text:
How to make custom Cards Against Humanity Cards?
Cards Against Humanity has a free download for a PDF to print custom cards (e.g. PDF for printing custom white cards). However, it seems that these cards are not the same shape/size as the official cards which you get when you purchase the game. The reason for this, clearly, is that while the game is offered via a creative commons-type license, so you can print your own, they want to differentiate their own version.
However, I want to print custom cards which can be used alongside the 'official' version which I own. For this to work, they need to look exactly like the other cards - at least in shape, color, card stock, and finish. That way, when such cards are mixed into the deck and we are playing, it isn't possible to tell when someone has a 'custom' card or an 'official' one.
So my question is, how should I go about printing such customer cards?
If I want to print custom cards which fit in with the regular cards which you can purchase, what card stock should I use to print them with the appropriate weight, glossy surface, etc? I have experience printing a magazine and would be happy to go to either a Kinkos or small-scale printer.

I think this will be very difficult or impossible to mix print-and-play with the official version. However, you could go all print-and-play, printing a base set as well as whatever blank cards you'd like.

This page might be very helpful :)
http://biggerblackercards.com/

A simple solution if you are willing and able to spend some money:
Buy another copy of the game, a foam paint brush, and a small container of white paint. Using the foam brush you can paint a nice, even, thin coat of white paint over the face of the cards and use a black permanent marker when they dry to write whatever your heart desires!

Crabs Adjust Humidity is a 3rd party expansion pack, they offer packs of just blank cards which are almost identical to the original cards if you don't have enough blank cards in the expansions to write your own cards on. I have ordered about 8 of these now and just keep on expanding my own deck.

Expansion packs 1-4 each include blank cards - 8 white cards and 4 black cards. The Bigger Blacker Box expansion (and box) contains 50 blank cards (10 black and 40 white). These blanks printed using the exact same process as all the other CAH cards, so they're virtually indistinguishable from the official cards. With a blank card, you just write on it with a marker (Sharpie) and you're done; just be sure to print nicely.
Also note that if you're going to "erase" cards for re-purposing, the expansions are quite a bit cheaper than the full game.

Their updated product range include a box of just blank cards... It might be possible to print on them, but some experimentation to find suitable ink / toner might be needed....

Could you not use a standard deck of cards, paste paper printouts on them, and then sleeve all the cards?

CAH cards are different dimensions.

I created templates for printing on the 'Spare cards' that come with the expansion packs.
I then bought Avery Crystal Clear labels (L7784)and used a laser printer to print them out. I cut them to size then applied them to the blanks and they look and feel almost identical to the Originals.

A cheaper suggestion is this: buy a set of card sleeves with one opaque face, print your cards and sleeve both your set and the original set. No one will know what they might draw. There are many options being sold in Amazon.com and in many other game stores.
You may want to know more about the quality of those sleeves prior to buying.

You could always buy a pack of blank cards and then use Moo.com to create custom stickers to stick on the blank side. It would be virtually impossible to tell the difference unless you really disturb your cards

I substituted "disturb" for "molest," which is a bad word in English.

@TomAu: I think "molest" is an appropriate, if somewhat colorful, expression here. Certainly it fits better than "disturb". If you wanted a better neutral synonym, "mistreat" / "mishandle" might work.

@IlmariKaronen: In the United States, it is not illegal to "disturb" (e.g. to wake or annoy) children, but it is illegal to "molest" them (as the term is generally understood).

@TomAu: Yes, you seem to understand the meaning of those words correctly, at least as applied to people. It's not common to use "disturb" for inanimate objects like cards, though, except in the sense of "disturbing [the position/order of] the cards" e.g. by slightly moving them, which the OP does not seem to mean. For the presumably intended sense of "severely abuse and damage", the verb "molest" seems quite appropriate.

'deface' might be a better word than disturb.

There's a website for making your own, generating a PDF, sharing, and printing your own cards. Unaffiliated with CAH or Apples to Apples, but quite similar and easier than hand-writing or editing a PDF.
Snubs-n-dunk


text:
WoW TCG Magtheridon Raid Strategies
I'm going to be running Magtheridon for some friends and was looking for advice in general and wondering specifically about bloods. Should I try to keep them around, or spend them on various effects?
We will be running the raid allowing only cards that had been released at the time.

Man, I would love to answer this but Magtheridon is one I haven't played personally. Nice to see a wow-tcg question, though.

Closing as too broad, since this is a strategy tips for X question.

The way that you phrase the question makes me think that you misinterpreted the rules for how Blood works. Blood is not spent by cards like "Brush Aside". The "for every-" means that you just count the amount of blood. Blood is resource and you need to make sure that if you need them, you have them. Constantly using "Power Returns" will make it hard for you to use other abilities effectively, but it's a nice card to have when you are running low on options.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Are there statistic/probabilty applications specifically made for card game designers?
I am developing a card game that involves building out sequences of matching symbol pairs and also has a lose state for a (different set) of symbols that is hidden to the player. Trying to create an atmosphere of paranoia.
I want to be sure I'm balancing the deck to create probably winning and losing sequences and can code a bit - but I was wondering if any of you used a specific application to run probabilities? Mac OSX would be great.

Are you up for a DIY Monte Carlo simulation?
I don't know of any specific applications, but if you're comfortable with coding I suggest you gin up a little Monte Carlo simulation.
In case you're not familiar with how that would work I'll explain (and can elaborate later if necessary):

Populate some sort of database or data structure with your cards.
Write a function that draws from this list at random and marks the card as drawn so it couldn't be re-sampled.
Write another function to evaluate the built-out sequence to evaluate win or loss
Wrap this core program with a loop that would play the game a huge number of times and
generate statistics on the results (e.g. number of wins and losses, longest streak of consecutive wins and losses, etc.)

The first three steps are a simple computer implementation of your card game. The trick is to model everything that's important to the mechanic and nothing that's not (easier said than done right?)
That last part is the Monte Carlo simulation where you use brute force computation (yea for cheap comp cycles) to get a result instead of trying to calculate probabilities closed-form, which for even simple card and dice games is more math (and more error-prone math) than most people are comfortable with.

Adam - this is excellent advise. Thanks so very much

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


text:
What is a quick way to test or simulate card strategies for deck building games?
Dominion is the specific example I would like to play with but this certainly applies to any game that involves decks of cards being shuffled and drawn.
I often see references to various simulations that people have run or built to test theories but whenever I dig through their code I seem to discover their simulation was custom-built for one or two test cases.
The question I am asking: How are people making these simulations so quickly? I assume that there are a few preferred (or common) ways to do this seeing how many times I see people talking about their simulations. What is a good starter kit for me to learn how to do my own?
Answers that will help: Specific languages, libraries, helpful mathematic formulae, links to projects, and typical pitfalls to avoid.

