text:
Removal of red camp cards from the camp board
In Castaways, the red camp cards stay in the camp board until they are "dealt with". There are some camp cards, such as #51 (Argument), that have no clear condition stating how to "deal with" the card. Does this means that the card stays forever in the camp board, or that after a player triggers its effects it should be removed?

Got an answer from the BBG forum. There is no explicit information about this in the manual, neither in the spanish FAQ. Without specific rules, it is reasonable to admit that red cards that do not explicitly define a removal condition (such as #51) stay in the camp board until the end of the game.


text:
What to do about evolution cards that don't work well in solo games?
Archipelago has some evolution cards that fit quite well in a multiplayer game, but in the solo game, they make little or no sense.
For example, the "Financial Advisor" gives you 1 florin for every 5 florin you reveal to your opponents. How should this be played in a solo match? It does nothing? I get 1 florin for every 5 I have? Should I remove it from the solo game?
Something similar happens with the "Queen" card. She adds 2 free florin to the order of play bid which is skipped in solo games. Again, should I remove it? Should I simply assume it does nothing?
There are many other examples. How do you deal with those cards? Are there any special rules about that?

Several cards can be left out of the solo game, as they only have an effect when there are multiple players:

King
Queen
Thief
Spy
Pirate

The main problem with this is that this could change the balance of the game due to the backs of these cards (during crisis).  A middle ground may be to remove them and replace them with the next card when they are placed face up (but disregard the new crisis now showing).
Also, the designer has mentioned (although I can't find it anywhere) that the assassin should not be allowed to kill off your own character cards.

I liked your "middle ground" suggestion. It also makes the setup as simple as the original Archipelago game.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Limit to the amount of resources a player can spend when handling a crisis
In Archipelago is there any limit to the amount of resources a single player can spend to deal with an internal or external crisis?

There is a strong opinion on the communities that no limit exist. In fact, at page 7 of the rulebook, the following passage supports this: "Obviously, the first players will tend to use up the resources present on the domestic market board (I) first. Then they will use up their own resources, if they so wish".

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


text:
Disembarking meeples in scenarios that begin in the sea
In the solo expansion of Archipelago, there are some scenarios (for instance, the Barbe Bleu) where you start with some meeples and a ship in the sea. Since the rules say you skip Turn #0, the only moment when you're allowed to disembark the meeples when you find land, how are you supposed to move those meeples to the land?

It's not an official answer, but it seems that disembarking all meeples after exploring is the only reasonable thing to do. See http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/921800/first-action-when-starting-on-the-plain-sea-hex.


text:
Fire and warehouses
When there is a fire event, how exactly am I unable to use a warehouse? Am I unable to take commodities from it? I lose the commodities stored there? Or I simply can't add commodities to it, although I can take them?

Since cards may be stored in warehouses only in the end of a players turn (see the rules, page 7 and 8) and must be taken out of the warehouses when players get their 5 cards, the answer is straightforward: a player simply cannot store goods in them. This is explained by the game's author in BGG.


text:
Edmond Tanair scoring criteria
What exactly is Edmond Tanair's (scenario #03) scoring criteria? Is it "a mountain per tile score you a victory point"?

I contacted Ludically and here is the designer answer:

You need to count the number of visible regions (hexes) that you have discovered and legally placed on the archipelago containing some mountains.
  If it has some textured mountains on the tile then it's counted as one, no matter how much mountain there is on the tile. Some islands for example also have mountains, such an island tile would be then worth 1 point towards your ranking.


text:
Is it impossible to get the gold medal in Duke Landwalker scenario?
The solo rules say you must play with the 4-player action wheel and this means that I'm limited to 3 explorations per turn.
Consider now the Duke Landwalker scenario that ends when you explore all the 24 regions available in the game. In it you only get the gold medal if you have less than 8 evolution and character cards. Remember that you must buy one of those cards per turn.
Now observe that if I can explore up to 3 times per turn, it'll take me at least 8 turns to end the game, rendering the gold medal unachievable.
This seem very weird to me. Am I right? Did I miss something?

The scout card is key to this.  It allows you to do an extra exploration which makes it doable in under 8 turns.

Indeed, but don't you think that's weird? You must be lotery lucky to be able to complete a scenario? I think there is another card that could also help. Still it's all about luck. Is that what this scenario is about? Being incredibly lucky?

Quite a few of them do require a particular card in the first 5 to stand a chance at silver or gold.  The developer suggests a variant where you chose the starting 5, so the puzzle becomes figuring out which they key cards are for that scenario.

Could you please point to the source where this variant was proposed?

It was suggested by the designer in this thread http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/926230/has-anyone-achieved-first-place-solo-scenario


text:
Can you use ports or markets after playing all action disks?
In Archipelago, say you have already played all your action discs, but for an arbitrary reason you did not use your ports or markets. Does this means you cannot use them anymore in this action phase?

It seems I might've misunderstood the rules. The correct answer, I think, is you can't!
In page 8, you read:

[...]each player plays one round by placing one of his action discs (AD) on the action wheel and performing the corresponding action. Players continue playing rounds until all players have used up their action discs or cannot play anything; then they proceed to phase 6.

The concept of round is important here. A player has a round "until all players have used up their action disks or cannot play anything".
In page 12, you read:

Each player can use one port or market during each of his rounds.

This means that you can only use market or ports once per round if you have a round. Therefore, you can't use them after your action disks have finished.
Likewise, this is extensible to evolution cards (page 14):

Each player can use one evolution card during each of his rounds.

You can edit or delete your answers at any time; it's usually better to edit your answer than to create a new one.

Thank you for the heads up. I decided to write another post because the truth is I'm still interpreting what I read and I believe there is still the possibility that I'm wrong. So I thought I should let people vote (if they wish to do that) in the answer they agree with.

You cannot use the ports or markets if you have no action disks left to play.
The easy way to think about this is:
On your turn:

Place one of your action disks on the board and take that action
(Before or After you place your action disk)

Use one Evolution card (optional)

(Before or After you place your action disk)

Pay one coin to use a port or a market (optional)
You can use each market or port you own once per round, and only one per turn.

So if you don't have any action markers, you won't be able to use a port/market.

Ok, found the answer to that in the manual, page 8.

Players continue playing rounds until all players have used up their action discs or cannot play anything; then they proceed to phase 6.

So, yes, you can still use a market or port, if you're able to.


text:
Progression phase resolution and effectiveness of progression cards
I encountered the following situation playing Mundus Novus:

The indigenous people event was under effect;
A player then used his cards to acquire Juan de la Cosa during the progression step, therefore canceling the effect indigenous people had on him;
Then he traded the remaining 5 cards on his hand for the full reward of 7 doubloons, instead of 5 as would be expected since indigenous people was in play.

Did we play this correctly? Progression cards are effective immediately like that? Is there a particular order that players must follow when playing through the progression step?


text:
Good counter to Minion in Dominion: Intrigue
I recently lost a game of Dominion where my opponent spammed Minion repeatedly. During this he racked up tons of coin while forcing me to discard my hand once per turn. I cannot remember the other cards on the board but during the game I was unable to successfully counter. Besides Moat or Lighthouse what are some good strategies to fight off Minion?

As you have seen, Minion is a powerful card that, unlike many other Dominion cards, "combos" well with itself: if you draw two you can play one for cash and one to get a new hand, possibly getting another Minion, and attacking the opponent as well!
Minion is a card that's difficult to ignore. There are several ways you might consider to handle it:

Probably the clearest way to handle it, and the one that is always available, is to pursue Minions yourself. The Minions are powerful and every one you buy is one that your opponent or opponents cannot. If you choose this route, you usually want to go all-out to buy as many as you can. In a two-player game, getting 6 of the 10 Minions while the other player is stuck with 4 is a big deal.
Cursing and junking attacks are powerful counters to Minion. By filling your opponent's deck with space-wasting cards, they make it much less likely that the Minions will "power up" by showing up in the same hand. Sea Hag, Witch, Ambassador, Cultist, Marauder, of of course Mountebank are a few to look out for.
"Draw-up-to" effects can be an okay counter to Minion's discard, although they're not as effective as they are against, say, Militia. Still, Jack of all Trades is a powerful card in any board and probably worth considering if you're not going with Minions yourself.
Of the Reactions, Tunnel is powerful on any Minion board, whether you're the one playing the Minions or not--all those discarded Tunnels turn into Gold! Horse Traders is another powerful choice if you can spare room for the terminal action, since it neuters the attack and gives you a free card to boot. Moat and Lighthouse blunt the attack, but aren't super powerful in their own right; Lighthouse is a bit easier to fit into most decks. Secret Chamber looks attractive (save your favorite cards for the hand you're about to draw) but if Minions are flying around, its ability to discard junk for cash might be worth very little.

