely harder for OL to play with goblins (and have one goblin reanimation per turn) than with two dragons (and one dragon reanimate per turn) in four heroes game.
Using heroic ability cannot be disturbed with a card or game rule. Example - extra movement cannot be stopped with a web (but after heroic is done regular movement can be stopped). Tomble can go through closed doors and portals with his heroic ability.

In my opinion (except using dragons) none of the above suggestions will cause players to feel that they only won (if they had) because the OL allowed them to win. At least, it works for my group.

We haven't got to the 2nd act yet, but so far I feel the opposite. The game is weight heavily against the OL.

Heroes have more HP. Half of your heroes have more HP than even the red dragon
Heroes can do more per turn. Heroes can move a bit using fatigue and then perform 2 attacks. Monsters can attack only once and don't have extra movement for fatigue. It is especially frustrating if dragon is located in front of the door and the heroes would open the door and shoot him with a crossbow to move him back one space and close the door again. The heroes spent 3 actions, the dragon is rendered useless for the next turn (he can only approach the door and open it, no action for attack)
Heroes consequences of "dying" are much lighter. Even if 3 of your guys have fallen (in a rare case, which most likely required the OL to use almost all of his cards), true, the OL gets 3 cards, but all the heroes have to do is for one of them just to use one of his 2 actions to raise another one, which in turn would raise another one. So, this means that the heroes will loose half of their actions and can raise their whole team the same turn and still act. Well, with monsters it is much worse, usually you can't raise that many, they appear half way across the map from the place of battle, they can't act the turn they appear.
The OL is not adequately strengthened as there get to be more heroes in the game. Usually the really cool stuff can only be performed by a red monster (like fire breath or heal), but the more heroes there are the more synergy they get and what to monsters get? Usually they get more white useless guys... Except red dragon fire breath, what can be compared to mage's explosion? But mage does that twice per turn and does not need
Often heroes kill one monster group during their first turn. Usually there are 2 to 3 monster groups in act I encounters. Heroes get the first turn, which often allows them to decimate one of the monster groups. So when the OL really starts his first turn with only 1 to 2 groups...
Among OL cards there seems to be no adequate substitute for heroe's search cards that allow you to heal completely instantly. 12-14 hp heal without even spending an action? Seriously?

The answer to this question is terribly subjective. I will add my conclusion regardless of that and how long this question has been lingering:

I do not think that rpgs of this type are generally weighted agaisnt heroes. Far from truth actually. When I design a challenge for heroes the rule is: there must be a pressing mechanic towards them.
Otherwise they may lay around doing unnecessary things (let's go talk to that bartender again) and even have pleasant evening cracking jokes, but with no progress in story.

That's why I think some people believe the heroes are naturally at disadvantage.

To truly determine cases where there's a bias in balance you need many simulations, many stats. Table top rpgs will never have that, because.. why? run simulation for all combinations of 20  heroes available? monsters, and in D&D and the like, spells and etc? That's not fun
Descent favors the heroes.

Yes, this is what I concluded.  In my group I am the OL and the only one who played this (imperial assault actually) before, but only a couple of hours.  The heroes are very strong, snowballing killing machines.
First: This game is open to too many ambiguous and simply undocumented situations thus everyone who plays this will be breaking rules all the time, simply playing bad.
Why I think the balance tilts towards the heroes: they are 3 and I am one. Whenever any of the above situations happens the conflict will naturally be resolved in favor of the heroes, or else the playing experience is too negative.
Similarly, the frustration of the OL doesnt compare to the frustration of the players.  When I played Imperial Assault, 2 of the 4 heroes (interestingly, 2 very bad tactical players) abandoned the sessions complaning constatly about balance. Me as one of the heroes didnt let the constat loosing ruin the fun, but some people just cant have fun under that condition. It's just how human behavior is. Specially on males
So all in all, the OL has more of an incentive of letting the heroes have it than vice-versa.
The second aspect that drives this game heavily against the OL: Punishing "errors".  When I started the campaign I just had a quick look at the OL cards and monsters and made quick decisions spending XP. Also I misread one monster ability in two scenarios and lost potential wins because of it.
We also did not read the FAQ at the start and the heroes ended with a too powerful necromancer
I have to prepare the scenario, monsters and cards, then optimize my deck.. then draw (randomness) and decide based on those plays...
The heroes have to decide between 4-6 cards, and collectively about equipment.
So what does this mean? as OL you CAN tilt the balance towards you because you have more flexibility.  But can I? Do I care to read everything before playing and optimize situations?
Remember that you may be reading comments from hardcore players who devote 40 hours a week to gaming.  This is not the case for the majority of Descent players.
You cannot assume the OL  will optimize his 30+ choices , but you can assume the heroes will optimize their 4-6 choices.
Accentuate this to the fact that errors committed at the start of the campaign -where you are more likely to do them at your first,and potentially only run - snowball terribly.
Descent is considerably tilted towards the hero. If you are a new player/group, I can guarantee you this will be the case


text:
What are the effects of "Taint" tokens in Defenders of the Realm?
In Defenders of the Realm, do taint tokens have any effect beyond ending the game if you get too many?

Yes, they also serve to mark that location as tainted. This is important for the action Heal the Land, or for Inns (which cannot be tainted).
From the Rules:

Heal the Land: If the hero is on a tainted location, discard a Hero Card that matches the location color and roll 2 dice. If a 5 or more is rolled on either die, the hero removes 1 Tainted Crystal from that location. Only 1 Tainted Crystal may be removed per action.
Inns may not be overrun or tainted.

Thanks... but for further clarification, is the only reason to "Heal the Land" to avoid game losing conditions (as if that weren't enough!)?

That is a different question. No Taint tokens don't effectively do anything other than track how close you are to losing the game. It is important where those taint tokens are on the board is important (they affect what color card can be discarded to Heal the Land).

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Is it legal to buy property for $1 in Monopoly when other players are in prison?
This happened in one of the Monopoly games I had a while ago.
It was a 3-player game. Two players were in prison when the incident occurred. The third player (let's call him Joe) landed on the unowned property in his turn. This is what he said:

I don't want to buy it for the base price. Therefore, the property should go to an auction. I'm willing to bid $1 for this property. No-one else can bid, since both of you are in prison, so - I won the auction.

Is this legal in the game of Monopoly?

"Anyone can bid in an auction, including the one who declined the option to buy it at the printed price."
Also, more official rules PDF.
From other forums I have visited, it seems as though most people do not play by the rules, the entire rules, and nothing but the rules...

Thanks for the answer. It clearly says that in the rules. The problem was, we were playing some Monopoly "clone" game that had a bit different rules, and there was one stating "you cannot buy property, houses or hotels while in jail". I'm not sure if it also disallowed collecting rent. Anyway, I'm not a big enthusiast of Monopoly, so I didn't think the rules may differ from the original.

That's interesting... So the game (board, pieces, money, etc) was entirely a "knockoff"??

Exactly. With slightly changed rules (for worse), as it appears...

In that case it sounds like in this knockoff, what he did was legal (assuming that the knockoff still has a rule that if the person who lands on a property doesn't want to buy it; it goes to auction.

@beam022 Did the knockoff still allow for auctions?

@Sparr Sorry for answering after such a long time. Yes, the knockoff allowed for auctions, but didn't allow players in jail to buy properties.

Being in prison means that a player can't MOVE. But it doesn't prevent him or her from doing anything else.
That means that these players can trade properties, build houses/hotels, or buy property at auction.
It is, of course legal to buy a property at auction for $1, but Joe would have to outbid all other players, whether or not in jail.

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


text:
Can I decide not to use all the power of a plant in Power Grid?
Let's assume that I've got 10 cities connected in my network. I want to supply electricity to 6 of them and I've two power plants, each of them capable of supplying up to 5 cities. I've bought enough resources to use both power plants. Can I decide to use them to supply only 6 cities with electricity?
In this case, that would mean one plant would be using only 1/5 of its potential when it's perfectly possible to supply more cities with it - all 5 in this case. Is this allowed?

This questions sounds good, I will want to know the reasoning behind doing this!

Yes, why do you want to do this? The only effect it has is you ending up with less money.

Why would you want to?  The only effect would be to give you less money, and more money is never a disadvantage in Power Grid.

@gbianchi and the rest, it is sound to do it to conserve resources. If powering up #20 gives only $10 more, but you are going last in turn order in the next round, you might want to keep your resources so as to have a shot at winning the game, should a savvy player corner the coal in. Furthermore, in early-mid game, there are points where firing a power plant loses you money. If firing a plant gives you $7, but you have to pay $10 for the resources, then you've just lost $3.