I admit I don't have much experience in actually doing this, so I have no idea how well any of these actually work and can't make any guarantees myself. But I'm sure there are others who can, and these are probably some great starting points:
dominion simulator python framework
similar project
vdom java simulator
A sourceforge project
Dominionsim is also mentioned here
Here are some I found for Magic: The Gathering. Once again, I can't make any personal guarantees:
MTG Studio (don't know if it actually supports simulations)
Magic Workstation
If you are anyone else has more feedback on any of these, I'd love to here it!

I've used and was reasonably happy with the python simulator 1.5 years ago, but now I think it has fallen behind and doesn't support all cards.

Great links. I was hoping for more of a generic "This is how to write a simulator" but learning by example works for me. :) If no better answer appears in a few days I will accept this one.

@MrHen OH! I didn't know you wanted to know how to write one. That's probably more on-topic for Stackoverflow than here. :)

I am not so much worried about writing one from scratch but I am interested in the details. Maybe "this is how to use a simulator" is a better wording.

I'm one of the guys working on DominionSim (although the googlecode version isn't up to date*) and we're trying to implement all the cards/rules, not just build for one test case.  That said, we still have a ways to go implementing cards.
The way DominionSim in particular works:

it's written in C#
to test a specific behavior you write a Strategy class that implements IStrategy
we've done several simplistic strategies using the base set already
supports 2 to 6 player games
supports "tourneys" that play all the strategies against each other at least once

Theoretically once we've implemented all the cards it'll be pretty easy to test new ideas, although at the moment it would still require downloading the source code and adding your own IStrategy implementation written in C#.  I may investigate implementing a rules-based Strategy like those found at the Simulate Dominion blog at some point, so that folks could just mess with a rules file and not need to recompile or know C#.
*Hopefully the latest version will be publicly available soon

Geronimoo's Dominion Simulator seems to be the current Dominion simulator of choice, at least by the guys on dominionstrategy.com.  It has only existed since June, I think, so didn't get mentioned in the accepted answer which is otherwise very comprehensive.


text:
What is the optimal mix of infantry, artillery, and armor in Axis and Allies Revised?
Axis and Allies 2nd edition had two primary ground units: infantry (1/2/1/3 attack/defense/move/cost) and armor (3/2/2/5). Axis and Allies Revised increased the defense of armor to 3 and added an artillery unit (2/2/1/4) that has the special ability to increase the attack value of any accompanying infantry from 1 to 2.
Don Rae's famous infantry push mechanic was written for 2nd edition rules and argues that a good player will predominately purchase infantry, only buying tanks when they have established solid defensive lines.
How does the addition of the artillery unit and the increase in the defensive power of armor change the optimal balance of ground forces?

I have to go in the opposite direction of the other answers and say that artillery isn't very useful. If you run sims to try and flesh out what is the optimal mix, you will probably find that using artillery is better. However I found that when actually playing the game, tanks have at least 3 significant advantages over artillery.
Retaining their offensive power
When attacking a territory that is well defended, you can count on losing a lot of infantry. Since the third point for offensive power of artillery is dependent on having an accompanying infantry piece, your forces will lose significant offensive power when you start losing those pieces. Since tanks aren't dependent on the infantry, you will retain your offensive power longer.
While this is covered in the simulations, it is important to realize that the simulations favor artillery if you limit the size of the forces by IPCs. If you limit your forces by number of units, tanks fare significantly better than artillery because they retain their power.
Gauging power by IPCs makes sense if you are talking about land battles in Europe, Asia and Africa. However if you are doing amphibious assaults(or your supply of troops comes from the sea) you are going to be limited by the number of transports and therefore the number of ground troops. When you have a navy offshore worth 100 IPCs and another 50 IPCs of aircraft supporting the invasion, I don't think it makes much sense to decrease your ground power just to save 2 or 3 IPCs(especially if you are losing planes to keep the last ground troop alive).
Increased defense
In my experience the main challenge isn't taking a territory but actually holding on to it. While artillery give a boost to offensive power, that extra IPC doesn't do anything for you when defending. Since tanks defend on 3, they also give an added boost for defense.
Moving 2 Spaces/Blitzing
This is the most important advantage. While it is not very important in some theaters, it is critical in the Germany/Russia land war. Artillery will take 1-2 turns longer to get where they need to be than tanks. While the math may show artillery is optimal in these battles, they won't have any value if they're not at the battle.
When I'm playing that theater, I will often purchase a couple turns of infantry, then tanks then fighters and bombers. I try to time it so that when the main battle is fought, all the units from previous turns will be able to participate. If you are running with an optimized infantry/artillery mix, the player on defense is going to have several more turns worth of units in the battle.
While you may purchase a 15 IPC industrial complex in one of the 3 IPC territories to counteract this, it will still take 5 turns of purchasing artillery before you break even and those artillery will still have the above disadvantages.
Summary
I get the impression that you are looking more for a math oriented answer to what the optimal ground forces are. My general point is that there is no optimal mixture because everything is too dependent on the situation.
A math based solution isn't capable of taking into account:

the possibility(and costs) of the opponent's counterattack
how long it takes to move your forces into position
the added value of the territory you are conquering(and the loss of it from your opponent)
the time component(since territories generate IPCs, they are more valuable if conquered sooner than later)
and probably a bunch of others I haven't thought of

Doesn't have to be math-based at all. I liked your answer and the counterpoints it provides to a more myopic tactical calculus.

Also, interesting point about the calculus changing in an IPC-limited battle, as most lines on open land would be vs. in an amphibious assault, where you're likely to be unit-limited. Very insightful.

The first two points are simply wrong -- tanks retain offensive power less well and have less defense than inf+arty.  Comparing based on number of units is nonsense, since there are no stacking limits in the game -- the only limit on the number of units is how many you can afford

@chris The question was asked about Axis and Allies Revised edition. Adam posted a link to the rules in his question. The comparison is between tanks and artillery and not tanks and infantry. Tanks have more defense than both infantry and artillery. That is fact, not opinion. Also, comparing based on number of units is relevant when supply is based on transports since transports are limited in the number of units each one can carry. I explained this in my answer.

With this change, armor is severely weakened - the purchase cost is simply too high for something only slightly better than infantry.  The only exception is if your factories are too far from your front or you are facing light defenses.
In those cases, such as a large number of undefended territories near one of your factories, tanks additional movement can come in handy.  It offsets their purchase cost significantly if your tanks seize two territories the turn after construction.
Tanks are also marginally better if you are launching an amphibious attack, as you can get slightly more punch per transport (assuming 1 infantry + 1 tank per transport, which is what I believe they can carry in the current version) with a similarly more powerful defense for your beachhead.
This problem disappears (somewhat) if you adjust the tank purchase cost to 4 OR up their movement to 3.  I'd go with the purchase cost reduction, personally.