Like most Dominion questions, it depends on the board, so only general advice is possible.
The first principle is that Minion is simply a very good card — it lets you accumulate money while drawing more cards. The damage the discard does to the opponents is nice, but it’s not that significant. Frequently, the best counter to Minion is going to be getting your own Minions. Evaluating other potential strategies’ speed in relation to Minion is something that requires experience.
The two main approaches to actively countering Minion are to improve your own deck’s robustness in the face of discard attacks, and to slow down your opponent’s deck.
Slowing down their deck is easy — if there are attacks that fill their deck up with junk, use them. Discard attacks don’t help — as long as they have a Minion left in hand, they’re off to the races. For this purpose, Torturer is a discard attack — a Minion deck will pretty much never take a curse.
Making your own deck more robust is a harder subject. Except for cards that get better when your hand is smaller (Library, Menagerie) or that let you usefully react (Tunnel, Horse Traders), it’s not really any different from the art of making your deck good in the first place. If you can build a strong card-drawing engine, the fact that you’re starting from four cards won’t matter much. If you can trash all your junk, four cards should be enough.
The biggest difference is that the marginal cards (particularly those that aren’t +1 card, +1 action) are proportionally weaker. That includes both Moat and Lighthouse, particularly Moat. Yeah, they’re fine if you have them when the opponent Minions, but if you draw them in the four-card hand, they mean you’re unlikely to be able to buy anything great this turn. If you’re playing with four-card hands, the average value of your cards needs to be higher — you can’t get away with cards that aren’t really pulling their weight. Before buying a card, ask yourself if it’s really helping your deck, or if you’re just buying it because you think you want to buy something every turn.
(This is true in every game of Dominion. It’s just more true when your opponent is throwing Minions around all the time.)


text:
No power plants available to buy
I just got done a really interesting game of power grid.
In the end all players had all the power plants that they needed except each of us needed one more 6 value power plant to be able to power 17 houses and win the game. At this time we were in step 2 and had already removed the other high plant form the game.
At this point the actual market was: 2 3 4 6
and the future market was: 2 4 4 5
I bought the 6 one and no one out bid me. They thought more 6-7 value plants would come up but none did until the end of the game.
In this situation though, am I doing this right?
One thing I thought the other players could do is buy up the small power plants in order to get newer plants up to the current market faster.
Is this situation possible to get into? Am I playing it wrong?
In the end, the players had these plants:
6 6 5 = 17
2 6 5 = 14
4 4 7 = 15

Did you perhaps forget to remove high-numbered power plants in phase 5 during steps 1 and 2?

You don't need to power 17 houses to win the game, you need to have 17 houses, and then whoever powers the most wins.

You did do something wrong: the market should always be in order by cost.

When players add new power plants to the power plant
   market, players rearrange all power plants in the power plant market in ascending order with the 4 cheapest plants in the actual market.

That's the whole market - all 8 power plants - that you sort. (The lists you provided were possibly sorted within the actual and future market individually, but that doesn't do anything. The point is to make sure that only the cheaper ones become available for purchase.)
While things can get out of order a bit - for example power plant 20 is a 5 and power plant 22 is a 2 - there's no way a 6 is going to come before a 2, and in most cases, it'll be after the 4s too. With the power plants sorted properly, you wouldn't have been able to buy that 6. Your actual market would've more likely just contained 2, 3, 4, 4.
Given that you missed that rule, it's possible you also missed another: during steps 1 and 2, in phase 5, you remove the highest numbered power plant from the market, replacing it with a new one.

Update the power plant market: Place the highest numbered power plant from the future market face down under the draw stack and draw a new one to replace it.
  Rearrange the market appropriately (see phase 2: this will change in Step 3, see the steps of the game). Because of this, the highest numbered power plants are collected under the »Step 3« card and become available during step 3 in the game.

This makes it much, much less likely that a 6 even becomes available in the early game. On top of that, it gets you to step 3 faster, when suddenly high-numbered power plants start becoming available more rapidly, making it less likely that one player gets one long before others.

That is the rule I missed. I thought you only rearanged the current market! Thanks so much!


text:
Do spells continue to use hand(s) on following rounds of combat?
If I use a spell in combat (eg: Shriveling) on one turn of combat, and it succeeds, on a subsequent round of combat, does the spell still use up any "hands" for combat?
OR
After casting a spell, on a subsequent round of combat, is that hand(s) free to use other weapons/spells?

From the rulebook, page 16:
A spell or weapon that gives you a bonus (even one that says it lasts until the end of combat) only continues to give you the bonus while you devote the required number of hands to it. You can choose to switch weapons/spells in later combat rounds, but as soon as you “release” a spell or weapon, it stops working for you. Similarly, spells that are refreshed (such as at the beginning of each combat round in the final battle) cease to work and must be re-cast.

I swear I could not find that in the rules.... thanks!!


text:
Name of a card trading game
When I was young, there used to play a game where we traded cards.
Two people used to split one pack of cards, these cards usually had information on cars. you would then compare specifications, and the one that had the highest spec, could take the other person's card.
For the life of me I cannot remember the name of the game.

This sounds just like the playing card game "War". Did it use a regular deck of playing cards, or special cards?

it was special cards, a little bit smaller than playing cards

The description of play sounds like Top Trumps, but I'd never seen a cars version.
Wikipedia confirms the existance of car-based packs:

Top Trumps was a card game popular with adults and children in the United Kingdom in the 1970s and 1980s, especially amongst boys, for whom it was a popular playground pastime. The topics tended to reflect this, and included military hardware, modes of transport and racing cars. The packs tended to be priced so that children could collect new packs by saving pocket money for a few weeks.
The original Top Trumps were launched in 1977, with eleven different packs published by a company named Dubreq. Dubreq was also known for the Stylophone. Dubreq was taken over by Waddingtons in 1982, and they continued manufacturing packs until the early 1990s. The packs from this period are now collectible.[2]

The game having been relaunched in 1999 with new packs by a new company, the same mode of play is available.

It sounds to me like you were playing Car Wars: The Card Game. Luckily for you, I doubt there are too many games in the "car battle" genre so your choices are fairly limited. Here's the description from the BoardGameGeek site:

From the Steve Jackson Games website and the Car Wars: The Card Game rulebook...
Car Wars: The Card Game is the game of car-to-car combat. In the near future, combat between armed and armored cars will be an arena sport. You shoot at the other cars, trying to destroy their tires and armor. The last player with an operating car is the winner!
In each battle, or duel, the players play cards to damage each others' cars. When one side of a player's car is breached (the armor on that side is destroyed), the car's driver may be attacked! If a car's driver is disabled and unable to operate his car, the player who disabled him scores a kill. (Note that the driver will be back for the next duel! Only the car is killed.) When only one car is left (or when time runs out), the duel is over. New duels continue until one player has scored 60 points to become an Ace!
This game can be played by 2 to 6 players, ages 10 and up.
This game is fully compatible with Battle Cattle: The Card Game! Combine the two... take your hot rod out to the pasture and go gunning for Bossy... but remember, Bossy shoots back!
Part of the Car Wars Series.

I have not played or even thought about that game in over 2 decades. Thanks for the memories.

The CW Card Game was essentially Naval War, not Top Trumps. Its not got a comparison step.


text:
In Takenoko, when rain falls on a segment that has the fertilizer improvement, how much does the bamboo grow?
In Takenoko, rain specifically causes a selected segment to gain one piece of bamboo - but the fertilizer improvement doubles growth. So how much growth occurs as a result of rainfall on an irrigated segment with the fertilizer improvement?

NB: There is no Takenoko tag and I don't have enough reputation to create one.

This is covered in the official FAQ: http://www.jybe.ch/faq/takenoko_faq_eng.pdf

If the target plot carries a fertilizer improvement, 2 bamboo sections
  are added to the plot.


text:
After being drawn into a gate during an Encounter, do you have an Other World encounter in the same turn?
The encounter phase is split into two, 1st the locations, then the otherworlds. So you do all the locations, then after that you do all the otherworlds.
So, if you are drawn through the a gate in the Arkham Encounter phase, do you also draw a 2nd otherworld encounter card?

How embarrasing - the duplicate question is one that I asked a while ago

Yes.
Arkham Horror rules (page 10) says your character gets delayed after being sucked be a gate. Beign delayed means that in the next turn, during the movement phase, the only thing you do is to stand your character token (page 16). Nothing else is affected, so you should have your other world encounter.

For reference, below is the wrong answer I wrote before @Jefromi commented it.