@adama read the question again. OP want to losse resource on porpuose. I read it again, and is allowed by rules. I think we never determinated exactly in any case that will come handly. Probably a border case with resources problems . OP will not conserve anything, is firing 2 plants and not collecting all elektro from them

Sure - see page 5 of the rulebook, in the "Earning Cash" paragraph of the Phase 5: Bureaucracy  section:

Earning cash: Starting with the first player, every player indicates
  how many cities in his network he wishes (and is able) to supply with
  electricity. He earns cash based on  the number of cities he powers as
  shown on the payment table. A player who does not supply any city gets
  10 Elektro (the guaranteed minimum). The players remove the  required
  resources from the power plants that produced electricity this round
  and place the used resources in the resource supply next to the board.
  A player may choose  (or only be able) to supply fewer cities than he
  has in his network. The player is paid only for the supplied cities.
  If a player produces more electricity than he has cities in his
  network, the surplus is wasted. Every player can choose how many and
  which of his power plants he uses, e.g. he does not have to supply all
  of his cities.

So you can very much power 6 cities with enough electricity for 10.  You just won't be able to store the extra electricity produced for future use (or save yourself any of the resources that it cost you to produce so much electricity).
See also the line "a player may choose to supply fewer cities than he has in his network. The player is paid only for the supplied cities."  It seems pretty clear to me that you can undersupply your cities if you want, strange though such a course of action might seem!

In fact, this is the case when you have surplus power. OP has enough power to all his cities, has all the needed cities, but only want to power some of them.

Yes, I knew about this, but as gbianchi already said, my case is a little different. I'm not producing more electricity than I have cities in my network - I'm producing exactly the same amount. However, I voluntarily want to waste some of it, even though there is no surplus generated.

@gbianchi Whoops, sorry, don't know how I failed to read the question quite so badly there!  I've edited my answer accordingly, as I feel that the same rules para is quite clear that you can undersupply your cities, just as much as it's clear that you can oversupply electricity.

Two things are clear: the rules don't explicitly mention the possibility in question; the possibility in question is tantamount to returning money to the bank - in this case, 32 electro. WHY WOULD YOU DO THIS?!?!?

To say it differently, you could simply accept the full amount of electro from the bank, then donate a portion of it to charity.  Around my gaming group, charity starts en mi casa.

While the answer is certainly yes, it is important to note that player order is determined by the number of cities in the player's network, not the number that were powered. This misconception is the best reason I can imagine a player would want to do this.
It is also possible to fuel plants that cannot supply any city. Although still rare, you might want to do this if you were able to go before a particular opponent in the next round and cause a scarcity of a critical resource.

The behavior in the second paragraph still seems illogical. Couldn't you just hold onto the resources? Spending them will put them back in the pool for possible resupply...

Consider the case where there's enough to resupply anyway (presumably there's at least some because your opponent is using it this round, and possibly other opponents too). Burning it from your plants allows you to drain the resource from the market rather than just keeping it out of the supply.

Oooh. I see. You can hold double, and effectively keep double out of the market by burning some and storing some.

I agree particularly with your first point; that's the only reason I can imagine someone wanting to do this, and it would have no effect on gameplay except earning fewer Elektros. No effect on turn order.


text:
If two fighter's dice all come up with the same numbers, but one character rolls fewer dice, who goes first?
If Iago faces Changeling, and their results are:

Iago: 1, 1, 1, 1
Changeling: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1

The rules say the following (emphasis mine):

To Begin: Roll all of your fighter’s dice, and arrange your dice so they can be easily read. Players will now take turns. Whoever rolled the single lowest number will go first. If the lowest dice are tied, compare the next lowest dice, and so on until a starting player is determined. If all numbers are tied, the game is a draw.

What is unclear, is what happens when the characters have differing numbers of dice to compare.

Is it a draw? Since you can't compare a die number to a non-existent die.
Does Iago go first? Since an empty die (null die) has a value of zero.
Does Changeling go first? Since they are the only character with a next lowest die, and all numbers are not tied.

I am leaning towards it being a draw, because you can't compare dice with a character that doesn't have a, "next lowest die" to compare. Has there been an official ruling in a FAQ, or in Tournament Rules? Maybe no one has ever had this happen and the question has never come up (it only happens 1 in 100+ million times)?

It wasn't in the rules pdf, but it was within the online rule book.

If all the dice are matched, the round is a draw. If one player has more dice than the other, and all the dice which can be tied for low are tied, then the player who has more dice goes first.


text:
What kinds of table talk are allowed in Shadows Over Camelot?
Games like Battle Star Galactica define pretty clearly what kind of table talk is allowed during the game to help give the Cylon Traitor a chance to remain hidden.
What, if any table talk is allowed in Shadows Over Camelot?
What kind of talk is specifically forbidden?
Can you for example peek at the Progression of Evil deck (with the appropriate knight), and then say "don't draw from the deck," or "the top card is everyone lose a life," or can you say nothing?
Similarly, with King Arthur, you pass cards face down. I assume you cannot reveal what each player passed the other after the fact (hands should remain hidden, right)?

Page 8, of the Official Rules talks about collaboration.

You can talk about, generally, what you're going to do.
You can talk about, generally, what your hand can do in terms of your previous intent
You can not talk about specific cards.

After a peek, you can say "This would be bad, take a catapult instead",  but you cannot say "This causes everyone to lose a life" as it will identify that specific card.
Similarly, you can't ask for a "Fight 5" or use any kind of code that will 'get across' the hint of what card you need (e.g. "I need a very powerful warrior, sir" is cheating).
Hands remain hidden, all specifics are hidden.
The best and more fun way I've found to enforce these rules is to speak only 'in character' in the game.  "Sir Arthur, my men-at-arms are lacking in strength to seek the armor, please assist".   Or, "I have heard rumors of the location of the grail, shall I go seek it, or does someone else feel that can find it before me?"


text:
Is there a best character in Button Men? Is there a worst character?
Button Men is a free Print&Play game for 2 players. Each player chooses a character card, and the polyhedral dice associated with that character, and takes turns trying to capture their opponent's dice. There are over 200 characters created for it. Dice with more sides can capture opponent's dice more easily, but they are worth more to your opponents when they are captured.  Some analysis has been done with regard to strategy, but have the clearly best and worst character cards emerged?

Are you even certain that there are clearly best and/or worse characters?  This feels like a textbook setting for a non-transitive game ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontransitive_game ), and while some buttons surely dominate others, I suspect this is still going to turn out akin to 'which is best: rock, paper, or scissors?'...

I feel that it this might be true, but I know that some characters are banned from tournaments. I am guessing that some are banned for power reasons. I think that this question is too difficult a question for anyone to want to spend too much time answering. I think I will ask a different question first, "Which of the 12 Soldier Button men is the best", or perhaps who has the edge Avis or Hammer. With only 12 characters, that is only 66 possible match ups. The Soldiers release doesn't have any special rules, so it might even be posible to brute force all the matchups (quadrillions of outcomes).

And on the "worst" side, even Dead Guy (0,0,0,0,0) wins against poison-heavy buttons. So, pretty sure there's no definitive worst Button Man.

(disclaimer: i haven't played button men seriously in ages, but i'll share my impressions from back in the day)
My feeling is that Lab Rats is the best button, as its 2-dice will allow skill-attacks on far better dice than it has to give away. Bunnies, with its 1-dice is also strong, but can too-often get trapped into not being able to make any attacks.
The worst by far has to be the dragon with d30s all down the line. Yes, it can take anyone's dice, but odds are you're going to roll one of them low, and give up 30 points at once. Do that twice and there's no way to win against most buttons.
Some are banned from tournaments for power. i think lab rats and bunnies were both banned at some point. Some are banned due to non-playability (how would you roll a pi-sided die for the James Earnest button?), and some are banned for their swingy nature (the xxxenophile buttons, with their 3 x-dice, were considered too "swingy"; you could completely change the nature of your button between rounds, though it looks like they're back on the permitted list)
http://www.beatpeopleup.com/tourname.html

There was a "Button Men Online" website until recently that had amassed HUGE quantities of statistics on different Button Men competing (albeit being controlled by people users on the site). If you could get a hold of that data, that might answer your questions.
I've messaged @cheapassjames on twitter, he might have the data. Possibly, you could contact the site creator, Dana Huyler (but the email dana_huyler@yahoo.com seems to be out of order).

Well, James Ernest hasn't replied yet, so this might remain open for a while.

The site buttonweavers.com is a relaunch, and data from the old site in the source files.
Characters winning 84% to 75% of games
nelde, Snuff, mgatten, gslamm, relsqui, Discordia, skapheles, spindisc, Tilili, kestrel, Cristofore, bobby 5150, icarus, trifecta, roujin27, Lascivia, Weylan, flesh99, Jordan, NeoVid, Heather, fendrin
Characters winning 25% to 12% of games
Tess, Trogdor, Mr. Peach, stoooooooo, gman97216, Golo, Limax, Cthulhu
Cthulhu is the worst character in the game, based on almost 4000 games played with him.
Lascivia is the best official character.  The other characters like nelde and Snuff are from the Fanatics set, which isn't considered official.
95% of the characters win 25% - 75% of the time.


text:
What is the most time-efficient way to earn gold in Barbarian Prince?
Like the title says. Does this change over the course of the game (example, when you hire followers, when a wizard/witch/monk join your party)?
What is the average gold earned per day using the most efficient strategy?


text:
How can a blue control deck be made more efficient?
It seems like my games last a long time and I don't do that much damage. Is that what it's supposed to feel like when using a control deck? How can I win more efficiently?
Here is my deck:
Lands
19x Islands
1x  Glacial Fortress
1x  Terramorphic Expanse

Artifacts
1x  Adaptive Automaton
1x  Scepter of Empires
1x  Throne of Empires
1x  Isochron Scepter
2x  Elixir of Immortality
3x  Kraken's Eye

Blue Creatures
1x  Wall of Frost
1x  Augury Owl
1x  Zephyr Sprite
2x  Aether Adept
2x  Aven Fleetwing
4x  Skywinder Drake
3x  Belltower Sphinx
1x  Phantasmal Image

Blue Spells
4x  Mind Control
4x  Cancel
4x  Unsummon
4x  Ice Cage
2x  Jace's Erasure
2x  Negate
2x  Mana Leak
2x  Sleep
1x  Ponder

Is this format of question allowed? I'm only asking as I'd like to post one myself....