I would say the addition of artillery makes tanks completely moot -- you're always better off buying infantry and a single artillery to go along with any attack.  The tanks just do 50% more damage than infantry on both attack and defense, for a 67% higher cost, and no increase in their ability to absorb damage.
edit
To answer Adam's comment, an artillery plus two infantry costs the same as two tanks, and will inflict the exact same 0.1 losses per IPC both defending and attacking.  An artillery plus 7 infantry costs the same as 5 tanks, and inflicts .1067 losses per IPC.  That may not seem like much compared to the tanks, but combined with the fact you need large amounts of infantry to absorb losses anyways, its much more efficient and becomes more efficient as your army becomes larger.
The only real advantage of tanks is the two-space move, which is IMO rarely significant

You missed the most important points about tanks - their ability to move 2 spaces and especially their ability to blitz. The 2-point move means you can threaten more areas than infantry or artillery, forcing your opponent to defend more areas. And blitz allows you to exploit a defensive hole much better.

An infantry and artillery have a 1/9 chance of getting two hits, a 4/9 chance of getting 1 hit, and a 4/9 chance of getting zero, at a cost of 7 IPCs. A tank has a 50/50 chance of getting a hit for 5 IPCs. So the expected value of hits per IPC while attacking for inf+art = 2/21 = 0.95, while for armor it is 0.10. As DJC mentions, armor also has a blitz ability. Now on defense, a tank is still 0.10 hits/IPC but inf+art has increased to 1/4 of two hits, 1/2 one hit, 1/4 no hits for 1/7 = 0.14. So the calculus above seems a little too simplistic.

Chris, your answer makes it sound like you only need one artillery for a stack of infantry. In order for a infrantry to get the attack bonus, it has to be paired with an artillery one to one.

If you only consider a single fight on land, the perfect combination is int + art, 0 tanks.
If you consider amphibious fights, tanks and infantry is best since you have to get more transports if you're going with inf+art.
But A&A is not about single fights, it's about winning the game and to do that you need success on both a tactical and strategical level. The main advantage of tanks and fighters is the ability to threaten a larger area, which can force your opponent into leaving troops where they don't do any good except defend.
I typically buy about 3 inf to 1 art and 1 tank and perhaps half a plane.

You should still be purchasing mostly infantry to absorb the hits of your opponents.  The difference is now, your additional purchases depend on your strategic posture.  If you're satisfied "slugging it out" on this line with no intention of offense, you should purchase mostly infantry, and maybe a few tanks that will never be threatened by enemy fire.  If, however, you'd like to maintain an offensive capability, you would purchase mostly infantry, and then many artillery in order to enable your infantry to be a credible threat on offense.  A few tanks would still be called for, but again, only after enough infantry was available to reliably ensure that the tanks are safe.  Essentially, think of tanks in Revised as "Light Fighters";  they provide some useful hard-hitting power, but you don't really want to risk losing them.  Artillery is only really useful when you're transitioning (or want to be able to transition) to an offensive role with your infantry;  on defense, pure infantry spam is still better.

This seems like a good set of heuristics that seems to jive with the quick math I did in a comment to Chris Dodd's answer. When on defense infantry is your best bet, with artillery being a simple way to increase their attacking power. Armor are then added to round out the force once the lines are set and defenses sufficiently strong.

I've played in games where infantry were neglected and tanks and planes were the most purchased units. For example, if Germany buys all tanks for one round and all fighter for the next, they will be at a GREAT advantage in attacking and taking territories.
In the case of Russia, this is different. Russia is at a monetary disadvantage and a mobility disadvantage. When Germany comes knocking on your door, the best thing to do is purchase infantry like it's going out of style. I had the Russians having 32 infantry and they held off the German invasion of about 12 tanks and 10 or so fighters and a few bombers. Each infantry has a 33% chance of hitting in defense, and for 3 IPC's, you can't beat it.
Infantry provide the best defense for the IPC's spent, but this is not a defensive game. It is a game of tact, wit, offense, and luck of the die.
One cannot neglect infantry, but you also should not focus on them.

There are some semi-independent factors to weight in when determining what is best to buy for a given country.

Tactical value

If your only consideration is one large one-on-one battle, a mix of about 70% inf and 30% art will be optimal, tan, fig and bom are all much worse in this regard. The reason why inf is so much more important than art, eventhough 50-50 will give you the highest attack for the lowest cost is that losing inf is cheaper than losing art, both in terms of ipcs and remaining attack value.

Strategic value

A&A is not just about winning battles, the goal is to win the game, to win the game you have to win economically (counting both income and units), and to win economically you will have to kill enemy units, save your own units and hold territory.
The main point of tan, fig and bom are that they threaten a larger set of areas, this limits the options for your opponent, having tanks mean all areas two steps away from you are threatened, having planes means your opponent can't split their navies without losing minors ships here and there.

Time

Time is on the allies side in the beginning of the game, as an axis player, you must trade economics for progress, you have to buy aggressive units eventhough they are more expensive, or the allies will beat you in the long run.
In the specific case of playing Germany I usually buy about 4 inf to 1 art and 1 tan, this means I will have volume, and if I manage to avoid losing tanks, I will have a quite a few of them for the final kill.
If I play Soviet, I'll usually avoid art, it's still important to threaten areas, but I'm not in any rush and the main purpose is to hold the line until help from the other allies arrive. There are few "medium" battles on the eastern front, battles are almost always one-round or game-ending ones, and in the latter case, it will be Germany attacking.


text:
What is the best resource for Card Trays?
I'm looking for some card trays for a game I've been designing.
Ideally, they would be six-slot trays that hold standard playing card sized cards.
In my mind, they are similar in appearance and quality to the trays that are used to hold money in monopoly.  I've found some things that are similar, but nothing exactly like that.
I'd need one for each player.
Any recommended resources for something like that?
My best solution right now is pillaging thrift store games.
This could be expanded into a broader question -
what are the best websites and box stores for buying game-making materials?
Something like this tray is what I'm looking for:

For game-making materials, see also Where I can buy good resources to build games?

Without parameters on shape, size, and cost, it's difficult to give a good answer.  However, if it were my game and I needed 4-5 6-slot horizontal card slots, I would consider making them out of folded cardboard.  With a little trial and error it should be simple to shape what you need from 7x3 (21) horizontal folds, and 3 vertical folds with 2-4 tabs to keep the shape.
If you want plastic, you likely want to purchase your own vacuum former.  Hobby versions can be had for as little as $120 (plus materials).  They work by laying a piece of plastic over a mold you create to form any plastic shape you want.
Random site selling a former

The size & shape parameters are standard playing card size, 2.5 x 3.5 inches, times six slots, in parallel.  I don't have any specific cost expectations - I just want to know if there's anywhere that sells these or would make them.  Interesting idea with the vacuum former.