No, although I'm unaware of any specific ruling about this.
Arkham Horror rules (page 10) says your character gets delayed after being sucked be a gate. Beign delayed means that in the next turn, during the movement phase, the only thing you do is to stand you character token (page 16). Nothing else is affected, so you should have your other world encounter.
But the FAQ (page 4) says:

Q: Why is an investigator delayed when a gate opens up in their
  location, but not delayed if he enters the gate normally?
A: If the investigator was not delayed by a gate opening up in his
  location, he would be able to get through the Other World having only
  one Other World Encounter rather than two.

So it seems that an investigators sucked through a gate should have exactly two Other World encounters. Should you have an Other World encounter this turn, next turn you'd stand your character marker, have an encounter in the first Other World position, then in the following turn you'd move to the second position to have a third encounter. This seems to contradict what is suggested in the FAQ. In this situation, the only thing that you can do to avoid violating more specific rules is to not have an Other World encounter when you're sucked by a portal during an encounter.

So, according to the rules, you are delayed and you should have an otherworldly encounter. There's a FAQ which says "you're delayed so that you'll have two instead of one". You've taken this to mean when you would have three, you're still delayed but arbitrarily skip one of them, but you could just as easily take it to mean that you aren't delayed if you get drawn through during Arkham encounters. (The much more common case is being drawn through during mythos, when being delayed indeed does cause you to have two instead of one.)

In any case, based on what's actually in the rules, you definitely have three encounters. Anything else (skipping an encounter or skipping being delayed) seems to definitely be house rules.

@Jefromi, you're right indeed! Clearly the FAQ isn't specific about the encounters phase. I'll fix the answer.


text:
Curse die rolls by dead taoists
In Ghost Stories you can exorcise two ghosts at once if you are on a corner and there is a ghost on each space adjacent to you. I played a game where I successfully exorcised both of these ghosts but then had to roll the curse die for each of them. The first roll of the curse die caused me to lose a Qi which killed me. Do I still roll the second curse die? If it again comes up that I lose a Qi, what happens?
If I am already dead and there are ghosts on my board that cause me to roll the curse die on the Yin phase and I have to lose a Qi, what happens?

Well, the situation of dying with an unresolved Curse die isn't addressed specifically in the rulebook, but your second question is!
From page 7 in the rulebook, under "Death of a Taoist"

His board becomes possessed (see neutral board below) and the ghosts occupying
  it continue to act, despite the Taoist’s death. The steps 1 & 2 of the Yin phase must
  be played. The other players will have to suffer the effects and consequences of
  the ghosts on this board.

From page 10 in the rulebook, under "Possessed Board"

A neutral board that has lost all Qi tokens
  is called "a possessed board", Its specific
  power cannot be used anymore through
  neutral power tokens.
  Any further loss of Qi points (i.e. board
  overrun or tormentor) must be endured by a player of your choice (the green
  Taoist’s power is ineffective if Qi loss is due to the curse die).

So if a player is dead and a curse die roll triggered by a ghost on the dead player's board causes a loss of 1 Qi, somebody else has to lose the Qi. Whether that somebody else must be decided before or after the roll is made is unclear. I would apply this ruling to the situation you present in your first question as well, the game doesn't want someone to weasel out of a curse die roll!


text:
Is Dungeon! biased towards the Cleric?
My group of friends have now played almost a few dozen games of Dungeon! and we have consistently noticed that the Cleric wins.

The Cleric has a target of 10,000 and works very well across all levels till level 4.
The Rogue has a small target too, but it cannot perform very well beyond level 3.
The Fighter has a larger target of 20,000, but can perform as well as the Cleric (till about level 4). It gets difficult in level 5 or 6.
The Wizard has a very high target of 30,000, so its best bet is level 5 or 6 to gain a lot of treasure very fast.

So I am not sure if the game is biased towards the Cleric - any thoughts?

I have not crunched any numbers for "proof" but experience and a quick sort through the monster deck would tend to support your supposition.
Rogue hit numbers are notably lower than the Cleric's and their secret doors special power is not good enough to compensate, especially given that it's not reliable and can be replicated with certain treasure cards.
Fighter hit numbers are only notably higher than the Cleric on low-level monsters. So it's more a case of being more reliable than really adventuring at higher levels. That doesn't seem a good enough trade off for the extra 10k gold.
Wizards can do much better than Clerics, but it's a crapshoot: draw monsters that happen to be vulnerable to your spell selection and you'll win easily. Don't, and you're monster bait.
But to be honest, you don't play Dungeon for the sort of strategic gameplay where balance is important. You play it for laughs, for stories and for being about the only family-friendly boardgame with an unashamedly geeky theme.

Only?  I don't even think this would make my top 10 of family games with a geeky theme.

How about let's impose a constraint: only Rogue gets to play in 1, others cannot. Only Cleric and Rogue are allowed in 2. Anyway None of the other characters have much to do in 5 or 6, maybe fighter has some hard choices in 5, 6 is almost impossible for others. How does that sound?

We have just played 5 games back-to-back, and were looking for a reason why the cleric sucked.  He consistently lost with the exception of the game where the two clerics went head-to-head and one of them got double-sixed on the retaliation. The rogue and the hero fare much better in combat...and the wizards spells (provided he get a decent roll) are uber!

Very interesting! But when you say head to head - what do you mean? I never really felt there is a sense of opposition, although there is a sense of competition.

According to this review of the game if you have a fighter go straight to level 4 and stay there, they tend to win more often.
In our 4 games we have played so far, with 6 players, the wizard won once, the cleric won twice, and the fighter won once.

there you go! :)


text:
What is needed to play X-wing with 4 players?
I've heard that we can play X-wing with 4 players. Does anyone know if this requires an expansion, or is it perhaps a house rule?

The game is structured such that there are shared turn phases.  Everyone's moves happen in a single phase and the order is determined by model statistics.  Then everyone's shooting happens in a single phase and the order is determined by model statistics.  You can basically add as many people to that system as you like and they just take their actions in order based on their model's stats.
To play in two teams of two all you need is to own enough models so that each team member has enough to control that the game is interesting.
To play in a free-for-all with more than two players the only house rule required would be determining the tie-breaker for who goes first when two models have tied statistics.  (In the two player game it is always Imperials have the initiative if all other checks are tied, so if there are "imperial" players who are enemies you need a system to break the tie.)

To illustrate this, TableTop just had a 4 player episode of X-Wing using 2 teams of 2. You can watch it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mxPFHBCfuU

My experience with trying 2v2 has been it generally plays out as  2 1v1s with an occasional potshot taken at the other enemy when you mess up a maneuver and happen to end up with them in your sights.  But we are not particularly competitive players :)

This is in the core rules; you need enough expansions that there is at least one ship per player:

Team Play Rules
Although a game of X-Wing always consists of two sides, the Rebellion and the Empire, it is possible to play the game with more than two players. To play with
more than two players, the players divide themselves as equally as possible into teams. One team plays the Rebellion while the other team plays the Empire.
It is recommended that players use the squad building rules when playing with teams (see page 18). Each team receives the same number of squad points regardless of the number of players on that team.
Each player takes ownership over a number of ships on his team, as agreed on by the other players on his team. Each player plans maneuvers for his own ships
and makes all decisions for his actions and attacks.  Abilities that affect ships belonging to the same team (for example “Biggs Darklighter’s” ability) affect all ships on that team, regardless of who the owner is.
Players win (and lose) together as a team. It is possible for all of one player’s ships to be destroyed, but for his team to win if his teammate manages to destroy all of the opposing team’s ships.

Alternatively, you can have the team just manage the ships on their side together, though this is technically a house rule.
I'd caution against trying a free for all (which is not officially supported in the rules but is easy to house rule).  In a free for all, due to the deadliness of combat, the player who wins is the one who is able to avoid other ships the longest rather than the one who is able to attack the best.  This creates a perverse incentive to avoid confrontation, making the game a lot less fun.

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


text:
When retreating from a compromised territory should you always leave one infantry?
In his seminal essays, Don Rae suggests that a retreating player always leaves one infantry in the territory she is retreating from:

Retreat and regroup when faced with overwhelming odds against your forces, always leaving at least one infantry defending in a territory - give them NOTHING for free.

I agree this advise makes sense if the opponent has tanks adjacent to the territory you are retreating from and can capture two territories in one turn, or reach an otherwise un- or under-defended territory through the vacated territory, but that aside, why does it make sense to leave one infantry in a territory you're retreating from?
In other words, if you know your enemy will attack (and conquer) a territory whether you have one infantry in it or not, why would you leave one in there? That's one less infantry you have to help defend the territory you just retreated to.