@Pureferret - I don't see why not. Have a go and find out. My only caveat would be that if it has no generally helpful theme (e.g. this question is about improving control decks, not just this particular deck), then the community may tend towards voting to close as too localised (i.e. only helpful to you).

This answer may have gotten a little out of hand... what can I say, I'm procrastinating ;-) plus I couldn't resist a chance to share my love of control decks.

It seems like my games last a long time and I don't do that much damage, is that what its supposed to feel like when using a counter deck?

Well, do you mean you're not doing much damage quickly, or not doing much damage at all? In the latter case, that's a problem because you never get to kill your opponent, but the former case is exactly how a control deck is supposed to work. Your game plan is to establish control over the game: get to the point where you can counter, destroy, exile, or otherwise eliminate any spell or permanent that poses a threat to you. Once you do that, it doesn't matter how you win or how long it takes you to do it (although there is something to be said for not letting your opponents get bored).
Of course, the downside of playing a control deck is that you can get overwhelmed in the first few turns of the game, before you're able to establish control. So to make a good control deck, you need to make every card count in the early game. For one thing, that means using lots of cheap counterspells. I notice that you've got a couple of cards in the deck which aren't Standard-legal, so I'm assuming you're drawing from the entire Magic card pool, and in that case the #1 most important spell you should be playing is the original Counterspell. Mana Leak is probably the other staple of most good counterspell decks. I see you have a couple Mana Leaks already, but I'd suggest "upgrading" to 4 of each card if you can get them. Beyond that, you want an assortment of different kinds of counterspells for different situations:

Cheap or alternate-costed counterspells to support you through the first couple of turns:

Daze
Foil
Force of Will
Force Spike
Mental Misstep
Spell Pierce
Spell Snare

Utility counterspells that have side effects:

Cryptic Command
Discombobulate
Dismiss
Dismal Failure
Dissipate
Forbid
Lay Bare
Mana Drain
Miscalculation
Quash
Rewind
Trickbind

X spells for versatility:

Condescend
Disrupting Shoal
Logic Knot
Spell Burst

Some of these are rare and really expensive ($$, not mana, e.g. Force of Will is probably a $150-ish card), so I gave you a bunch of choices. There are others as well, which you can find on Gatherer, but these are the ones I'd consider most potentially useful for a mono-blue deck.
In some cases you can choose between different counterspells in each group based on which of their side effects is most useful to your deck, or what you expect to play against, or what you're able to acquire, but generally for a counter-heavy deck you'd probably want 2-4 from the first list (that is, 2-4 slots in your deck), 4-5 from the second list, and optionally 1 or 2 of the X spells. Combined with 4 Counterspell and 4 Mana Leak, that gives you 15-20 counters total.
The next thing to think about is your removal. You won't be able to counter every spell, so you need some way of dealing with permanents that sneak through the cracks. Unfortunately, blue isn't very good at this, so if you want to stick to one color, you're not going to have access to the best removal options. One of the best blue cards available to deal with permanents is Capsize, which lets you repeatedly bounce a permanent until you're able to counter its spell. You'll probably also have to dip into artifacts, for things like Nevinyrral's Disk or Ratchet Bomb. Since creatures tend to be the most annoying permanents, it's fine to include a couple of creature control cards like Mind Control or Sleep (note that usually only one or the other of these will be good, depending on what kind of deck you're playing against: Mind Control against big creatures, Sleep against weenies), but I wouldn't go overboard on them. I think your current decklist uses too many of these, since they're not that useful against decks that can do things without creatures, and besides, that's what the counterspells are for.
Another key component of any good control deck is card drawing and filtering. The reason here is that, since your deck is so focused on preventing your opponent from doing stuff, you always need to have at least as many counterspells or removal spells as they have action spells, and in order to make sure of that, you need access to more cards than your opponent. Recently, planeswalkers have been doing well at this; in particular, any of the three versions of Jace:

Jace Beleren
Jace, the Mind Sculptor (still rather expensive despite being banned, but it's really good)
Jace, Memory Adept

Back in the day, Whispers of the Muse and Accumulated Knowledge were popular choices for card draw. These days, people mostly use Preordain and Ponder. You can supplement those with Azure Mage, which is not only reusable but also gives you a creature to attack or block with. Of course there are many other choices, which you can look up on Gatherer.
Finally, you need to figure out a way to win. Again, since it shouldn't matter what your deck does once you have control, you need to think about what will be best at protecting you in the early game. Belltower Sphinx is not bad if you're pursuing a mill strategy, though it is a little expensive. The thing to keep in mind here is that once you've fit in the counterspells, the removal, the card draw, and of course lands, there's not going to be much room left in your deck for win conditions, so you need to pick a win condition that basically ends the game as soon as you cast it, or does double duty by also filling one of the other roles in your deck (such as Azure Mage, which helps you draw cards while also being a creature, or the Worldwake man lands - but those are all double-colored).

With that in mind, let's look at your decklist:

Lands

19x Islands
1x  Glacial Fortress
1x  Terramorphic Expanse

With no white cards, there's no reason to include Glacial Fortress, and since you only have one color of mana, Terramorphic Expanse is pretty useless as well - unless you also have Halimar Depths, then it lets you shuffle away unwanted cards. Also, counterspell decks are pretty mana-intensive, so you should have a lot more than 21 lands; I'd suggest around 26. You can include some specialty lands that help with the aspects of your game plan, such as Halimar Depths (filtering), Quicksand (removal), or Stalking Stones (win condition), but for mana production I'd stick with just Islands.

Artifacts

1x  Adaptive Automaton
1x  Scepter of Empires
1x  Throne of Empires
1x  Isochron Scepter
2x  Elixir of Immortality
3x  Kraken's Eye

Throne of Empires is a great win condition because it can produce a whole swarm of creatures while only taking up a single slot in your deck. Other than that, most of these are probably not helping you. Isochron Scepter can have a neat interaction with cheap counterspells but I don't see it being that useful most of the time, since running out of cards should not be your problem.

Blue Creatures

1x  Wall of Frost
1x  Augury Owl
1x  Zephyr Sprite
2x  Aether Adept
2x  Aven Fleetwing
4x  Skywinder Drake
3x  Belltower Sphinx
1x  Phantasmal Image

For these, think about what creatures can advance your game plan, like Azure Mage (as I mentioned above). Most of these creatures don't really do much to help you out there. Aether Adept is sort of removal-like, but usually your opponent can just replay the creature you bounced on the next turn, and then all you got is a 2/2 for 3 mana and perhaps a turn off from being attacked. While that's not bad, it's not particularly exciting either. Phantasmal Image is particularly iffy because your opponent has a surefire way to destroy it which your counterspells can't even stop. I'd leave it out unless you have something really cool for it to copy.

Blue Spells

4x  Mind Control
4x  Cancel
4x  Unsummon
4x  Ice Cage
2x  Jace's Erasure
2x  Negate
2x  Mana Leak
2x  Sleep
1x  Ponder

Again, I think you have too many Mind Controls. You only want to be stealing your opponent's biggest and best creatures; it should be something that really makes it worth spending 5 mana to get it. Most things are better off being countered. Unsummon seems lackluster for the same reason as Aether Adept, and Ice Cage for the same reason as Phantasmal Image. Jace's Erasure is okay if you're pursuing a mill strategy, but it doesn't do anything else to directly help you, so I think you can do better.

As someone who leans more red/green, I'd feel dirty voting this up. Nevertheless, good answer.

wow, just wow, you are my savior, I thank you for the fantastic answer, only 1 question how do you know which cards are Standard-Legal and which are not?
Anyways thanks for the answer ill up vote and select it :)

@Latency: this might be material for a separate question, but Standard includes the last two blocks plus any core sets released in that time. At the moment, that's Zendikar block, Scars block, M11, and M12, but that will change when Innistrad becomes tournament-legal.

A quick thought to add to this great answer: try Stoic Rebuttal instead of Cancel if you can.  At its worst, its the same card and it could end up being better.

Kraken's Eye is NOT worth the card. You have much better options to prolong the game than some drop-in-the-bucket life gain.