Are you looking for something similar to the card trays from Rack-O? I believe Rack-O sets come with four of these and are pretty cheap.

More akin to a monopoly money tray http://scavenging.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/monopoly_money_hi.jpg, but with wider slots.  Cool suggestion though, i could see these being useful.

Ah, I see. Go ahead and add that picture to your question. Maybe the visual will trigger someone's memory. :)

Unfortunately I don't have enough rep yet to post the image.

I added the image tag as an edit. If it is approved it will appear.

Approved it for ya.


text:
Computer AI programs for Axis and Allies?
Many classic board and card games have had their strategy studied, formalized, and "digitized," for lack of a better word. For instance, there are a plethora of computer programs that can analyze or play a game of Chess, Backgammon, Connect 4, various games of poker, and so on.
Is there any computer AI program for Axis and Allies? Ideally, I'd like to be able to setup certain scenarios and then watch the computer play against itself to learn new strategies. Also, a single player mode would be nice.
There is a (now serious outdated) Axis and Allies computer game, which I owned several years ago. This game had a single player option, meaning you could play against the computer, but the AI was very scripted and weak and the game lacked the ability to setup a scenario and let the computer play it out  (from what I remember).

Not that I am aware of, but you could try using the popular Combat Simulator calculator as a starting point. It's html & javascript, so it's all visible.  It's not in the format you are looking for, exactly, but has a logical starting point & it's been maintained by someone who clearly loves the game.
With that in hand, I would try looking under the hood of your old PC game to see if the AI is customizable.  The Age of Empires series had a really excellent AI system, all based on relatively simple text files. It wasn't documented in the game, if I recall correctly (it's been a few years), but a really rich community of AI developers grew up around it.  You may find that there is some way to customize the clunky AI in the game to get it to do what you want.
Another option is to check out TripleA.  It's a free Java-based turn based strategy game based on Axis and Allies.  Exactly how close it's AI is to the real Axis & Allies rule set, I don't know. Sadly, documentation is spotty, but there is a fan site with a newbie guide.

Thanks for the suggestions. I'm familiar with the Combat Simulator and use that often. I'm not interested so much in battle odds, but rather overarching strategy. Like if a competent AI has amassed an army in territory X and that borders two enemy territories Y and Z with varying troops levels, which territory will the AI attack (if it will attack at all) and with how much firepower.

The 2nd edition implementation of TripleA is fully faithful to the real rule set as far as I know.

At the tactical level, the AI for A&A is a minmax on a zero-sum game tree with some fuzziness.  We have a structure that represents game state (board and pieces), the relative score of each player for that state (value of troops and land income), and a set of transitions (i.e. moves) from that state to new states.  Transitions can weighted by probability of outcome (this is what the simulators in other answers supply).  The relative values of starting state and ending states can be compared to determine which moves seem good or bad. These results are scaled by the weight (likely outcome). More sophisticated implementations would go deeper into "promising" branches to check opponent payoff (i.e. whether this move give an opponent an even better counterattack opportunity).
This is a very, very big game tree. Pruning will be essential, and there are some obvious things to try ignoring (attacking with less than all your troops, for example).  But it's relatively straightforward AI problem and there is a lot of info about solving it on the web. Maybe it's a bit harder because of the 5 players, 2 teams mechanic.
In addition to picking battles, there's the purchase, non-combat move, and deployment phases. The interesting problem with these choices is their impact will be felt 2-4 steps down the game tree.  It might be possible to model this into the tactics tree, or its own separate tree, but the breadth intimidates me.  2-4 turns, 5 actors, 1-11 (on average) new pieces, 12 or so possible pieces, multiple possible deployments...  If I had to try this, I'd tackle it in separate stages.  Movement can be handled as first minimizing opponent payoff in one transition.  If payoff is minimized without movement, stack to strongest front.  If no strongest front, go to front of preference.  I'd probably hardcode deployment, and placement of any additional factories, until everything else was working and I had lots of free time.  I'd try purchasing as a kind of lookup table based on current troop IPC value, or if playing with infantry defends on 1, try purchasing with troop ratios (that is, try to have 6 infantry to 2 artillery to 2 tanks to 1 plane, etc.)
At the "grand strategy" level (i.e. if no strongest front), fronts of preference are defined per standard strategy--Axis prefer to attack Russia, then Britain, then US and Allies prefer to attack Germany, then Japan.
Of course, there are other ways to do it and mine is just one step removed from brainstormed.  There's surely better.

There used to be an A&A odds calculator that was unique because instead of the typical results of % chance of victory and perhaps the average number of units left, this program generated a plot. The x-axis was the number of units remaining at the end of combat. The far left was all attackers survive, the center mutual annihilation, and the far right defensive domination. The y-axis was the probability of any given outcome.
The reason this method of visualizing the results was so critical is because it opened my eyes to a key observation about combat in Axis and Allies. Given an even battle (where the vanilla calculator will predict a 50/50 chance of winning, one might suppose that they are therefore likely to win the combat with almost no surviving units. However, what the plot shows is that this is not what the laws of probability dictate actually occurs. In practice, even even if the chance of winning is 50/50, the number of units likely to survive is going to be surprising large for the victor. This happens because a good first round has a positive feedback effect, making that side more likely to win round 2, and so on.
Armed with this knowledge your game play can improve dramatically. You realize the importance of re-assessing any attack after each round of combat.
I'll keep looking for this calculator and post the link if I can find it. I first used it about 7 years ago. It wasn't online, it was a compiled program written in VisualBasic.

There is an open-source implementation of Axis and Allies with a couple of AIs, though I also don't think it allows you to set up scenarios. However since it is open source you can always modify it to suit your needs.


text:
Does Breaker Bay Grid reduce the cost of ICE hosted on Awakening Center
I have Breaker Bay Grid in a server, along with Awakening Center hosting a Janus 1.0.
Does Janus 1.0 count as "in" the server for the purposes of Breaker Bay Grid's cost reduction?  Equivalently, does Janus cost 8 credits or just 3?

Breaker Bay Grid has the ability:

The rez cost of cards in this server is lowered by 5.

Awakening Center has the abilities:

Awakening Center can host bioroid ice (each piece is installed
  facedown, ignoring all install costs).
Whenever the Runner passes all of the ice protecting this server, you
  may rez a piece of ice on Awakening Center, lowering the rez cost by
  7 [credits], to force the Runner to encounter it. Trash that ice after the
  run is completed.

Normally Breaker Bay doesn't work on ICE because ICE is protecting the server rather than "in" it.

From the FAQ on Awakening Center:

Ice on Awakening Center are in the server and do not count as ice
  protecting the server.

So, the ICE on the awakening center do get the cost reduction from Breaker Bay Grid.  Janus 1.0 would only cost 3 credits to rez in this situation.

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


text:
Which of two conflicting abilities takes precedence?
The runner card Titanium Ribs reads:

You choose the card(s) from your grip to trash whenever you take damage.