In answer to your subquestion of "why does it make sense to leave one infantry in a territory you're retreating from?"
The core of the analysis around this hinges on the assumption that you will be trading back and forth over the contested territory with small numbers of units- that you have a large, constantly growing stack in A, your opponent has a large, constantly growing stack in C, and you keep trading off B between the two territories with as small stacks as you can manage. Each player has a steady supply chain providing new troops from the factory. The reason why you do this is because if you move your large stack into the territory, it will be missing the current turn's set of reinforcements, and be unable to use your planes for defense, and your opponent can attack with their whole stack and use all their planes for offense. This is the whole idea of Dead Zones. You want to control them because they're worth IPCs, but with as few units as possible because those units will be destroyed by a counterattack next turn.
So why leave a lone infantry there? Because if it's empty, your opponent can take it with the bare minimum of units, and their planes are free to attack elsewhere. If it isn't, they are forced to commit some of their planes to it, and it's economically in their interest to send 2 infantry. Even if that is a good trade for him (you will lose your 1 infantry for only a 33% chance of killing one of his) the next turn, you will be able to kill both his infantry, an even better trade for you!
So then what about the title question: Should you always leave one infantry?
No. Almost always, but not always. If your opponent will move in with his whole stack next turn (because it's big enough that yours is no longer a threat) the lone infantry is no longer economically in your favor. You will be trading an infantry for a 33% chance to kill an infantry, which is not effective. You might still do it to prevent a blitz but it's no longer automatically good.
Also, if the territory is only worth 1IPC. Generally, the territories you have these big-stack standoffs over are worth more than 1, so this doesn't come up. For a 1IPC territory, it no longer makes your opponent want to send in 2 infantry. The expected value for him attacking your lone infantry with 1 infantry + 1 fighter will be approximately 7/6, while the value he'll get from just waltzing into the territory uncontested will be 6/6. You might still do it to block a blitz or just to force the opportunity cost of him using his planes. But if he has more planes than he knows what to do with and no blitz threat, you wouldn't want leave the guy there.

Yes, never leave a territory undefended
I never leave a territory undefended if my enemy is in attacking range. A single infantry can capture an undefended territory, think of what risk and reward this exposes them to:

-3 IPCs: they might lose the unit if you counter-attack (this is pretty much the worst that can happen to them, as the value of a single infantry elsewhere on the board is likely not as large as the benefit they're about to get by taking this territory from you)
+1 IPCs: they might get a hit when you try and take it (this is their worst case: only one round of combat killing on of your infantry. If you're dumb enough to attack without cannon fodder or if you go in too light and it takes multiple turns this expected value goes up.)
+1 (or more) IPCs: the income from the territory that turn and any future turns until you take it back
+? IPCs: how many IPCs in units it will cost you to take it back (see below)
priceless: the opportunity cost of what you're not going to be able to attack with the next turn because they are not going to leave it undefended.

Now think of what it takes to capture a territory defended by only 1 infantry:

If you attack with just 1 infantry you're likely to completely fail, mutual destruction is also quite likely--in which case they still own the territory.
If you attack with 2 infantry, you still only have about a 60 percent change of taking the territory, and even then with some risk of losing one of your units.
If you use armor, then you're likely to win but leave it in a dead zone. Armor should be treated like fine China: bring it out to impress, but don't put it in harm's way.
Your best option is to use airpower, but now we're back to opportunity cost. A fighter that spends it's attack taking back border countries you never should have given away could have been used in a land attack, a naval attack, or just moved into a better position on the board.

So the lesson is when you realize one of your territories is a dead zone, don't abandon it. Leave one infantry there and force your opponent to decide how much he's willing to devote to take it back.
If your enemy presents you with an open territory take it. If you don't have an infantry on your front lines territory (for shame), then blitz in and out with a tank just to get the free IPCs. But unless it's worth more than 5 IPCs don't leave a tank there by itself.

what if you are 99% certain your enemy will attack the territory with everything she has, not just 1 or 2 infantry or a tank or whatnot?

@Scott: then it would probably depend on the rest of the board and I won't say I'd never do it, but I'd still be inclined to leave an infantry behind. The reason is that I'm always wary of an open territory giving my opponents options. Perhaps they can now blitz through the territory I left open and throw everything they've got against an adjacent territory instead--something they perhaps can't afford in they have to siphon off a few units and actually attack both. Perhaps this enables them to just blitz into it to get the IPCs and delay their attack one more turn to gather reinforcements.

My question is should you always leave an infantry in a territory you are retreating from? It seems to me that if you are positive your opponent will attack with full force and there is not the threat of a blitz or other attack, then it makes no sense to sacrifice that poor infantry.

@Scott: Always is a hard thing to say about boardgame strategy because it rejects the notion of corner cases. It's much more instructive to use heuristics and realize that if gaming was all about inflexible rules then computers would be better at it than they are. I'm highly unlikely to ever leave something unoccupied for the reasons discussed above. I'm hard-pressed to imagine the particular set of circumstances you've described manifesting very often, and if they did I'd be wary that my assessment of the board was correct. I say better to risk the one unit on the off-chance you're wrong.

Ordinarily, I'd say, leave one infantry in the country. But if it is about to be attacked by overwhelming force, them it might make sense to pull it out.
One reason is to establish a "line of retreat." That is, you, as the UK, pull forces out of India in the early going to have an infantry in Persia, one in Syria, all the way to Egypt.
And the other thing to think about is that the opponent who concentrated the overwhelming force may be doing so as a bluff, planning to move heavily in another direction, and glad to get a "free" territory for one infantry.


text:
Do Fortification Discs Double VPs like Town Discs?
I just played my first game of A Few Acres of Snow (late to the party, I know). And the end game scoring confused me just a little. The rules state that VPs for locations are doubled if there is a disc placed there...but both towns (from Development actions) and fortifications (from Fortify actions) place discs.
Do the black fortification discs double the score of locations at end of game?
My feeling is no, but I can't find a specific rule or clarification on BGG. Anyone here know for sure?

No, Fortification discs do not double VP for locations.
You are misunderstanding the rules. When one of the ending conditions has been met, players total the points they have scored. Locations that you control score double the VP indicated on the map if you have a town disc instead of a village cube on the location to indicate control. The "If you have a disc in a location" phrase was in reference to "control" of the location which is indicated by a blue/red disc and not a fortification.

Each player now adds up the number of victory points he has. You score points as indicated for locations that you control, i.e. that you have a cube or disc in. If you have a disc in a location then you score double the number of points indicated.
You also score two points for each of your opponents cubes that you captured and four points for each disc you captured.
The player who has the highest total of victory points is the winner. In the case of a tie then the French player is the winner.

Under The Board section is a picture indicating that the hexagonal symbol with a number in it scores Victory Points at the end of the game. (Page 4 pdf, labeled page 2 IRL)

Victory points scored at the end of the game. You double the points if you have a town disc in the location.

Fortification discs do not indicate control of an area. What they do is explained on (page 3)

Fortify a location
To fortify a location you must play a fortification card and the location card for the location you wish to fortify. You must also pay three money to the bank. You then place a fortification disc under the cube or disc in the location. A location can only have one fortification disc in it. A fortified location starts a siege with an additional siege strength of two, and is also immune to raids. The number of fortification discs is a limit to the number of times this action can be selected. Note that if you had just resettled a location you could fortify it within the same turn.

Finally, under Starting the Game (page 6), they indicate how you control a location.

Each player starts with a number of cubes and discs on the board, which represent settled locations. Cubes represent villages and discs represent towns. Certain locations are already coloured red and blue, to indicate which side they are initially controlled by.
The British player should place one cube in each red square location and one disc in each red circular location. The French player should do likewise in each blue location. Having a cube or disc in a location indicates that you control it.

This is correct. Another piece of related evidence to support it is that you don't keep enemy fortification discs when you take over a location. But you do keep enemy town discs, and score them.

Actually, this quotes the section of the rules that caused the confusion. He writes an answer that supports my understanding of the rules, but still offers no evidence. Fortifications place discs on locations. What I was looking for was an FAQ or rules reference saying, "if you have a village cube score the points indicated, or double that if you have a town disc there" - something that specifically excluded fortification discs from the VP doubling.

@gomad, I elaborated further on what "control" of a location means, and that fortification discs do not indicate control of a location. Does that make the reading of the scoring section clearer?

@gomand, while The Board section of the rules doesn't explicitly exclude Fortification discs, it doesn't include them when indicating that town discs couple the VP. (This indicates that the doubling only applies to town discs on the location since a village cube you scores the VP indicated. This matches the scoring sections "for locations you control" wording.)

"Victory points scored at the end of the game. You double the points if you have a town disc in the location." PERFECT - that's what I was looking for! I would like to give another day before accepting your answer, but it's not like there looks to be a flood of competing answers...