Not sure about the game format, but in my blue control deck I enjoyed playing Feldon's Cane (http://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=109694) as you often play with quite a lot of islands in your deck and, after a while, when you have 6-8 islands in play or more, you want to re-shuffle your graveyard into your library in order to reduce the ratio of lands that you will draw in future turns.


text:
Does an exiled Aetherling come back into play untapped?
Let's say I attack with Aetherling. After it deals damage I blink it out. When it returns at my end step, does it come back untapped and ready to block?

Yes, when Aetherling returns to the battlefield, it's considered a new permanent, so it enters the battlefield without remembering that it was tapped.

400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence.
  There are seven exceptions to this rule:

(none of the exceptions apply here).

Note that this is still affected by effects that indicate how permanents enter the battlefield; if your opponent controls a card like Urabrask or Blind Obedience which says that 'creatures [your opponents control] enter the battlefield tapped' then Aetherling will enter play tapped when coming out of exile and not just when played from your hand.


text:
Do copied spells use the original's casting location?
Let's say I flashback an Increasing Vengeance in order to copy a Shock twice.  Then, I cast Reverberate from my hand targeting the Increasing Vengeance which in turn will also copy the Shock.  Will the new copy of Increasing Vengeance make one copy of the Shock I target or two?

The new copy of Increasing Vengeance will only make one copy of the Shock - it was never cast, much less cast from your graveyard.
This isn't particularly simple - most of the time, when a spell or ability is copied, most of its characteristics are copied along with it (costs paid, choices made, etc.) - however, in this instance, since the evaluation of whether or not an extra copy is provided on resolution of Increasing Vengeance, that information is not actually copied. If it was phrased different it might actually work - something like "if the flashback cost was paid, copy twice." But phrased the way it is, you get only a single copy.
Relevant rule:

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.") Choices that are normally made on resolution are not copied. If an effect of the copy refers to objects used to pay its costs, it uses the objects used to pay the costs of the original spell or ability. A copy of a spell is owned by the player under whose control it was put on the stack. A copy of a spell or ability is controlled by the player under whose control it was put on the stack. A copy of a spell is itself a spell, even though it has no spell card associated with it. A copy of an ability is itself an ability.

You get one copy of the shark Shock* from the Increasing Vengeance.
Reasoning, by Comprehensive Rules, emphasis mine:

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.") Choices that are normally made on resolution are not copied. If an effect of the copy refers to objects used to pay its costs, it uses the objects used to pay the costs of the original spell or ability. A copy of a spell is owned by the player under whose control it was put on the stack. A copy of a spell or ability is controlled by the player under whose control it was put on the stack. A copy of a spell is itself a spell, even though it has no spell card associated with it. A copy of an ability is itself an ability.

Since the copy of the Increasing Vengeance wasn't cast, when the copy of Increasing Vengeance resolves, it will fail to see it was cast from the graveyard since it wasn't actually cast, it's a copy.
*Oops. Left original word struck out for entertainment value.

The answer can be divined from the second ruling on Gatherer for Reverberate:

When Reverberate resolves, it creates a copy of a spell. You control
  the copy. That copy is created on the stack, so it's not "cast."
  Abilities that trigger when a player casts a spell won't trigger. The
  copy will then resolve like a normal spell, after players get a chance
  to cast spells and activate abilities.

As the Reverberated Increasing Vengeance hasn't been "cast", it certainly hasn't been "cast from the graveyard"... and thus won't copy Shock twice!


text:
What the key minis for a new Ultramarine player to get?
I am starting to play Warhammer 40,000 as an Ultramarine Space Marine player. I got the starter kit: Assault on Black Reach and have been enjoying painting stuff since.
Where should I look next to start building up my army? My goal is to have an army of around 2000 points eventually, while I build up my understanding of the tactics of the game.

Your obvious next steps are a copy of the Codex: Space Marines book and another squad of Tactical Marines.
You're going to need to book to effectively plan your army, and you will find it impossible to win games under the 5th edition rules without enough regular tactical marines around to hold objectives!
From there you'll need to make some key decisions in what type of army you want to have.
Drop Pod Army?
Mechanized (everyone in Rhinos and maybe a land raider for your terminators) Army?
Fast Assault Army with lots of jump pack marines and bike marines, land speeders?
An army that has a focus is usually much more effective in 40K than having one of each different unit type in the book.  The nature of space marines and the need to have tactical squads around means you can devote yourself to a focus that you find appealing without worrying too much about your army becoming entirely one-dimensional.  An upside for marines!
Of course your budget can also help guide early decisions.  An entire army of dudes riding in $40 drop pods adds up fast!  Having the codex will make it easier for you to see what different paths you can follow when making a plan to buy your army.

Rhinos
Rhinos are mandatory because of their extremely high effectiveness-to-cost ratio. They allow you to take your tactical squad, and for the low price of about 35 points, render it immune to anti infantry fire until such time as your opponent brings antitank weaponry to bear.
Dreadnoughts
Dreadnoughts are frequently seen because they provide Space Marine armies with a good source of long-range anti-vehicle fire, without costing as much or being as vulnerable as an equivalent squad of Devestators. Further, Dreadnoughts, being "Walkers", have a great deal of flexibility in terms of move-and-fire, and even tying up any enemy infantry squads that lack grenade-based antitank weapons in eternal combat.
Unless you're building out a specialized Drop Pod/Biker army, you're going to have Rhinos.  Also Dreadnoughts.

You will need for sure some heavy firepower, so at least 1 devastator squad is almost mandatory, or a squad of predator tanks (single unit but has faster mobility).
Terminator squads + drop pods are great, or if you prefer by terrain go for terminator squad + land raider combos.
For close combat you can either have assault terminators (slow but deadly) + land raider/drop pod, or assault marines. I prefer the terminators, but personal taste.
PS: I am not an expert (more painter than player), so take my advice with reserve. I only play with my friends and not very often


text:
Are heavy bolters and storm bolters a viable anti-Imperial Guard option?
I am playing against an Imperial Guard player at 1500 pts. He has ~ 7 lascannon squads + an assault cannon squad. He just sits there and shoots at me while I try to advance.
I have since switched away from anything coming from reserve since my army would be eaten piece by piece. Instead I am going for a lot of troops:

3x Rhino (with Storm bolter) + 10-man Tactical squad (heavy bolter, flamer), sergeant has storm bolter
5-man Scout squad (all with combat blades)
10-man Assault squad
5-man Devastator Squad (3 lascannon, 1 heavy bolter)
Librarian in Terminator Armour (Avenger, Force Dome) + 5 Shooting Terminators
Dreadnought with Multi-melta
Dreadnought with Assault Cannon

Since most Imperial Guard troops have 5+ armour, any hit I make with the storm bolter or heavy bolter means death. Since each Rhino has a sergeant and a flamer guy, I can move 6" and still fire 4 shots (+template if I survive long enough). Is this a viable tactic to help my main force get into close combat action?

List tailoring is a bit of a Faux Pas in miniature gaming.  You, shouldn't build a list specifically to beat a single opponent.  Massing heavy bolters would be a step down on that path.  Heavy bolters are also a fairly limited weapon, since they are nearly useless against most armor.  A better weapon choice would be autocannons or asssault cannons.  They strike a balance that makes them good for anti-infantry and light anti-armor work.
I would say that your current list does lack in long range anti-infantry fire power. This would make you easy pickings for a foot heavy guard list.  Here are a few units that you could add to your army to try to address that:

Predator with Autocannon and Heavy Bolter sponsons.  This is a cheap option at 85 points each.  They bring front armor 13 and 2 ST 7 shots and 6 ST 5 ones.  Taking 3 is a good use of your heavy support slots.
Dreadnought with two twin-linked Autocannons.  For 125 points, you get 4 ST 7 shots with re-rolls.  This is a great fire support unit as it will also give your guard opponent trouble if he decides to mount his army up in Chimeras. It's fairly common to see 2 or 3 in a Marine army.
Speeder with Multi-Melta and Heavy Flamer.  Not specifically long range, but they are fast and can deep strike.  You can drop them right on your opponent's infantry squads and use that Flamer template to kill plenty of guardsmen outright.

For your tactical squads, Missile Launchers or Multi-meltas should be your choice 90% of the time.  You'l get the most use out of them.  You should give your sergeants either power fists or a combi-weapon.  You already have plenty of ST 4 firepower in a tac-squad; you need your sergeants to cover your weaknesses.
Another completely different approach is to load up on flame template weapons, mount up in drop pods, and land in his face.  He won't ever want to run foot guard again after that.

Can I get a reason for the down-vote so I can improve this answer?

If you want to turn the tables on him a bit, take a couple of drop pods with some flamer tac squads and a dreadnought with a flamer / multi-melta.  This would force him to choose between starting with his army on the table (and then having it horribly burned by the drop pod assault) or starting his army in reserve (to dodge the drop pod assault) and then giving your main force the time it needs to sprint across the table.


text:
When using the Influence action, can you influence a hex adjacent only to the newly claimed hex?
The Influence action allows a player to move up to two Influence Discs to a hex that is "adjacent to a hex where you have a disc or a Ship."
In a case where the first Influence Disc is moved to an adjacent sector, it is possible to move the second Influence Disc to a hex that is only adjacent to the hex just claimed?  Or must both sectors be adjacent to hexes controlled at the beginning of the Influence action?