The corp card Chronos Protocol: Selective Mind-mapping reads:

For the first net damage the Runner suffers each turn, you may look at the
  Runner's grip and select the card that is trashed.

If the runner has an installed Titanium Ribs while playing against Chronos Protocol and takes a single net damage (the first of a turn), which player chooses the card that is discarded?  Also does the corp get to look at the runner's grip?

Summary
The player whose turn it is takes precedence. In resolving their ability, the current players makes it impossible for the other player to resolve their ability, so the other player can't trigger it.
In the Runner's turn the Runner chooses, and the Corp does nothing.
In the Corp's turn the Corp looks at the Runner's grip and chooses.

Details
I will be referring to these rules. From page 21:

Triggered Abilities
In order to use a triggered ability a prerequisite must be met. This prerequisite is either a trigger cost that must be paid (PAID ABILITY) or a trigger condition that must be met (CONDITIONAL ABILITY). Once an ability is triggered, its effect is resolved immediately and can only be stopped by PREVENT
or AVOID effects. Players must follow all restrictions on the cards when triggering abilities.

From page 22:

Simultaneous Effects
When one or more abilities have the same timing trigger or can be triggered at the same time, each player chooses the order his own abilities trigger. A player can trigger an optional conditional ability before a required conditional ability if they both have the same trigger condition.
If players ever want to perform simultaneous effects at the same
time, the player whose turn it is resolves all of his effects first.

Both of the cards in question have conditional triggered abilities. For Titanium Ribs, this is "you take damage". For "Chronos Protocol", this is "the first time this turn the Runner takes net damage" (note that this is an optional ability).
The first time the Runner takes net damage each turn, both of these conditional abilities can trigger. If they do (the Corp chooses to trigger the optional ability), we must follow the rule for simultaneous effects (the player whose turn it is resolves all of his effects first), while keeping in mind the rule on triggered abilities (once an ability is triggered, its effect is resolved immediately).
Additionally, from the rules FAQ, page 3:

A player cannot trigger an action/ability unless he is also able to resolve it.

If one player has resolved his triggered ability and trashed a card, the other player will not be able to resolve their own ability, and so cannot trigger it.
Resolution during the Runner's Turn

The Runner resolves all of his effects first:

Titanium Ribs:

The Runner chooses the card to trash.
The Runner trashes that card.

The Corp resolves all of his effects second:

Chronos Protocol:

In order to resolve Chronos Protocol, the Runner must trash a card due to damage.
The Runner has already trashed a card for this damage, so Chronos Protocol could not be resolved in this situation.
Because of this, the Corp cannot trigger Chronos Protocol.

Resolution during the Corp's Turn

The Corp resolves all of his effects first:

Chronos Protocol:

The Corp looks at the Runner's grip and selects a card to trash.
The Runner trashes that card.

The Runner resolves all of his effects second:

Titanium Ribs:

In order to resolve Titanium Ribs, the Runner must trash a card due to damage.
The Runner has already trashed a card for this damage, so Titanium Ribs could not be resolved in this situation.
Because of this, the Runner cannot trigger Titanium Ribs.

I'm used to Magic, where replacement effects are a separate kind of ability.  That said, I agree with the assessment that Titanium Ribs ability is a triggered ability, but I'm not seeing the trigger condition on Chronos protocol.  Are you sure Chronos Protocol isn't a rules modification rather than a triggered ability?

Actually, Netrunner has replacement effects, according to the FAQ, but they must use the word "instead", which neither of the cards in question do.

@Zags Interesting question. We know by example that identities can have constant (Harmony Medtech), paid (Jinteki Biotech) and conditional (Exile) abilities. Chronos Protocol doesn't passively modify any properties or do anything constantly; it makes something happen when a certain condition is met, so I read that as a triggered ability. Later text explains that conditional abilities commonly use "when", but not that they must use "when". A conditional triggered ability simply needs a distinct, identifiable condition. It would be nice if cards explicitly identified their abilities, though!

In looking at the FAQ I noticed that "A player cannot trigger an action/ability unless he is also able to resolve it." I'm leaning towards thinking this means the Corp can't look at the Runner's grip on the Runner's turn.

You make a good case.  I didn't realize the extent of the issues here.  I edited the question to include "does the corp look at the runner's grip?".  Given how involved this is, they will probably address it in an FAQ update after San San cycle has finished, so I'm going to wait on accepting until that happens.

Sure thing! This is the best answer I can give from the logic on the current rules, but of course something like this could do with a ruling, and that's that! :) The main change I think is feasible is that they note that multiple separate effects (e.g. looking at the Runner's grip/choosing a card) on a same card can be considered separately when deciding if a card is resolvable or not.

Lukas has addressed this on Twitter, confirming that the current player gets precedence.


text:
Shogun: Which player resolves winter revolts first?
Given that several players are going to get revolts due to rice shortage in the winter round, which one goes first?
It might matter e.g. when you know that the tower is packed with green cubes and no one wants to go first.

Page 10 of the rule book:

If multiple players face revolts this winter, the revolts are resolved in the turn order of the preceding fall round.


text:
Purpose of needing 12 swords in Camelot to trigger end of game with no Traitor
In the beginner rules, one is encouraged to play without a Traitor. Under these conditions, does it make sense to wait until the knights have 12 swords in Camelot before determining the winner? It seems that with 7 white swords earned, the race to finish enough quests to end the game is anti-climactic.
The only situation I can think of where Evil could still win without a Traitor would be if the Holy Grail quest were lost when the sword count is 7 white to 4 black. Those 3 black swords would result in a 7:7 tie and spell defeat. In our group, the Grail gets attention early and is completed quickly, so this is unlikely.
Please help me understand this purpose of this rule.

Consistency? Guaranteeing the game last a certain number of turns, to make you balance the evil actions you take at the start of the turn? Although I guess once you have seven swords, you just draw black cards trying to lose quests faster. Yeah, maybe it is silly when you are playing without a traitor.

Even when you are playing with a traitor, you oftenhave enough white swords that the end game is a race to fill the table with whatever color swords you can to prevent losing by other means.  It is one of the flaws of this game in my opinion.

Remember the catapults
If there are 12 of them at any time you lose the game. So even with no traitor and 8 white swords, if you are too tight and lose the invasion quests (or simply draw the wrong black cards), you may lose because of catapults before completing the 12 swords on the table.


text:
Is saying "dot com" a valid clue for Codenames?
The clue giver is saying it is one word because it's ".com".
We can't find anything online to settle the argument.

The rulebook in my codenames clearly says that for any question like this, the two clue-givers should confer privately, and agree on whether the clue is okay or not. There shouldn't be an argument in the first place, and online is the wrong place to settle this agreement.