Ummm...I just said I would like to give it another day before accepting...I did +1 now, but I hate too-quick-on-the-draw accepting...


text:
Evaluating an opponent in a game you're familiar with?
I love playing some of the old Avalon Hill games like PanzerBlitz and Midway (1964 edition) (I have the 1991 edition as well, but haven't played it much).
In PanzerBlitz, there are generally two approaches that work well: the widely-spaced unit approach and the heavy stacks approach. However, picking which method to use seems highly biased on how the other player will operate (ie, you've played against them several times and have gained an understanding of their tactical methods).
Likewise in Midway, there are only a couple viable options for the Japanese player - come on full strength, or spread way out and converge from multiple angles from their entry side.
Many other games follow in these two examples' footsteps: what is the best way to gain an understanding of a particular opponent before playing a game with them? Or, asked another way, how can you quickly change your playing methodology based on your opponent?

I wouldn't say that's asked another way, I'd say those are two different questions. The first is a pretty meta question about how to read people, the second is about how to adapt gameplay. Are you looking for answers to both?

@Adam Wuerl - the question is how to read people so you can play more effectively against them

Got it. I'll think on it and share any insights.

Reading people like this is something that takes years of practice and experience.  there are no easy answers.  However, to get you started, here's something:
One common personality trait that distinguishes people, fairly 50/50, is risk-aversion.
In such a game as you describe, ask yourself which of two strategies is more based on chance.
More risk averse people will choose a strategy that minimizes chance (variance), even at the expense of overall win percentage.  For example, in a dice game, a certain strategy might win only 40% of the time, but the decision of win/lose is more based on a player's positioning than the rolls of the dice.  Likewise, the 60% winning strategy can lose spectacularly, if lady luck isn't on the gambler's side.
In such a situation, a risk-averse personality will choose the 40% strategy more often because in the case of a win or lose, they can 'blame' themselves instead of luck, and a win feels more sweet, and a loss doesn't feel uncontrolled.
Determining risk-aversion is fairly simple before the game starts.  Everything from dress to occupation to speech patterns can betray one's temperament.  Salesmen tend to be gamblers, accountants risk-averse.  Suits: risk-averse. Flashy or colorful clothes: gamblers.  Tentative soft speakers: risk averse.  Loud, fast, highly social speakers, gamblers.
Enjoy!

I haven't played those particular games, nor do I often play games like them, but here's what I say is the crucial temperamental divide I look out for in players even as I'm sitting down at the table with them: competitive versus cooperative players.
A competitive player is likely, though not guaranteed, to be loud, brash, and immediately vociferously concerned with their chances of winning the game at hand.  If they have you pegged as one of the good players at the table, they may well be trying to needle or intimidate you already, to gauge your capabilities or gain some kind of psychological advantage.  (Some competitive players, however, are just quiet and observant, watching everything like a hawk until they can go in for the kill.  These are the most dangerous ones.)
A cooperative player - for want of a better term - is much more likely, in the course of the game, to pursue their own, non-confrontational strategy in an attempt to get a handle on, or just master, the rules.  If you know the game better than they do, it's quite likely that you'll beat them (at least this time), because they won't get in the way of your completing your own diabolical masterplan.
The competitive players are a different kettle of fish.  You can guarantee that, as soon as they see your strategy start to pay off, they'll attack you with all the force they can muster.  It can be a good idea not to appear too obviously "in the lead" at a table with a competitive player.  They're quite likely to try to destroy your chances of victory even at the cost of their own - propelling one of the diligent, plodding cooperative players into first place.  You have to play much more defensively with these guys on your case - leaving yourself wide open is almost always a mistake!
Of course you may be lucky, there may be two loudly competitive "alpha male" gamers at your table, in which case you can let them show off against each other while you pull steadily towards the win.  Just make sure they don't ally against you - that is the worst of all possible worlds!

Games are a microcosm of life, and sometimes "art imitates life." I will use some examples from bridge, one of my "better" games.
There is a person at my table who always wants a better result than she "deserves" (based on the cards that she and her partner are holding). Is it any surprise that she overreaches in "real life"?
Others will underbid or underplay based on the cards that they hold. Such people don't seem to know the value of what they hold, and may be too timid in life as well.
Then, of course, there is always the MANNER in which people play. That's not supposed to happen at a bridge table, at least in "serious" bridge, but it crops up all the time in casual play. Some people are overbearing in the way the bid and play. Others seem to be overly detached.
Over time, you'll get to know a lot of people playing bridge. While some play "professionally" (close to the vest) the majority will reveal themselves by how they bid and play.

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


text:
Evaluating tactical situations in Puerto Rico
I've been playing a bit of Puerto Rico against computers (AIs) lately. I'm doing quite well against the easier AIs so I think my overall gameplay isn't so bad but I've realized that I still have problems evaluating some situations from a tactical point of view.

Captain and Trader do not offer much choice so their direct effects are quite easy to predict. Still I find that I rarely consider what's beyond the Trader or Captain. Is that a mistake? What should I look for?
Mayor and Craftsman are relatively straightforward too. Mayor often leads to Craftsman and Craftsman generally results in Trader and/or Captain. So my thinking is: "Do I benefit from Craftsman enough if I pick Mayor now?" and "Do I get to ship/trade enough if I pick Craftsman now?" I don't think it is feasible to think much further but I welcome suggestions...
Settler and Builder are more difficult for me however. They are the most unpredictable element of the game IMO. I usually just think if I need/want a building or plantation and if there's nothing more pressing among the other options then I just go for it. What should I look for when evaluating the benefits of these roles?

Of course with enough time you could thoroughly evaluate every option for your own move and the next one but that would quickly lead to analysis-paralysis. So what can be done in reasonable amounts of time? Are there any kinds of tools to help in training this, aside from playing full games?

My simple motto for playing PR is "What do I get over and above the others, and what are they almost certainly going to play during this round that I will also benefit from.". By weighing up these two factors, you should be able find a pretty solid tactical choices. You can then carry out your chosen strategy, which for me is always about a good balance of goods and buildings.

The comments mostly echo what I'm currently doing. I think my problem was that the Settler and Builder seem so much less complex to evaluate than the others that I feared there might be some important detail I overlooked. But it seems there isn't and I've been doing it mostly right. Of course there's lots of stuff that still slips past me. So thanks for pointing it out!

Captain: I would argue that this is actually the most complicated role in the game. If calculating its effects seems easy to you, then Captain might be getting chosen too often in your games. In the group that I play with, it is usually not cut and dry...ie...not all goods will be shipped.
When that happens, so many things come into play:

Which of my opponents is likely to
captain if I don't?
Will I still be able to ship all my
goods if they captain instead?
Can I force someone else into loading
a coffee or tobacco boat when they
would rather not?
Will the other players in the game
understand and silently collude to
make that happen?
Can I start a coffee or tobacco boat mid/late game to block my indigo and corn shipping opponents?
Who has harbors, and how many times
will they get to ship?
How full is each boat and will the
other players get to ship what they
want?
What about warehouses?
How will the leftovers affect the
next trader phase?
If I delay captaining now, will the
next craftsman cause a shortage of
goods (ie. the supply will run out)?
Will the players with factories be
affected by the shortage (and get
shortchanged on doubloons)?

Trader:

If trader is a great move for me now,
then it's likely that other players
won't want to take it. I can wait a
turn and it will have accumulated an
extra doubloon.
If I don't trade, will I still get to
if someone else trades (often the
answer is yes).
What goods are players left with
after a trade and who will be set up
well for the next trade?

Mayor: the other responses in this thread make good suggestions about mayor.

Look for a big gap in benefit
(getting 3 colonists vs. 1
colonists).
Do other players want me to mayor? If
I've got early production (corn and
indigo), and they are sitting on
coffee and tobacco with unmanned
production facilities - there is
almost no way I would ever choose
mayor. Force them to choose mayor, so
it will delay their craftsman by a
whole rotation.

Craftsman - Many of the considerations are actually covered in the Captain section. But also:

The benefit of taking craftsman is
only one extra good, which is not
that significant most of the time.
When you take it, you are setting up
all the other players to have huge
moves on the subsequent turns, while
you are in the worst position.
If you don't craft, will you get shut
out because of good shortages?
Do you have a factory? Do not craft
just so you can get your extra
doubloons. Someone else will craft,
and you will still get them.

Settler: I try to always take it in the first two or three rounds if I can get a quarry. After that, it feels like the turn you give up to take it is almost always a waste. You'll usually be able to get what you want anyway when someone else chooses settler. If your strategy depends on getting a specific mix of plantations, then you might want to reconsider how you play the game. Which plantations come out is the only element of chance in Puerto Rico, why put yourself at the mercy of it?
Builder: Most of the time I feel like this is one of the easier roles. I usually only take it if:

I can build and my opponents cannot.
Passing will give an opponent the
chance to buy the last of a
particular building that is crucial
to my own strategy.
The 1 doubloon discount will enable
me to buy a key building one or two
rounds earlier than if I let someone
else take it. (although as mentioned by Lance, you might be able to get this doubloon some other way on this turn - often by taking another role with a doubloon bonus already on it)
It is mid/late game and I am trying
to end the game by filling up all of
my building spaces

.