From what I've read and understood you are allowed to move it to a hex adjacent hex to the hex just claimed. For instance it would be perfectly legal to do the following:
Start of influence action ( | is a partial wormhole and |   | is an empty hex)
| A || B || C ||   ||   |
Move the first influence disc:
| A ||   || C || B ||   |
Move the second influence disc:
|   ||   || C || B || A |
Hope that was an understandable schematic :)

This is how we played it too.

And from now on this move will be called "the galactic hoppity hop"


text:
Which is the "Action Phase"?
A number of cards in the Starcraft Board Game (I believe it's exclusive to those from the Brood War expansion) refer to actions to be done during, or after, the "Action Phase".
The official instructions list only three phases; Planning, Execution, and Regrouping.
From context, I would guess that "Action Phase" is synonymous to "Execution Phase" (many of the cards seem overpowered otherwise), but I was hoping to find an official answer rather than conjecture: Which phase is the "Action Phase?"

You're right that the Action Phase is unique to the Brood Wars Expansion. A quick search of the phrase "Action Phase" in the digital version of both rule books only turned up results in the Brood Wars version.
Like you, I found a lot of people saying that the Action Phase was synonymous with the Execution Phase (example here). The most convincing piece of evidence is straight from the Fantasy Flight Games forums. This question is answered by saying that the Action Phase is identical to the Execution Phase, but since it's on the game designer's website, I would imagine a moderator would have corrected it had it been wrong. It looks like questions are answered by people from FFG at least occasionally, so they are probably looking in on rules questions to make sure information was correct. Not the solid answer you were looking for, but I think it confirms the two are the same.


text:
Does the Waymoot get 4 VPs if it shows up on the 1st round?
At the start of the first round, if The Waymoot is one of three starting buildings, do you put 4 VP on it (i.e. 3 from the building description and 1 from the VP on the 1st round area)?

No, Waymoot would only get 1 VP Tokens placed on it, since it isn't in play.
The Builder's Hall (page 12) of the rules tells you to take the 3 VP Tokens for the round, and distribute one to each building tile for purchase. The Waymoot has special rules text that takes effect at the When Purchased/Start of Round, but this only occurs if it is "in play."

When Purchased and at Start of Round: Place 3 VP tokens on this space.

Once on page 8 under Start of Round

Start of Round - The rounds track on the game board starts out with 3 VP tokens [...] remove the 3 VP tokens from that round’s space and place 1 VP token on each face-up Building in Builder’s Hall.
When Purchased/Start of Round: Some Building tiles have special instructions to be followed when the Building is purchased and at the start of each round. If any of those Buildings are in play, follow the start-of-round instructions for each.(See Appendix 1: Buildings on page 12 for descriptions of these effects.)
Once all start-of-round effects are complete, players take turns in order.

On the same page under Assign Agent, they define what it means for a building to be in play.

Assign Agent
If you have any Agents in your pool, you assign 1 of them. To assign an Agent, place it on any unoccupied action space of a Building, whether a basic Building or one that has been put into play. You cannot place an Agent on an action space that contains another Agent (yours or another player’s) or on Buildings that are not yet in play.

This is incorrect, see Donaithnen's answer.

@Gendlkari, corrected.

we played our first several games the other way before learning the correct rule!

@user1873 Note in the bit you quoted "If any of those Buildings are in play, follow the start-of-round instructions for each." Note also on page 9 under the rules for the Builder's Hall, "Once a new Building is in play, it is available for anyone to assign an Agent to"
Which means that while the building is in the three Builder's Hall spaces it is not in play. Therefore you should not follow the start of round instructions for it, because those are for buildings that are in play. This is why the rules for those buildings specify "when purchased and at start of round", because otherwise they would enter play without any tokens or cubes on them.
Note also that the VP chips placed on buildings in the Builder's Hall at the start of the round are a reward for the person who builds it, while the VP chips placed on the Waymoot are a reward for the person who uses the building. If the building was supposed to be stocked while it was still in the Builder's Hall you would need to maintain two discrete piles of VP chips. Both common sense and the rules say that the "when purchased and at start of round" effects only occur after the point at which the building has been purchased.
Edit: Also note the FAQ here: http://boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/Lords_of_Waterdeep_FAQ
"Q: With buildings that accumulate resources, such as 'Caravan Court', are
resources placed on them while they are unbuilt (still in 'Builder's
Hall')?
A: No. Note 1: Those buildings do not have resources placed on them
until they are in play."


text:
Can one player put more than one of his agents at Waterdeep Harbor?
In Lords of Waterdeep, can I place more than one of my agents at Waterdeep Harbor?
For example, at the end of the round, can two of my agents occupy two spaces at Waterdeep Harbor?

Yes, you can place more than one of your agents at Waterdeep Harbor to play multiple Intrigue cards. At the end of the round, the agents there are placed onto other spaces in order, regardless of who they belong to.
On Page 9 of the rulebook (emphasis mine):

Waterdeep Harbor has three action spaces instead of the usual one. You can assign more than 1 of your Agents to Waterdeep Harbor if it still has an open action space (but you still can't assign more than 1 Agent per turn).


text:
What is this game featuring plastic squares with numbers in each corner?
What is the name of the game where there are 120 cream-colored plastic squares about an inch and a half on each side with a single number in each corner?  The numbers range from 0 to 5. I do know that Toys R Us doesn't recognize it, so it must be an older game.
If I knew what this game is called, I'd also like to find the instructions for how to play it.

Quad-Ominos by Pressman Toy Corporation, perhaps? The rules, in English and French, can also be found linked from that page.


text:
Replacement coins for At The Gates of Loyang
I have the game, and one of the first things I noticed was the cardboard money. Not a fan, even though in this game it's really just another resource, and doesn't change hands often.
Anyone have a source for good replacements? I'm looking for metal Cash-style coins in two sizes, and preferably different colors. A quick search for "Chinese Luck Coins" brings up good results for one size, but I can't find a good second size (larger or smaller, or in a significantly different metal color) to replicate the "1" and "5" coins.

They don't have different sizes (which is why I'm putting this in a comment not an answer), but Mused Fable has Realm Coins & Pirate Coins. They're all about the size of a US quarter, and come in gold, silver and copper colors. I have a set of Realm coins and they're really nice. Http://musedfable.com

They do look good, but not in the Chinese style.

Oops, yeah. I missed that part. They've said that they want to do different styles of coins. Maybe they'll eventually do Chinese-style ones.

Caravans of Asia has wooden Chinese-style coins.  (I'm the game designer, btw.)  http://boardgamegeek.com/image/1439357/caravans-of-asia

A friend of mine got some Mexico pesos.  They seem to work fairly good, and are fairly heavy.  Different sizes as well.  How you get them if you don't have a friend traveling there, I'm not sure.  But I wouldn't be surprised if they aren't a cheap option for metal money.
http://coins.about.com/od/worldcoins/ig/World-Coins-Gallery-Index/Mexico-Money---Coins.htm


text:
Can we fake-advance any card?
Some Assets can be advanced (e.g. Project Junebug) and some can't (e.g. Snare!).  Is it OK to advance any asset cards to make them look like Agenda?
For example, with the ambush assets the Runner would be lured, but the advance token(s) would have no other effects.

No, you cannot fake advance cards that do not specifically say they can be advanced.
Page 14 in the rule book:

Cards other than agendas can only be advanced if their text box allows it.

Related: http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/892149/can-you-advance-snare

I see the quote on the BGG thread you link to, but is there a reason we should believe it? In other words, what makes it authoritative, rather than just someone's opinion?

Good point. I've updated my answer to focus on quoting what is actually in the rulebook. The rulebook is pretty clear in stating what cards can and can't be advanced.

The rules say you can advance Agendas, and any other card which says it can be advanced. If a card says you can advance it, you can. For Assets which don't say you can advance them, you cannot.
If a card does say you can advance it, you can advance it even when it is unrezzed, unless it says otherwise. (Normally card effects only apply when they are ressed and active.)

The answers already given are correct and were correct at the time of the question, however there is a change to how this works as of 2014. The card Mushin No Shin puts three counters on the card as it is installed, this card does not need to be advancable to hold advancement counters, it only needs to be advancable to advance it through the normal advance action. Queen's Gambit lets the runner advance an unrezzed corp card, gambling that it is not an agenda or asset that would benefit from these advancements for credits. Priority Construction functions like Mushin but for ice.


text:
After playing a Wild card, must a player discard again?
According to Wikipedia,

Wild - Player declares next color to be matched (may be used on any turn).

After this player discards a Wild card and announces the next color, must he discard another card, or does the player next to him proceed to discard?

He will not discard second card this round. The wild card was his play. Play proceeds to the next player with the new colour selected.


text:
Stranded on a tile in Forbidden Island
In Forbidden Island, if a player (not pilot or diver) is stranded on a tile with all surrounding tiles sunk, is the game lost or can he be rescued?  Can he give away his treasure to a pilot or diver such that other players win but he (personally) dies?