But online is a fine place to seek advice and confirm the "agreement" afterward and to build community understanding. Otherwise there'd scarcely be a need for the codenames tag here.

@Stef "Don't come to B&CG.SE for answers to your game questions" is a weird position to take.

@AzorAhai-him- Hello. I've never met anyone with the position you describe, so I'm not sure what your comment is referring to or why you tagged me. Have a nice day.

Don't reread the comment you left on this page or anything I guess

In American English, dot-com is hyphenated according to Websters and Collins, and Codenames treats that as more than one word.

English has three ways to write a compound word. Greenhouse is one word. Pack rat is two words. Mother-in-law is hyphenated. Technically, only greenhouse can be a one-word clue.

But that is listed under the "Flexible Rules" section, so ask your group if they want to allow hyphenated clues.
As fyrepenguin points out in the comments, in British English it is just one unhyphenated word: "dotcom", so if you're playing in British English, then yeah, the clue would be fine.

Conversely … dotcom from Collins. I’m not sure if it’s truly standardized to hyphenated or a single word.

@fyrepenguin Collins agrees on the standardization for American English. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/dot-com Of course, if you're playing Codenames with British English, use that entry (which I assume is also standardized).

FWIW The OED also has "dotcom" as its main entry (for BrE).

It sounds like the clue giver is avoiding the question of whether it's "dotcom", "dot-com", or "dot com", and is suggesting it's ".com", along with some novel ideas about symbols. They seem to suggest either that symbols don't count as words, or that they are inherently part of the word they are adjacent to. That notion makes no sense - when pronounced, symbols are not symbols, they are their own words. Symbols are graphical representations which are referred to by their names, which are words. It's impossible to give a symbol as a clue, clues must be spoken aloud as words.
"Exclamation point" and "question mark" are not valid clues because they are each two words, despite being expressible as individual symbols "!" and "?". "One percent" is not a valid clue even though it can be expressed as "1%". "Hashtag gaming" is not a valid clue although it can be written "#gaming", nor is "ten dollars" written as "$10". You can't say "negative one" or "unleaded plus" as clues even though they can be written "-1" and "unleaded+". You can't say "full stop" or "decimal point" for ".".
Whether dotcom is acceptable as a single word or unacceptable as two words or a hyphenated word depends on the dictionary you use, but the notion that the names of symbols aren't standalone words when pronounced is absurd.

I don't feel that the question is asking if symbols can be given and not count as words. As for your examples I would just give Exclamation or question if I wanted to give a clue around them

@JoeW The OP is almost certainly asking about the "." in ".com", otherwise they could have just looked up "dotcom" like any other clue to see if it's one word or two in their dictionary of choice. The argument is that dotcom is one word in this particular orthography when spelled ".com" - how could the OP even have known they were referring to the "." symbol otherwise?

While I think the end goal may be to think of a website I think it is a stretch to suggest that they are saying it has to be said that way instead of the other ways such as dotcom as a single word.

@JoeW I don't think they're saying it has to be said or written that way, just that it can be, and that is somehow distinct from any way you'd choose to write it with letters. The word "everybody" is a valid a clue even though "every body" can be written as two words. The clue giver's argument seems to be that "dot com" can be written as one word, but only as ".com" and not "dotcom" (since if "dotcom" were in the players' dictionary there would be no issue in the first place).

Taken to an absurd extreme, if symbols were not considered words, me and my programmer friends could clean up in this game by speaking out a RegEx pattern.

@Logarr Or you could make a list of 625 words and associate them with pairs of positions of the 5x5 grid, giving the exact location of two words at a time, no symbols needed.

@prosfilaes Those types of approaches are neat, but violate the rule stipulating that clues must be about the meaning of the word on the card. You can't give clues that relate only to the card's position or orthography.

@NuclearHoagie Which means that RegEx patterns are right out.

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


text:
If I ask "What is your Oblivion Ring targeting?", am I letting the spell resolve?
My opponent casts Oblivion Ring while I have a Grizzly Bears and a Hill Giant on board, and a Counterspell in hand. I don't mind if my opponent removes the Hill Giant, but for whatever reason the Grizzly Bears are key to my plans, and I would spend the Counterspell to keep them.
I have to choose before I know my opponent's plans: if I don't counter the spell, my opponent can target either of my creatures with the ETB effect; and if I wish to counter it, I must do so before they declare a target.
Often, players shortcut these kinds of spells: "I'll Oblivion Ring your Hill Giant". If I say "sure, that resolves" then the shortcut is applied all at once, and they can't interrupt their own shortcut to say "actually I'll take the bears instead." This opponent hasn't proposed such a shortcut, but I have the idea to ask "Targeting what?" before allowing the spell to resolve. Of course, "The spell has no targets" or "The spell is still on the stack" are good answers to this question, making me commit to countering before they commit to a target. But if my opponent says "Targeting the Hill Giant" then they have proposed a shortcut, and I can say "sure, that all resolves, the giant is gone", keeping my Grizzly Bears safe without spending the Counterspell. Conversely if they say "Targeting the Grizzly Bears" they've also proposed a shortcut, which I can interrupt with Counterspell.
But I wonder whether my question itself would be construed as passing priority, allowing the spell to resolve. After all, the spell isn't targeted, so if I'm asking about targets I must be referring to the ability. Does my intent matter here? Like if I really intended to get my opponent to leak information this way then throw the book at me, but if I thought of Oblivion Ring as a targeted spell and had no ill intent then I still have a window to counter the spell?

In the extreme case, you describe an attempt at cheating, which is always grounds for disqualification. The real consequences depend on the Rules Enforcement Level (REL) you're playing at.
Your analysis of the shortcut rules seems correct. You accept shortcuts proposed by your opponent by conclusive behaviour, not just by expressly accepting them. Whether or not your excuse of mistaking Oblivion Ring for a targeted spell would be accepted depends mostly on the REL and your experience of the game as estimated by the Head Judge.
The current RELs are Regular, Competitive, and Professional. At the Regular REL (Prereleases, FNM, etc.), if you are considered a beginner, you might get away with a rewind of the game state and an explanation that Oblivion Ring is not a targeted spell and why that matters for Counterspell and shortcuts.
At Competitive and Professional REL, disqualification is more likely. Players at those RELs are expected to know the rules of the game, and the excuse of mistaking Oblivion Ring for a targeted spell might not fly. You opponent may assume that you know how Oblivion Ring works, and if you ask "Targeting what?" you implicitely accept the shortcut in full knowledge of the consequences. Walking back on that acceptance might be considered an attempt of gaining an advantage by lying, and thus cheating, which is of course exactly what you intend to do according to your own description. It would depend on the interpretation of the current Head Judge, but if your opponent objects and calls a judge, the best you can hope for is a rewind of the game state and not being disqualified.
Your statement of "I have no ill intent" does not count as an excuse by itself - you have to convince the Head Judge of that. Even if it's true, if the Head Judge is not inclined to believe you depending on the factual circumstances (REL, your proven game experience, other evidence), you might still be considered a cheater and sanctioned accordingly.