Great answer!  The one thing missing is a discussion of how turn order can affect the choices.  One example - if the Governor Captains, for the player to his left (IE, the next Governor) Craftsman becomes a much stronger choice.

Thanks guys! That's a good point Pat though I'm not sure what hard/fast things I can say about turn order...as it seems to be pretty situational. In your example, I assume that the player after the governor is probably going after a shipping strategy? If so, then I agree - it becomes stronger.

Maybe a good generalization is to watch for situations like you described, where the choice made by the governor (when you act immediately after the governor) "protects" you...because you can select a role now that would set you up for next round, knowing that whatever the governor chose cannot be taken by anyone else till it is your turn again.

When someone chooses Builder should I always build something or is it ok to save up for something bigger?

Sorry for the insanely late reply Kempeth. It's definitely situational, but look out for situations when you know you want a particular big building, but you can still afford a small one now AND the big one next turn (because there will be a trade, or your factory will kick in, or you will select a role that gives you enough doubloons). Also, if you have a few quarries, you should lean towards trying to build as often as possible (which might include a few small buildings you won't actually use) so that you can take full advantage of the free money.

Captain is often a tool used in the beginning to have someone have to ship their valuable resource, so that they can't trade it.  It's why you don't want to just go and produce one valuable resource, because if you can't protect it with other goods, then it will become shipbound.
Trader get's pulled sometimes because it has money on it and you want to deprive the guy who can really use it, the extra cash.
Mayor you'd generally pull if you need men and nothing else is pressing.  I like to pull it more when it's unbalanced, so there's more colonist profit relative to the others.
Settler is the best first pull, to get a quarry going early.  After that it's more strategy dependent.  The first two quarries you have are the most valuable, with value declining as you get more.  Settler of course is a really good pull with a hacienda strategy, since when you pull quarries you still get a plantation, and once you've filled up your island you can take the man off of the hacienda and put him somewhere else useful.
Builder is usually just based on having enough to buy the building you need next, though sometimes you pull it to deprive someone else of getting the big building that they're only one doubloon away from.
Craftsman is the crux of the game, and Craftsman fear the biggest factor.
You might want to read this great strategy guide.  It's the best one I've ever seen, and it's principles actually apply to a lot of games.

I'm not expert, but the biggest thing I've found with choosing roles is to figure out the consequences of other people choosing them and you not getting them.
Captain: Look at what goods everyone has and who will benefit most from picking it. If you forgo the captain and the next person takes it, how large will the change in your victory points be? If you're both sitting on 5 barrels of corn, you want to make sure you load first, because otherwise you probably won't get to load much and may even face heavy spoilage. Like Mr. Roberts said, also look at forcing other players to ship goods they'd rather trade, like coffee and tobacco.
Trader: Look at who has what to sell. If you can get some nice cash by selling tobacco or coffee AND screw over anyone else who might want to sell that too, then this is probably a good choice. (presuming they don't have an office, in which case it won't make a difference)
Mayor: Look at how many colonists the picker of the mayor gets vs. everybody else. If the number of colonists on the colonist ship is the same as the number of players, picking the mayor will give you only a 1 colonist bonus over everyone else. If there's more, you may be looking at a 2 colonist bonus over the player to your right, making it more attractive for you. Also consider what things are on your island you want to get into operation as soon as possible so you can use them in the appropriate phase.
Craftsman and Builder: Unless there's a shortage of goods or desirable buildings, I often try to make other people pick these as the bonus for doing so is fairly small. Getting goods or buildings doesn't matter much, usually what's important is who gets to use them, which involves picking other roles. Are you setting up the next person for an amazing captain or trader phase by producing now? Can you earn the 1 doubloon bonus from picking the builder some other way? As I said, if you really need the advantage of producing first or building first, that changes things.
Settler: Look at the available plantations and who would get what. If you really want one of the plantations and there's only one of it, chances are you won't get it if you don't pick settler yourself. If you don't plan on building a construction hut and want some quarries (which are always awesome to have), the only way you're going to get them is if you pick the settlers.
Obviously there are a few other factors that come into play, the biggest being the amount of doubloon on each different role, but I think its affects are pretty self-explanatory, with the same ideas of trying to get the best advantage possible while denying other players the optimal choices. Number of players, buildings and plantations on your and other players' islands, position of the governor marker, number of each plantation and building left in the supply, and time 'til endgame all come into play as well, but to keep this post from getting to long I'll omit those for now. :D

So what can be done in reasonable amounts of time?

If time is a constraint, just try not to think too deeply. Its very easy to spend 5 minutes analyzing every possible move and consequence as all hardcore PR players know. Just look at your options, figure out the pros and cons, keep your future turn simulations short, and try not to second and third guess yourself. When in doubt, go with your gut.

Are there any kind of tools to help training this aside from full games?

Not specifically for PR that I know of, but if you find anything I'd be very interested in hearing about it. :D

About training tools. I didn't expect there to be one but it was worth a shot to ask. I'm currently training on tropiceuro.com in case you want to check it out.

The best thing you can do is move from playing against AI and play real people.  If access to other players in your area is a problem there are free on-line sites (I play on 2 boardgamearena.com) where you can play live or turn based against real people.
In terms of tactics, you must tie them to a strategy.  The best general strategy that I read somewhere on-line and which has served me pretty well (when I stick to it) is that the first half of the game should be focused on securing a method of funding.  That can be factory, trading, or relying on the doubloons on the roles.  It also can mean loading up on quarries.  Most people on here are pointing to the very first round of roles and saying that the Settler role goes fast...in my group Settler is a backwater and builder goes first in order to get the Small Market for free or one Doubloon.  No one wants Settler for a while because they are already producing corn or getting their indigo production started.
Having spoken of strategy let me caveat that by saying your strategy usually has to stay fluid early on because depending on how many people are playing or what the person to your right's (especially) strategy is (i.e., they trade consistently) you may have to modify your play.  Two weeks ago I played an on-line game where the winner had only three producing plantations (one of which was coffee) but 4 quarries.  They went directly to building the large buildings and ended the game rapidly by filling all of their building spaces before anyone had a chance to produce and ship for many Victory Points.  I tried the same strategy in our live group and it worked the first game and failed miserably the next game because everyone saw where I was going and countered my strategy...and I failed to adapt to their changes quickly enough.
So you really want to play often and in many different situations and then you start to develop a sense of how to react to the game you are playing.  If you go in with a set strategy and tactics against decent players they will eat you alive.

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


text:
Categories of Board Gaming skill
How would you categorize gaming skill, based on your own talents, or those of people you know?  And what makes certain people good at those categories?
For one example, I've noticed I tend to win most games that involve a long series of calculations or tactical decisions, like Carcassonne and Bohnanza, but get beaten much more often at strategic games that require having firm goals in mind and lots of planning, like Puerto Rico and Race for the Galaxy - and I know people who are phenomenal at those games, and often, the same people are great at both.
Perhaps that qualifies me as a Tactician but not a Strategist?
Trading, psychology, and speed are other possible categories I can think of off the top of my head.

I would actually claim that Puerto Rico-type games require having not-too-firm goals in mind: you need to balance what you want to achieve, with playing with what the game plays into your hands. I have often lost because of having too rigid goals in mind :) Interesting question, by the way.

Voting to close this as primarily opinion based, since it does not meet the guidelines of good subjective questions. To paraphrase don't ask, the question as asked is not "a practical, answerable question based on actual problems that the asker faces" - it's just polling for extra views, with no specific correct answer possible. One of the types of questions to avoid is: "your answer is provided along with the question, and you expect more answers".

A list of categories of board game skills isn't something I've ever seen.  To actually come up with one, I think you have to first start by looking at research from the psychology field in relation to the different forms of IQ.  The theory of multiple intelligences that was created in 1983 by Howard Gardner breaks out different types of intelligence.  Gardner lists 8 different types of intelligence.
Depending on the type of game, I would say some of those intelligences come into play.  Certainly if you have bodily-kinesthetic intelligence and interpersonal intelligence, you would be more likely to be a shrewd trader in games like Settlers of Catan.  If you can read people's body language to tell they're bluffing, this is a huge leg in games like Poker.  On the other end of the spectrum, spatial intelligence would be incredibly important for games where board position is important.
There is also how much planning people do to consider.  Good chess players, look ahead at more possible moves then weaker chess players, and a similar ability to analyze future events would be a good thing to look at.  This gets into game theory and prefect play.  A players ability to practice this would be another big skill.
Speed would be another topic to consider.  Players who arrive at decisions faster would also be better at games where timing matters.  This could also affect games where timing may not immediately be apparent.  Being able to realize any deal another player is offering before the others players accept, would usually be beneficial.
Since research on psychology and artificial intelligence should also be considered, I personally don't feel qualified to give you an exhaustive list.  There is a book, Moves in Mind: The Psychology of Board Games you might be interested in if you really want to delve deeply into this topic.  There is current active research by psychologist and programmers for using games to develop different skills in participants that looks at this question from a different angle.