If a player is stranded on a lone island piece, then they can still be moved using a Helicopter Lift card. Note these can be played by anyone, on anyone's turn, to fly a stranded player to safety (e.g. to Fool's Landing).
If no one has a Helicopter Lift card by the time the island piece needs to be removed from the board, then the player drowns (and everyone loses).  On page 7 of the rules under Pawns on Flooded Tiles:

If a pawn is on a tile that must be removed, it must immediately "swim" to an adjacent tile (up, down, left, right) that is still part of the island (even flooded). If a pawn is on a tile that is removed and cannot move to an adjacent tile, it sinks into the abyss and everyone loses the game!
Exception: The Diver may swim to the nearest tile. The Explorer may swim diagonally. the Pilot may fly to any tile.

One special case to note is if the tile has to be removed and you have a helicopter card.  In this case you can save the sinking player as clarified by Matt Leacock in this Board Game Geek thread.
Note however that you may not use a Sandbags card for this purpose, as specified in the rules:

Note: You cannot play a Sandbag card to save a flooded tile once you've revealed the matching Flood card.

Remember that all players win or lose together, so if one player drowns but the others survive then it still counts as a loss.

I don't think I agree with tttppp's answer - assuming he is saying that you can't use a Helicopter Lift in response to a tile sinking.  The rules for special action cards state:

These cards are taken into your hand and can be played at  any time —
  even on another player’s turn. Playing a Special Action  card does not
  require an action.

Yes, there is a specific rule that says you can't use your Sandbag cards reactively to a Flood, but I don't think that implies that Helicopter cards can't be used reactively: quite the reverse if anything.
Other than that I agree with the other answers.  You can't win Forbidden Island if any member of your team dies, but there are normally ways out of a tight spot... at least until the waters rise to the point of no return.

Note that tttppp's answer was edited in response to this one, which does make a bit of a nonsense of this answer, but oh well.

I believe you can delete your own answer if you'd prefer.


text:
In Mancala, are you allowed to pick up and count your opponent's stones?
In Mancala, are you allowed to pick up and count the number of stones your opponent has if the cup is too small to be able to see?

In "serious play" you are not allowed to touch or count any piles. If you touch one of your own piles you have committed to picking up and playing that pile. Touching your opponent's piles, or either players' score piles is forbidden.


text:
What happens when a piece is kinged in checkers?
In checkers, what is supposed to happen when a piece gets to the other side of the board and becomes a king? Does the move end? Can the piece continue to skip in the same turn it becomes a king? Can it choose not to be kinged and skip again? I've looked up a couple of different rules and I can't really find any sort of set rules for this. What is the actual rule?

From the Wikipedia article on checkers:

If a player's piece jumps into the kings row, the current move terminates; having just been crowned, the piece cannot continue on by jumping back out (as in a multiple jump), until the next move.

There are many variants of checkers/draughts, and for most of them (including the Checkers variant played predominantly in the English-speaking world), promotion is both mandatory and ending the move. Quote from the American Checkers Federation's official rulebook:

1.16  When a man reaches the farthest row forward (known as the “king-row” or “crown-head”) it becomes a king, and this completes the
  turn of play. The man can be crowned by either player ( ) by placing a
  man of the same colour on top of it before the next move is made. (It
  may be necessary to borrow from another set if no captured man is
  available for the purpose).
1.19  If a jump creates an immediate further capturing opportunity, then the capturing move of the piece (man or king) is continued until
  all the jumps are completed. The only exception is that if a man
  reaches the king-row by means of a capturing move it then becomes a
  king but may not make any further jumps until their opponent has
  moved.  At the end of the capturing sequence, all captured pieces are
  removed from the board.

However, for the variant for Russian checkers, promotion during a capture sequence happens en-passant (i.e. in passing) and the crowned man has to continue jumping as a king.

When a checker reaches the furthest row on the opposite side of the board, its turn ends, because it can make no further FORWARD move. It cannot "skip" or make any other move.
Beginning with the NEXT move, it can move backward. In order to do so, it must be "kinged," which it cannot refuse such, at the end of the preceding turn.


text:
Can I still capture a territory if I lose all my land units in combat?
My friend and I had the following battle: I had 3 fighters and 5 infantry, and he had 3 infantry. At the end of the battle, all of my infantry got destroyed and all I had left was the 3 fighters. He lost all of his infantry. He said I couldn't take the territory because I didn't have any land units. I started the battle with land units but at the end of the battle, I didn't have any. What is the rule on this specific situation?

The rulebook clearly covers this situation. On page 17 under Step 8: Capture Territory

If you win a combat as the attacker in a territory, and you have one or more surviving land units there, you take control of it.
Sea units cannot take control of a territory....
Air units can never capture a territory.

You need to capture a territory with a land unit.
You have your choice of which units to sacrifice. Meaning that if you want the territory, you need to sacrifice more expensive sea and/or air units to preserve the last land unit.
Usually, the territory is not worth it. Then what you have achieved is destroying your opponent's units on the territory for the future.
The purpose of the so-called "infantry push mechanic" is to attack a territory with enough infantry so that you will have infantry left to take it over AFTER absorbing battle losses.


text:
How does transport movement work?
Here are a couple of scenarios that my friends and I always fight about when we play Axis and Allies Spring 1942 edition:

A unit(s) is loaded onto a transport that has not moved yet, then the player moves the transport
A transport moves one space, then picks up a unit and moves another space.
A transport "bridges" a unit(s) then moves a space or two.
A transport moves one space and then bridges a unit(s).
A transport moves two spaces and then bridges a unit(s).
A transport moves into a sea space where an enemy has a submerged submarine

If multiple bridges are possible (such as in the bay north of Germany or sea space to the left of said space):

A transport bridges unit(s), after battle proceeds bridges unit(s) again to a different country (this is complying with the rule that says you can only attack a country once a turn).

One last rule that does not involve transports moving or bridging:

An airplane (usually a bomber) comes from the land and bombs an unguarded transport and kills it

We have looked at the rulebook countless times and it is pretty vague on some issues. I'm not saying that the rulebook doesn't answer any of our questions, but we certainly can't find any of our answers. Thanks for reading!

True, there are so many scenarios that the rulebook doesn't specifically cover
But most of the points you ask are specified in the rulebook. Taking this rulebook (Anniversary: compliance with spring 1942 edition) for instance:
A transport can move between one or two spaces that do not contain an enemy surface ship during combat or non combat phases.  It can load and offload units into free cargo slots before, before or after any of the previous. However load and offload procedures cannot iterate (you can't offload units first and then load). Offloading units ends the transport's actions: If you begin by offloading units of a transport (loaded in previous rounds) then the transport will not move nor load after that.
Other rules apply for a transport engaged in combat.

A unit(s) is loaded onto a transport that has not moved yet, then the player moves the transport

As long as the transport did not participate in any combat this round, it can be moved, loaded if it has any valid free space and offloaded. It cannot iterate load and offload.

A transport moves one space, then picks up a unit and moves another
  space.

It is valid as long as the first move does not put the transport in a seazone containing enemy surface units (thus putting it in combat)

A transport moves one space and then bridges a unit(s).
  A transport moves two spaces and then bridges a unit(s).

If bridging means moving land units between adjacent territories in a seazone, it is valid. The transport has: moved (one or two spaces), loaded and offloaded (one or two units).
If between move and load/offload the transport moves to an area with enemy surface units, then the sea combat must be resolved first (amphibious attack).
Remember that no unit can move to any other territory containing enemy troops during non-combat move phase, except for submarines.

A transport moves into a sea space where an enemy has a submerged
  submarine

It can be done either in combat move and non-combat move. If done during combat, and you move along a destroyer you CAN choose to engage or not engage the enemy submarines. If you choose to, the transports take part in the combat.

A transport bridges unit(s), after battle proceeds bridges unit(s)
  again to a different country (this is complying with the rule that
  says you can only attack a country once a turn).

No, for two reasons.
Transports that engaged in combat cannot do anything else after (move, load offload).
After offload, the transport actions end.

An airplane (usually a bomber) comes from the land and bombs an
  unguarded transport and kills it

If the question is: "Can the transport be destroyed?" the answer is: yes. It is automatically destroyed during combat resolve phase.
I would suggest you install tripleA. It is an open source game that can implement A&A ruleset and its different maps; the rules there comply pretty well with the rulebook.
This were many questions packed in one.. :/ I'll later add the pages references to each sub-answer, or I would welcome anyone editing to add that info.

@PaulMarshall in second paragraph: 'Offloading units ends the transport's actions:' .  The bridging question are two scenarios: move 1 space then bridge.  Move 2 spaces then bridge.  It is correct

Oops, I misread, and now I can't remove my downvote until the answer is edited.

This response is based on the rules. I've searched for "transport" and "offload" to find the relevant sections - but there is quite a lot of text. If you want the specific text to each of the rulings below, I can paste it here on your request, but for now you'll get the quick answers:

A unit(s) is loaded onto a transport that has not moved yet, then the player moves the transport

This is ok.