Why is it cheating as opposed to just passing priority?  At the point at which the opponent has asked for the target, that seems clear to me as indicating the game has progressed to Oblivion Ring's enter the battlefield ability.

@Zags the cheating part is claiming you aren't passing priority if you get called out on it

In a way, asking what the ring is targeting doesn't just sound like accepting a shortcut, but offering one. But is it really cheating to try to go back even if you can't? Or just a "sucks for you, live with it". If the players are expected to know the rules and how the ring works, then shouldn't the player casting it be aware that when the ETB fires and targets are any issue, there's no going back to countering the spell, and thus they wouldn't be vulnerable to that "cheat". (That might be different if the player casting the ring was a beginner  while the other was more experienced.)

@ilkkachu a) A counter-proposal shortcut has to be shorter, not longer. and b) once OR resolves, its trigger will go on the stack before the next player gets priority, but only a player with priority can even propose shortcuts. So no, declaring it a shortcut proposal won't work. The cheating part is the lie with which OP would try to take back their decision after they gained strategic information they're not entitled to. Yes, if the opponent just says "bad luck", there's nothing OP can do, but opponent is fully within their rights to suspect attempted cheating and call a judge.

@Hackworth I don't see anything in the MTR Tournament Shortcuts section about priority being required to propose a shortcut.  Where did you find this?  I would view an ordinary case of a NAP asking for a target immediately after an AP casts OR as proposing to shortcut past the resolution of the spell to the triggered ability.  The possible infraction (GRV or Cheating) arises if the NAP tries to Counterspell after that.

@user10478 Comprehensive Rules 729.2a At any point in the game, the player with priority may suggest a shortcut by describing a sequence of game choices [..]

@Hackworth Interesting find.  But if you don't interpret the MTR as broadening that scope to allow proposals at any time, wouldn't that leave a huge amount of real world player communication unaccounted for?  Like the NAP asking for a target to implicitly indicate that the spell resolves in this situation (without the extra Counterspell bit) seems to represent a very common class of shortcuts players apply in practice.

@user10478 In this scenario, NAP has priority: AP has cast Oblivion Ring and passed priority, and NAP is considering a Counterspell. So it's perfectly fine for them to propose a shortcut.

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


text:
Is the Talisman Upgrade Pack worthwhile?
I own the Talisman 4th edition game published by Black Industries. Talisman revised 4th edition is now published by Fantasy Flight Games. I have seen an upgrade pack that is supposed to make the 4th edition game compatible with the revised 4th edition and its expansion packs.
The upgrade pack contains:

Rulesheet
Over 160 Cards
14 Character Cards and Figures
4 Plastic Toad Figures
36 Fate Tokens

My questions are:

Is this upgrade pack worth purchasing? Retail is  approx. $20 USD and that seems like it could be a bit much for no new content.
Does the new rulesheet address all the typos and misprints in the 4th edition rules and board?
Can someone with the 4th edition use the revised 4th edition expansions without this upgrade? I know Fantasy Flight would say, "No way," but I want to know what things have changed that would make the expansions not work right.

"No new content" is wrong. There is a small change with big impact in the FFG rules... fate points. (Reroll failed rolls.)
Most of them.
Yep. The only change in rules is the addition of fate points.

The cards are, IIRC, all errata items.

FWIW, this upgrade pack has long since become out-of-print. I would go back in time to get it if I could. There are enough fate coin things on the cards in the expansions that you really need to have them. At this point it's cheaper to just buy the base game again (which I don't really want to do).


text:
Does a Robo Rally robot rotate when moving from Green to Blue belt?
In 30th Anniversary Robo Ralley (which I believe is the same rules as 2023 edition), Green Belts move after Blue Belts.

If you ride a green belt that merges into a Blue Belt, and the turn is Blue, would you be turned by the belt?

My reading of the rules is that you won't rotate, which feels broken. I think the junction needs a green turning arrow.

I had to double-check the 30th Anniversary rules (blue and green conveyors work slightly differently than the "express" and "normal" conveyors from the original game), but yes, blue conveyors first move twice, then green conveyors move once.
Page 13, however, clarifies how rotating conveyor belts work:

When a conveyor belt causes a robot to convey onto a curved conveyor space (during Board Element Activation), they will rotate 90 degrees in the direction of the curved arrow on the conveyor belt (left or right).

(Emphasis in the original)
I don't see any stipulation here that the curved arrow must be the same color; therefore a robot will rotate when moved by a green conveyor onto a blue curved arrow (even if that doesn't match your idea of how physical conveyors would work).

The easy way to remember the effect (and answer uncertainties) is that the same side of the robot that was "arrowside" (in the direction of the arrow) on the starting square winds up arrowside on the ending square.

Ah, you are correct, I hadn't read that. Thanks!


text:
Does building over rooms render the old room inactive?
When you build a room over an existing room, is the existing room considered deactivated, or does it still effect game play?
For example if you build a Monster's Ballroom over Goblin Armory does the Ballroom count the Armory as a monster room, and does the Goblin Armory still have its ability, damage and /or treasure.

When you build over a room the old room is no longer in play and has no effect on the dungeon until all rooms that have been built over it have been destroyed and it is the top room again. When that happens ita normal rules are back in play.

That is what we finally figured must be the way it worked, but couldn't find anything that clarified it. Thanks.


text:
What is the detailed token content of "Firefly: The Game" and its expansions?
If you look in the game rulebook you'll see that it states that the game has "167 tokens". This seems quite unspecific to me. The Blue Sun- and the Pirates & Bounty Hunters-expansions are equally unspecific in what token content they have (88 and 41 respectively).
Indie Bard gives a more specific content list but only for the basic game, and without any reference to any official source.
Google searches of "... token details", "... token specification" and "... token content" has turned me down so far.
My questions are the following:

Is the Indie Bard list correct?
If not, what is the correct content list of the tokens in the game?
What is the token content of the expansions of the game?

After doing some more research, I found this table.[1]

|                      | Firefly  | Pirates  | Blue sun | Kalidasa |
|----------------------|----------|----------|----------|----------|
| Dino                 |        1 |          |          |          |
| Reaver/Alliance card |        1 |          |          |          |
| Disgruntled          |       20 |        4 |        7 |        6 |
| Parts                |       20 |        5 |          |          |
| Fuel                 |       44 |       10 |          |          |
| Warrant/Goal         |       13 |        5 |        4 |          |
| Passenger/Fugitive   |       28 |        5 |          |          |
| Cargo/Contraband     |       40 |        5 |          |          |
| Haven                |          |        7 |        7 |          |
| Alert Tokens         |          |          |       70 |       36 |
| Complete             |          |          |          |       18 |
| Higgins field        |          |          |          |        1 |
| Corvette card        |          |          |          |        1 |

It is not an official source but it corresponds well to those unboxing videos I've seen.[2][3][4]
The numbers for the Kalidasa expansion was counted during unboxing performed by post author.
So the answers to my original questions would be

Yes.
See table.
See table.