Promoting Broad and Stable Improvements in Low-Income Children’s Numerical Knowledge Through Playing Number Board Games
SIDES: a cooperative tabletop computer game for social skills development

There are likely to be several sophisticated models postulated here for categorizing gamers' attributes, but I've found a comically simple model that's proven accurate across a variety of games.
My model has two axes. The first is how quickly someone can learn a new game and rule set to become a competent player, where competent means they understand basic strategies, have discovered the obvious themes/patterns of successful game play, and don't make newbie blunders. The second is to what extent they are inwardly focused, where they spend their energy thinking about their moves and how to optimize them, versus outwardly focused, where they observe the play of others and actively tailor their strategy to exploit others weaknesses.
Let's examine each of the four extremes.

Quick-learning and inwardly focused I start here because this is my self-identified type. This person will often dominate whenever a new game is introduced to a group. They get the basics before anyone else and rip off a string of wins while everyone else is climbing up the learning curve. But then, as people become familiar with the game they'll slowly start winning less and less. Ultimately perhaps not winning very often at all in games that reward careful observation of other players (e.g. poker, chess, Dominion).
Slow-learning and inwardly focused this player is doomed to mediocrity. While they are still trying to grasp the rules and basic strategy the rest of their group has mastered the basics and is well into fine tuning and optimization. Early on, this player is at the mercy of the quick learners; later on they're at the mercy of everyone else, who have now not only learned how to play but have an edge because they adapt their play as the game unfolds.
Slow-learning and outwardly focused this player takes longer to come up to speed on a new game because they don't learn by trying to scheme based on the rules; this player spends their early games attempting to determine winning strategies by observing the play of others. They take a practical approach to learning, which results in early losses as they fumble for the winning formula but serves them well in the long run.
Fast-learning and outwardly focused good luck beating this person. They learn new games quickly and can scheme based on theory and observation. They start with a lead and adapt their play continuously to always stay one step ahead of the competition.

Importantly, I don't consider these traits immutable descriptions of a player. For example, I consider myself a fast learning and outwardly focused Axis and Allies player, but quick-learning and inwardly focused at Dominion. I'm always competitive at A&A, but after our third time playing have only sporadically won at Dominion. A&A has a static setup, fully public knowledge, and rewards good math skills and spatial reasoning. Dominion has reams of private knowledge and rewards understanding combinations and tailoring play to the random setup.
ICodeForCoffee's description of intelligence types and game genres is useful in understanding how this is possible; a person's innate learning type may enable them to quickly learn the rules to a counting and pattern recognition game like cribbage but prevent them from ever really being able to perform the mental probability calculations required by Axis and Allies. Or someone might dominate at chess, where all knowledge is public, but be unable to deal with the implications of private knowledge and encoded communication in a game like Hearts, Spades, or Bridge.

Something I think is important, mainly because I think it's the reason why I win more games than I lose, is adaptability.
The first, basic step in being good at boardgames is being able to get on top of, and not be confused by, the rules.  But just because you know all the rules doesn't mean you're out of the woods yet!  In my experience, a lot of players, having comprehended the rules, will locate what they think is a strong strategy and then repeatedly play that strategy.  And at first this will probably pay off.
A good boardgame, though, doesn't have a completely dominant strategy.  Any strategy should fall when met with an appropriately strong counter-strategy.  A bad player, when their strategy starts getting repeatedly thwarted, may blame bad luck for the sudden downturn in their fortunes.  (Actually, let me add this to my list of prime indicators of boardgaming talent: never blaming bad luck for a loss.  Always looking back for a way you could have turned the game in your favour is a much better sign.)
A great boardgames player not only quickly understands what is likely to be a strong strategy in a game, he is also able to see numerous other strong or potentially strong strategies at once.  When he loses, he will be able to understand what weaknesses of his strategy permitted it to be undermined; he will refactor his strategy accordingly or try out a new one in the next game.
A really strong player can see his strategy starting to be undermined as it happens and be able to switch to a different strategy mid-stream.  When you have a counter-strategy planned, or can quickly create one, for any possible counter-strategy to your strategy adopted by your opponent, then you are what I'd call truly "adaptable".  And I'm a little bit scared about the possibility of you joining my group and beating me lots!

To me there are two basic kinds (levels) of game-playing skill.
The first is what I call "technical" ability, that is a mastery of the rules, techniques, and principles of the game. A person high on this measure will be a "good" player that's hard to beat.
The second level is what I call "playing ability," the ability to study the play of one's opponents, relate it to "technical ability" (or lack thereof, as the case may be), and then devise strategies that will work particularly well against the other player. This is sometimes referred to as the ability to "play the (wo)man, and not the game." It is the "great" players that fall into this category.
The "late" World Chess Champion Jose R Capablanca had a habit of asking himself, "if I were my opponent, what plan would I adopt against [Capablanca]?" He would then devise a plan to quash his opponent's opportunities before the opponent himself knew they existed. Samuel Reshevsky apparently had the same talent.


text:
What can Protectorate do to counter Epic Haley's Feat?
So, I have a friend who plays Cygnar in Warmachine.  I play Protectorate, and he has been playing a LOT of Epic Haley.  Her feat basically makes you 1) Forfeit either an action or a movement and 2) He chooses the order your units activate in.
This causes me some problems, as the style of Protectorate I play is all about synergies and moving correctly.  I have been struggling against her for months now, and am trying to find some kind of strategy against her, whether that be play-style, units/casters, etc.

Really old question, but Haley2 has been tweaked in the last 8+ years. Haley's player no longer controls your turn: Choose d3+5 enemy models currently in Haley's control range. The chosen models must forfeit either their Normal Movement or Combat Action during their next activations. Temporal Shift lasts for one round. This would still be a good question how to set up to minimize it's impact, though.

It is incredibly obvious when this feat will be used. In competitive games it will most likely be turn 2 if the Cygnar player went first, or MAYBE turn 1 if you went first, so plan for it and know that your second turn will be spent largly doing nothing. Play that turn defensively, cast defensive spells and back up, or duck into terrain. Depending on your caster, you might be able to hide a significant portion of your force only to have it bust out of the trees the next round and deal maximum damage. Just don't let the Haley player bog you down. Insist that he pick which models activate in what order in a very timely fashion so that you can end your turn and be on to the next quickly.
If you make the Cygnar army unable to see your army he can't really capitalize on knowing that your next turn is going to be rubbish.

So, I have attempted to do all of that, but have been stymied by the whole "rush out of the trees" - would this be a good place for a caster like Vindictus with his speed and pathfinder boost?  Or is there a better caster I am not thinking of?


text:
What is a positional game in chess?
What does it mean to have a positional game, or to play a positional game?
What is the opposite?

“Tactics is knowing what to do when there is something to do.
  Strategy is knowing what to do when there is nothing to do.” – GM
  Savielly Tartakower (1887-1956)

In a tactical game, you calculate on (material) profit. In a positional game you perform careful actions to improve your position, without expecting large profit in the beginning.
In most cases a positional game ends in a situation with interesting tactical options.
The following are some (common sense) rules-of-thumb when playing a positional game:
  1. In an open game, a (good) bishop is usually a bit stronger than a knight. In a closed game, the action-radius of bishops is reduced and knights become stronger.
  2. A doubled pawn is especially weak when isolated from other pawns.
  3. Try to trade 'bad' pieces.
  4. Try to rule the center and do not allow your opponent to rule the center.
  5. Attack where you dominate or have more influence.
  6. When you have a spatial advantage, do not trade pieces needlessly so that your opponent continuously needs to rearrange his pieces.
  7. Ideally, your bishop and pawns are complementary. For instance, your bishop on a black field (g3) and your pawns on white (f3 or f5). This covers a maximum of fields.
  8. First investigate on tactics, for instance by searching for possible checks or checkmates.

Every position has both positional ("theory") aspects and tactical aspects.
Positional aspects would include the various imbalances in the position:  pawn structure, space, center control, knights-vs-bishops, and pretty much anything else that would generally fall under the category "theory".
Tactical aspects are just what they sound like:  tactics.  I move here, he moves here, and in 4 moves I win his bishop.