A transport moves one space, then picks up a unit and moves another space.

This is also ok.

A transport "bridges" a unit(s) then moves a space or two.

This is not ok. A transport's move ends where it offloads.

A transport moves one space and then bridges a unit(s).

This is ok. It cannot move any more.

A transport moves two spaces and then bridges a unit(s).

This is ok. It cannot move any more.

A transport moves into a sea space where an enemy has a submerged submarine.

This is ok.

A transport bridges unit(s), after battle proceeds bridges unit(s) again to a different country (this is complying with the rule that says you can only attack a country once a turn).

This is not ok. Generally, transports do stuff either in the combat or noncombat phase.

An airplane (usually a bomber) comes from the land and bombs an unguarded transport and kills it.

This is ok.

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


text:
What is the most cost effective Warhammer box set based on size and number of models?
I've only been able to find comparison of points/price ratio of single armies. What I'm looking for are the best quality models (number of models/box, size of models etc.) for the lowest price.
So, which armies (both in Warhammer Fantasy and Warhammer 40k) are best for a modeller/painter like me?
(Please don't answer that the best one is the one I find most beautiful :))

If cost-efficiency is your main goal, 'anything not made by GW' will certainly accomplish it better.  It follows that you have some specific reason for preferring Warhammer (like knowing other people who play it).  That being the case, is there any preference for fantasy or 40k?  Or do you genuinely not care which of the two you play?

I'm actually not sure whether I'm really going to play :). I want exactly Warhammer because I've used to read books (Wh fantasy) or play video games (Wh 40 000). And that's mostly my incentive - memories from past :). It is possible I'll also get started with playing but that depends on my friends or my neighbourhood.
Just to be clear - I want an army I can paint. My preferences are: the more models I get, the better;
the bigger models I get, the even better :).

@Tynam  If you look at GW on a model to model basis compared to say Privateer or Malifaux, the costs are competitive.  There are some new companies that are starting to make plastics at lower price points, but I don't think their quality is up to what GW puts out yet.  The thing that has always made GW the expensive game is that you need 10x the models to make a 40K or Fantasy army versus smaller skirmish games like Warmachine.

@CaulynDarr: I can't agree; the thing that has always made GW the expensive game is that their individual metals cost two or three times as much as comparable ones.  (But I'm leading away from the question now, so I'll stop here.)

This is a highly subjective question. Especially given Games Workshop's business model where the price you pay for a box set is not determined just by the the amount of labour and materials but is largely based on the "luxury items" principle while taking into account utility with regards to the rules of the game. I do not believe you'll arrive at a single conclusive answer to this question.

40K-wise, there are a few builds that you can do that are relatively cost effective.
Any of the marine variants tend to get you a full army for the least cash.  Xenos armies tend to have much cheaper point cost units that are still equivalent to Marine cost in cash money.   Of the marines, Space Wolves and Grey Knights are probably the cheapest to build.  They have some high points cost units that are worth every point in competitive game terms.
The Draigowing Grey Knight build is the most cash efficient list out of those two options.  Draigo, a Librarian, and two 10 man squads of Paladins will cost you about $250 and can be up to 1850 points depending on how you kit the Paladins out.
I'm less familiar with Fantasy, but I've always heard that High elves tend to be a good balance of cash cost and points cost.  Ogre Kingdoms might also be a good choice given their lower model count.  However, even a cheap Fantasy army will cost you 3x as much as a cheap 40K army given the higher model counts required for that game.
EDIT:
Since on re-reading the original post, the question is about models and not armies I would say that most of the plastic box sets are actually fairly equal in value.  You usually get 10 small models or 5 more complex models for 25-35 dollars.  Older kits tend to have less of the trimmings; newer ones(such as ones for Blood Angels, Grey Knights, Dark Eldar, and Necrons) have more alternate upgrade options and tend to let you build more than one unit type from the box. Plastic Kits in the 50-60 dollar range all tend to be larger more complex models.
The only place where you are probably going to get a little more for you money is with basic transport vehicles.  These are usually costed a little lower at the $35 price point.  Though these tend to be the most boring of the vehicle types.  Basic Fantasy troops boxes will also tend to have more models in them at the cost of simpler sculpts.  Battleforce boxes can also save you about 15% over buying models individually.
Anything Finecast is a little pricey and you wont get as much model for your money.  Unfortunately some of their best looking models have been converted to Fincast already.
GW is pretty consistent with their pricing in this way.  If you see two boxes both marked at $35 you're probably going to get a pretty equivalent value--slightly skewed towards the newer kits.  GW's basic product value isn't so bad, it's always been the amount of things you need to buy to play the game that's the trouble.
So, unfortunately, the answer is whatever you think looks coolest ;)

Thanks but you haven't been reading carefully. I'm not interested in a "good balance of cash cost and points cost". I'm interested in size of models and their count per package.
Your balance mostly means I get too few models for too much money.

@Samuel I would suggest you change the the title of the post since it is asking for the cheapest warhammer Army.  I would suggest asking "What is the most cost effective box set based on size of model and count".

I've changed the title as you suggested. Thanks for such a complex answer :). I've checked some battleforces and yet there can be a huge difference - 46 models black reach vs. 16 in Eldar battleforce vs 46 in Tyranid battleforce. Just one more question though - what do you mean by finecast?

@Samuel Black Reach is undercosted because it's the official starter.  It's a loss lead to get you into the game, so you get a bit more bang for your buck.  The Eldar box has two vehicles which is why it has fewer models.  Tyranid troops are simpler sculpts, which is why you can get so many into their battle force for the price.  Finecast is GW's resin replacement for the white metal they've traditionally used for single fig SKUs.  Many people have cost and quality concerns with the Fincast line.

This is a solid answer.  Definitely avoid Finecast; terrible model cost-efficiency.  I'd second Black Reach; it's the best-value set on purpose.  Consider Tyranids or Imperial Guard; both put a lot of troops on the table, with appearance strongly determined by your choice of paint scheme.  (Imperial Guard used to be a more cost-efficient, but that's no longer true.)

Quick rundown what I think would be some good options from a modelling perspective:
Warhammer Fantasy:
Skaven Battalion - Something like 70 models in the box.  Fur and "raggedy cloth" are pretty easy to learn to paint to a nice standard, good for starting out on.  Plus you get two Rat Ogres which are nice big mean-ugly models that are a lot of fun to model/paint.
Dwarves Battalion - Not a great "models/value" proposition, but I mention them because everything is covered in metal armor.  Learning to paint metal "well" is one of the first and easiest things you should learn.  Learning to paint metal "expert" is one of the most challenging things to learn, so there's actually a lot of ground to cover and experience to gain as a painter in working on it.
Daemons of Chaos Battalion - lots of variety, decent count of cool models.  Flesh is a pain to do really well.  Learning first on non-human colored flesh is easier since you can get the techniques down without worrying if the tones "look right."
Warriors of Chaos Battalion - also lots of variety.  Armored Dudes, nekkid dudes, cavalry, beasts.  Weapon and Armor customization bits.  Many different painting techniques and types of models for a 50 model box.
Warhammer 40K
Tyranid Battleforce - same idea as skaven above, lots of little guys to learn on, and a couple of big nasties for fun.  "chitinous armor" is also in there with fur as something that's easy to learn to paint well when you're starting out.
Eldar Battleforce - Both a hover tank and a walker!  Loads of fun to paint, low model count though, and you don't get any of the more fun aspect warrior models in the boxed set.

Thanks. Finally, that's an answer I've been expecting to get :).

The old Space Hulk game came with a lot of genestealers and Terminator plastic models and was reasonably priced at the time. Not sure if you can get hold of copies any more though.

Assault on Black Reach.  This starter set will provide you with a large number of Marine and Ork units, which will give you a variety of different unit sizes and types to paint, and even simply arrange in a suitably dramatic diorama if you so choose.  If you decide to actually play, Assault on Black Reach comes with everything you need to get started, and presents forces with two different playstyes and backstories.

Given the starter box contains lower quality models made just for that box, dunno if it's a good choice for someone whose first goal is modelling :)

They're all plastic models, which makes them far easier to convert than metal.  But you are correct, that the actual boxed sets have more complexity to the model; I'm not convinced that its a cost-effective upgrade, though.

If cost is your primary concern and which army is a secondary concern, consider a local dealer-sponsored auction or eBay. One local dealer has 2-4 auctions a year where local players offer armies they don't play anymore or armies they started but never finished.
Some models offered are already painted, some are not. I understand that a product called "Simple Green" is effective at removing paint from previously painted models.
I've seen many unopened boxes offered up at auction, too.

Thanks, but that might be a problem in my country - Czech Republic. There isn't too much of a warhammer stuff at all.

What about eBay or possibly another online auction?

@Samuel - Hmm, actually, you don't need a WH dealer to organize a local auction. You could. How many players do you know in your area, and how many players do they know?

I know none, it really isn't that popular here. I may play it in future but my real goal is just to paint it :). Ebay is problematic too - it's been only recently translated to Czech language and people aren't much aware of it. We have aukro, which is in my opinion far superior to ebay. And in case I would have sent a box from UK/USA, transportation costs would oversize those in local shops.

Well from what I've seen through the years, Space Marines will be your cheapest and easiest army to afford. They have a very solid presence when played, easy to learn the game with. Now as it stands I've not played since 2004 and started buying a new army after having to leave my Nurgle Army to a friend while I went off to college. So I came back to buying a few models in 2006 and went with the Imperial Guard. OMFG is this army expensive, but from what I've seen point wise to lay down an Imp Guard army w/o being all tanks is upwards to 200 models. It wouldn't be a problem with what I was buying them for in 2006 I bought 1 IG Battleforce which cost me 75 dollars, came with a Leman Russ, 2 squads, and 3 heavy weapon platforms. Now the Battleforce at 120 dollars comes with a worthless sentinel instead now...FFS at least they could have put a Chimera in there. GW is really getting out of hand with their prices it seems.


text:
Why is queen placement on the first turn disallowed?
While official rules allow placing the queen on the very first turn, online play, community and tournaments prohibit it. Why? Does it provide an unfair advantage? Does it quickly lead to a draw? Can you give an example?

From Wikipedia on Openings,

Bee - Spider - Spider (in a V formation with the bee at the point): This is an aggressive quick-strike opening that allows the player the fastest possible opportunity to move (on the third turn if necessary); the Spiders can thus quickly block the opponent's opening pieces. In addition, if the opponent answers with the same or a similar opening, it provides the best opportunity to force a draw if necessary as the Bees are adjacent. For this last reason, tournament rules forbid the placing of the Bee on the first move, as this opening leads to a preponderance of draws. Bee-Spider-Ant is a common variation very similar in its mechanics.

Emphasis mine.
Bee - Spider - Spider
Bee - Spider - Ant

I'm sure this is right, but it would be great if you could explain why in a bit more detail, and also if you had an example game as mentioned in the question.

@tttppp, The why is explained in great detail. (It's not my fault the reason is extremely simple.) I don't have an example since I've never played (though I own a copy and know the rules). Did you even try? The setup is described precisely.

I was expecting an explanation mentioning something like first/second player advantage. Why would both players be motivated to open with the bee if it so often leads to a draw? I can't think of another game where something is actually banned because it often leads to a draw. I also think an example game could help to illustrate the tactics, even if it's a fabricated example.

But if you disagree that these would make the answer better then don't worry about it-several people have already found your answer useful as it is, and maybe I'm just being slow! :-)

Yes, this is definitely useful, because I have not seen the Wikipedia articled before and this gave me basis for more research. Of course I also agree with @tttppp commment, because this particular quote is not very clear. In particular it is not clear why 2 spiders is a great opening given that it's the weakest piece. It's not clear how earliest opportunity to move is the third turn, in the example given the third turn is spider placement, not a move, so the wording looks plain wrong.

Re "Why would both players be motivated to open with the bee if it so often leads to a draw?" Because it would place the second player at a great disadvantage if he didn't.

Re "In particular it is not clear why 2 spiders is a great opening given that it's the weakest piece. It's not clear how earliest opportunity to move is the third turn," The OP didn't ask about strength of pieces and comparison of opening strategies.

@tttppp draws are preferable to a loss. This set up makes it likely that the first player will win if the second player does anything other than mimic the same moves - under those conditions, second player would rather draw than lose so this setup leads to almost nothing but draws. First player would make this move to guarantee not losing.

Now when I have played a few dozen of games the answer is obvious. A piece is surrounded by 6 other pieces. When two bees are adjacent the 3 out of 6 surrounding spaces (one of each is the other bee) contribute to surrounding both of them. Because of this fact it's practically difficult (that is if your opponent's is decent) to surround your opponent bee and not surround your own at the same time.
Thus the draw is very likely if both opponents start with a bee.


text:
Effective combinations of Shermans out of Blood, Guts, and Glory
The new lists for 4th and 7th armored divisions let you mix and match Sherman M4A3s, M4A3 76s, M4A3E8s, and Sherman Jumbos.  The various versions vary greatly in terms of firepower, speed, and points cost, so I'm having trouble coming up with an effective selection.  I would like to have a unit that is as homogeneous as possible, but I'd also like to use some Easy Eights.  Unfortunately, they are limited to only two per platoon.
What are some good combinations of Sherman types for both an Armored Company and as support in an Armored Rifle Company?

Can I get a reason for the down-vote so I can improve the question?

Balanced platoon
In most cases a solid 1-2-2 platoon will do the trick.

1 jumbo to act as the shield.
2 m4a1 76 mm for fire power.
2 vanilla m4a1 or m4a3s, if you think you will benefit from the protected ammo stowage.

This type of platoon will be a great advancing platoon for a reasonable cost.
Spearhead platoon

2 M4A3 76s or M4A3E8s
2 m4a3
1 m4a3 105mm

Great platoon to spearhead attacks. All tanks use the Detroit's Finest special rule, giving you a slight edge when it comes to flanking and taking objectives.
Tortoise platoon

1 jumbo to act as the shield.
2 m4a3e8; utilize the smooth ride special rule by not moving more than 15cm on any given turn, keeping RoF up while denying penalties.
Lastly, you can fill it with either m4a1 or m4a3s.

Good luck!

cant go wrong with   2 m4a3  HQ
                     5 M4a3  platoon  x3
                     4 M10   TD  platoon
                     3 priest battery  x 2
                     AOP
screw the 76mm sherman  use your brain and detroits finest + smoke wins every games also use patton for REcce deployement  and use youre riest as Assault gun to clear dug in infantry use AOE to counter Ambush ....evrytimes a win  toooooo easy
use this army on a single front of about 2 feet larger outa the whole 6 foot table break trough lines with speed

This question is about the composition of individual tank platoons, not about the composition of the entire army. Why is your selection better than other options? What does it accomplish that can't be done with something else? And can you clean up your formatting a bit? This answer is hard to read.


text:
Do any Small World expansions lengthen play time?
I have recently bought Small World and I'm loving it.  I find it hovers just on the edge of what I find an acceptable play time, but I figure that once it's learned, we can speed it up a bit.
I'm sure I'll want to get into the expansions sooner or later, but I know in some games (such as Carcasonne) each expansion makes the game take longer.
Are there any changes in any of Small World's expansions that lengthen play time?

Most of Small World's expansions (Grand Dames, Be Not Afraid, Cursed) just add additional races and powers. Those won't lengthen the game.

Realms adds a modular board and scenarios. Those will presumably add to the setup time a little, and some of the scenarios might also take longer than an ordinary game.
Tales & Legends adds events, which will take a little extra time to resolve and consider the consequences of.
Tunnels allows you to play with six players and combine the base game with the standalone follow-on game Small World Underground. It's difficult to imagine that both factors wouldn't considerably increase the play time.

+1, but, Adding races does increase the setup time, due to additional randomization needed (more abilities need to be randomized too)

@user1873: I'm sorry, but did you just say: "shuffling 15 race cards takes longer than shuffling 12"?  Or is there more to randomizing with these new races?

@tugs, indeed I did. For sufficiently large deck size, the number of riffle shuffles approaches 3/2 log (deck size). Piling the cards and mixing them on the table has much the same problems to be truly random, the difficulty of making sure that each card is equally likely to show up at each location increases, tl;dr; http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dartmouth.edu%2F~chance%2Fteaching_aids%2FMann.pdf&ei=VcdgUPb1G6_oiAKDroCgBQ&usg=AFQjCNEraL1xyT7CalmnY9zSSOnTh2Yqeg

@user1873 Not that 12 is a very large number, but log 15 / log 12 is ~1.09, and 1.09 times not very long is still not very long.


text:
Line of sight dots on "chasm" map tile
In Mansions of Madness:
On the map room "chasm" there are two spaces (The Chasm room is the lowest left tile). But only one of them has "line of sight dots". Does this mean that the other half (the one with the bridge) is not in line of sight from the "crypt" and "cave" rooms? So when I align them all in one straight line with the chasm at the end, I can shoot from the other end into the chasm piece, but nothing that is on the bridge?

The Chasm room space with the bridge does not have line of sight to the room Crypt or Cave, because it does not have line of sight dots.
From the rule book page 21 (emphasis mine).

Note that monsters, investigators and feature markers do not block line of sight. Also note that some spaces do not have line of sight dots. A figure in one of these spaces has line of sight to every space in the room (and does not have line of sight to other rooms).

Both spaces in the chasm have line of sight dots. The ones on the bridge space are next to the wooden poles that support the bridge.

Welcome to Boardgames.SE. We encourage answers that have evidence to back them up. Please post a picture of your Chasm room that has LOS dots on the "bridge side." If you examine the 1st Edition printing here lowest left tile, (BGG members can see the full 4751x3256 image), you cannot see LOS dots on the wooden bridge space, only on the rocky cliff side. http://boardgamegeek.com/image/1114631/mansions-of-madness