A positional game is one that is primarily dominated by positional aspects.  Of course, every game has aspects of both, but in positional games the theory is much more pronounced.  I hear the term "positional game" especially often in conjunction with a closed center - a game in which pawns occupy the center, so attacks have to be mounted on the flanks (sides of the board), usually with pawns rather than pieces.  These games tend to be slower and less intense; it is not uncommon for a player to spend half-a-dozen moves or more moving his knight to its optimal position before pushing a pawn one square.  Because of this, many players consider positional/closed-center games boring.
"Positional game" may also refer to a game where an early endgame was reached, causing most of the game to be dominated by endgame theory.

Tactical games, on the other hand, are dominated by tactics.  For example, see the Fried Liver Attack or the Danish Gambit, which always lead to very tactical games.

A positional game in chess is one where you try to control the territory on the board.  Positional players develop pieces and go for king safety early, play for good pawn structure, and pay attention to how many squares their pieces control on the board.
The opposite of a positional game is a tactical game.

A positional game is one in which you try to go for a better position, specifically control of key squares, particularly close to the center, or in the vicinity of the enemy king. You often do this at the expense of other considerations in the game such as material.
Perhaps the best example is the queens gambit. White offers black a queen bishop pawn (and some tactical chances). If black accepts the pawn, white is likely to get a stronger center and the king side. A century ago, it was considered bad for black to give white these positional advantages, but modern, particularly Russian players, have demonstrated that the material and tactical chances compensate for white's better position.
Another example is when you exchange a bishop for a knight to "double" your opponent's pawns. Inflicting doubled pawns is a positional advantage, but some masters considered trading a bishop for a knight as "giving up the minor exchange" (on the theory that bishops were worth more than knights.)

In a positional game, the pieces remain in the game longer than tactical games and the middle-game is the dominant part of the game.
Generally speaking, Positional players are more inclined to finish their games as a draw.
there are balanced advantages in the position: if one player controls the center, the other one might have possession of a Column with heavy pieces.


text:
Ticket to Ride Strategies
Hey!  A few of my friends have gotten into ticket to ride, and we've been trying to determine a few strategies - obviously there's the build long trains and ignore tickets, or just accumulate a lot of tickets.  But what are some of your other favorite TTR strategies?

This seems to me to be purely subjective: there's a specific mention in the FAQ warning against this type of question. every answer is equally valid: "What's your favorite ______?"

Finish your routes, prevent others from completing theirs
Ticket to Ride doesn't strike me as a strategy-heavy game.  It's all about making good tactical decisions - completing your tickets in light of random card draws and other players' actions.  Remember that unfinished tickets count for negative points at the end of the game.  My basic gameplay goes like this:

Choose tickets I think I can finish.  The big routes are much harder to complete in a 4- or 5-player game.
If possible, avoid telegraphing where my routes are going.  Others can block you easily if they know you need a certain leg.  That leads directly into...
Claim the critical legs first.  If I need a one-train leg, get it as soon as I have the card.
If you can block, do it, but make it a good block.  Spending your turn solely to block probably only scores you a few points.  If that player then goes around your block, he scores more points and he still completes his route.  Not worth it.
Once my routes are done, decide if a new route(s) is worth the risk.  There's a chance you could pull all 20's, basically guaranteeing you won't win.  With fewer trains remaining, I think the better play is to go for long links of opportunity.  A six-train link is 15 points, even if it doesn't connect to anything else.

@Kriston on number 4, it's important to remember that you're only potentially scoring points against that one player, and doing the same for all of your other opponents while burning your turn. It pays sometimes, but not as often as folks would think.

@MatthewFrederick : it pays to block the routes of others if there is an obvious very long route just about to be completed by someone who seems to become the first, and you gave good chances to win if that other player was taken the first place away. Also, this might decide the fate of the 10 points for the longest continuous path.

@vsz Right, agreed. That's a perfect example of "It pays sometimes" in my comment above.

By your mention of "build long trains" I take it you're talking about the USA edition.  (The Nordic Countries edition, for example, doesn't have a longest route bonus, but a "most routes" bonus instead.)
Ticket to Ride USA is a pretty simple game, but there is still a reasonable depth of strategy.  One of my favourite tactics is: end the game early.  Keep a careful eye on how many trains are left in your pool.  Say you have 14 trains left: with the right cards you can play two 6-length routes, and that's the game ended.  Hopefully your opponents don't see it coming, and have a mitt full of unfulfilled destination cards that will score them big negative points - not to mention all the trains in their pool they now don't have time to play!
So yeah, that's my number one strategy recommendation: keep an eye on how quickly you can bring about the end of the game.  You certainly want to be in control of this if possible, rather than letting someone else dictate it!

I think "build the long trains" applies to all the TTR games - building a train of length 4 is better than two of length 2.  I think the longest continuous track is a separate issue.

@tttppp, and I believe longest continuous track is in number of links, not number of trains.

@tttppp That's truec, but in this case, thesunneversets is suggesting that popping down 2 sixes ENDS THE GAME IN 3 TURNS, despite the fact that you had 14 trains. If you put down lots of little routes, your opponents will spot that you're trying to run them out, but this way is more likely to surprise them.

+1: This is the best way to effectively "block" routes when playing with multiple players. Faster the game ends, the more chance of unfinished routes.

You guys did a good job of pretty much everything, so I'll just add this:
Don't be afraid to draw destination cards early in the game. I almost always draw destinations in my first few turns. If you draw early you can plan routes that will let you easily access anywhere you need to get. Usually there's some redundant track between one of the new destinations and your current ones, and if you identify this early you can really slaughter by fulfilling lots of tickets that are super similar. Since you only have to keep one out of 3 you can usually get something useful.

I agree - I'll just add the proviso: count how many trains your routes are going to cost you, and then add a few to that number, as a contingency fund in case someone evil decides to block you!  In my first few games I sometimes ended up with routes that I had no possibility of completing, simply because I took routes before counting.  Having an unerring sense of how many trains all your destination cards are going to consume between them is a primary skill in Ticket to Ride...

When you already have a long route trough the center of the board, and you are waiting on cards of a certain color to finish a short route, it's often better to (temporary) give up on it and draw new routes. You waste a lot of turns drawing blind train cards, and can have quick wins on easily connected new routes.
In the Europe version, building a station "costs" you 4 points. This is usually worthwhile, since the cheapest route earns you 5 points.
It's better to pick the face-up locomotives, instead of lucky-drawing 2 face down cards when you are waiting for a color. The chance of drawing the color you need is lower then you might think, and you waste a lot of turns, which is fatal.
When playing 1 on 1, save up cards in your hand longer and build your track almost at once. Less chance of being blocked, and the other player is usually playing on another part of the map.
When picking routes at the start of the game, plan your routes trough the center of the map instead over the sides of the map. Further on in the game you have a higher chance of connecting new routes to your main line.
Follow the eyes of your opponent, and throw your opponent off by looking at a spot on the map that you have absolutely no interest in.
Keep some locomotives in your back pocket ;) ;)

Stations are even more worthwhile when you consider how completing a ticket is worth twice as much than its face value. If a route is worth 5 points then you will either receive 5 or -5 points from it, which is a 10 point swing. By playing a station you now go from -5 to 1 which is a six point swing. This only gets more important with the higher value routes

There is a really interesting tactic that can be used on the last turn of the game. If you know you are losing and need a decent amount of points to catch up and you cannot build a track to give you those points you then draw 3 tickets.
The idea is by grabbing tickets hopefully you pull one that you have already completed. If so, you now gain a significant amount of points putting you closer or ahead of you opponent. If you don't get a card that you've already completed discard the two largest point amounts and take your loss in style. It doesn't matter much though because the only time you should ever do this is if you have fewer points and can catch up by no other means.

This is sometimes taken to the extreme with my group of friends. People start drawing tickets two or even three times in a row!  This strategy can lead to very high scores, or disaster :)

Concentrate your routes on the Main Cities
There are certain cities that appear in a lot of routes, so making sure you get at least two and preferable three of these will help you when you pull more objective cards, since you'll be able to match more routes, and there are a lot of routes to these cities that give big points.  Even if you don't ever need to, you should plan your strategy ahead (based on the first cards you pull) to get three of the big four.
There is a very analytical article on rating the most valuable cities, here.  Its focus is on the number of points associated with a given city, and the number of paths into that city (points/paths).  It is good analysis, though I think there are more factors such as critical routes, blockability, helpful for longest train, etc.
Their breakdown for the 4-5 player Mega Game (USA) is as follows:

Miami (30.67)
Las Vegas (25.00)
Los Angeles (21.67)
Vancouver (19.67)
New York (13.86)

I have always used these as my cities of preference:

New York
Los Angeles
Miami
Seattle

Note: I will be doing more research on the numbers and will update this.