References

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/18195471#18195471, read 2015-02-18 20:00.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PHS373VHmNk&t=0m48s, viewed 2015-02-18 20:02.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r95D01XO14&t=2m22s, viewed 2015-02-18 20:02.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BNFi0W6w0s&t=1m15s, viewed 2015-02-18 20:02.


text:
Brain transference in Star Fluxx
The card Brain Transference reads:

You and a player of your choice switch seats at the table (leaving your hands). You each take over the other player's entire position in the game, as if you were in that position all along.
  Your turn ends immediately. The person next in order from your original seat goes next unless that's you, in which case the player after your new seat goes next.

(Leaving your hands) wording in card description is unclear to me.
When I change seat, do I keep my hand of cards or also switch cards with my opponent?

"My cards" wording in your question is also unclear. I suppose you mean keepers and creepers?

In my mind, the way to clarify this card is to look at it as a whole. Pretend that you swapped your mind into your opponent's body, and your opponent's mind into yours.

The cards currently in your hand are left on the table. The keepers and creepers in front of you are left where you were.
You take over your targets position in the game, and they assume yours.

Ok, so I get both my opponent keepers and also their hand of cards.

And their creepers.


text:
Why is this corner enclosure considered to be safe against 3-3 invasion?
I have read somewhere, but unfortunately forgot where that the following enclosure is safe against the invasion at a.
$$ White invades at 'a' and supposedly dies.
$$ ---------
$$ -........
$$ -........
$$ -..a..X..
$$ -...X....
$$ -........
$$ -..X.....
$$ -........

What is the proper way to defend after white a? Is there a way for white to live, even in gote?

First of all, note that, unlike the more popular shape with a kosumi instead of a keima, this shape carries a lot more aji and is vulnerable to yose tesuji and approach moves.
$$ A lot less aji
$$ ---------
$$ -........
$$ -........
$$ -.....X..
$$ -...X....
$$ -..X.....
$$ -........
$$ -........

Oh, and by the way, an invasion is supposed to live in gote. Invading and living in sente is something you definitely don't want your opponent to be able to. In a shape with 3 (!) black stones vs a single white stone, living has to be super hard, and even a ko is a success for white.
Killing the invasion
The shape you showed, as is, is indeed save against an invasion. It involves a tesuji you need to remember though, and you also need to be able to read tsumego at, I guess, strong kyu level to be able to kill.
$$Wcm1 The invasion
$$ ---------
$$ -........
$$ -....2...
$$ -..1..X..
$$ -...X....
$$ -........
$$ -..X.....
$$ -........

B2 is tesuji to kill.
$$Wcm1 White can't live
$$ ---------
$$ -.98.....
$$ -.5..X...
$$ -0.O..X..
$$ -.7.X....
$$ -6134....
$$ -.2X.....
$$ -........

Why can't black simply block?
$$Wcm1 Black fails - white gets a ko
$$ ---------
$$ -..98....
$$ -.7.56...
$$ -..12.X..
$$ -..3X....
$$ -..4.....
$$ -..X.....
$$ -........

Aji
How is this shape dependent on the outside? Well, first, any approach move is virtually sente:
$$Wcm1 If black tenukies, the invasion becomes a huge danger again. But answering locally likely leads to overconcentration.
$$ ----------
$$ -.........
$$ -.........
$$ -.....X.1.
$$ -...X.....
$$ -.........
$$ -..X......
$$ -.........

Also, even nearby stones affect the tsumego severly:
$$Wcm1 Thanks to nearby stones, the fight is tough for black, he should not have tried to kill white in the corner.
$$ ------------
$$ -.OX........
$$ -XO..X......
$$ -X.O56X...Q.
$$ -OO.X79.....
$$ -XOOX8......
$$ -.XX13......
$$ -...........
$$ -..2.4......
$$ -...........
$$ -..Q........
$$ -...........

In short, the shape works, but it's so packed with aji that usually, it's better to hold back a little and play more solid.

Oh wow, I didn't know this enclosure has so many aji! Thanks a lot!

b16 in answer to the tesugi at e18 is hard to kill

In general, corner enclosure is a great thing. If you can manage to do so in the early game, you have a big advantage. You gain a lot of free moves on the outside, since the opponent must protect his corner. You will then build huge walls with a big impact and you can greatly develop to both sides and you have also impact to the center.
(But note that this only works when there is any space to develop, so it is advantageous in the early game.)


text:
Understanding influence and using it properly
I'm an amateur player, mostly-self taught with some help on KGS by a few awesome people. I think I now know my way around the board, and am not a complete plonker anymore, just a regular plonker :)
Most of things I've read about Go I understand easily, but the advice of "using influence to fight", otherwise known as "don't use influence to make territory" still eludes me somewhat.
If I understood correctly, the "main" purpose of influence is to create territory while attacking your opponent.(?) But what happens when your opponent doesn't give you a chance to be attacked and simply gradually reduces your influence? Does it mean I have to start a fight to be able to use influence correctly?
In the end, territory wins games, so why shouldn't I create territory with influence if I have a chance to do so?

If it means anything, I'm now a "10k?" on KGS.

First of all, are you confusing influence and thickness? See my answer here for the difference.
Influence and thickness obviously have to lead to territory in the end, the questions is, how?
The rationale behind "Do not use thickness to make territory" is to not use it directly in a crude way. Imagine a situation like this:
$$Wcm1 Black's direction of attack is bad
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . 1 . 2 . . . X O . O O O . |
$$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . X X X X X O . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |

The extension to B2 is poor direction, as it, while creating some territory, is not using the wall to the fullest. White can think about attaching to the corner stone or simply extending to gain at least part of a base, and black will have a hard time attacking. Compare to this:
$$Wcm1 Right direction
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . 2 . 1 . . . . . X O . O O O . |
$$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . X X X X X O . |
$$ | . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |

White does not have any base and is even forced to jump to the center, not having a single eye. Black can look forward to keep attacking. At the same time, black made some territory in the upper left.
$$Wcm1 Extending is difficult
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . X O . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . 2 . 1 . . 3 . . X O . O O O . |
$$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . X X X X X O . |
$$ | . . . . . . 4 . . 5 . . . . . . . X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |

Using thickness to attack
The word thickness, as used in Go, is approximately synonymous with strength A group of stones is thick if it contains few or no weak points and is not vulnerable to attack. It should be obvious that thickness is a good thing to have. Your opponent must be extremely cautious in the vicinity of your thickness, for he will not find any useful kikashi to play against it should his stones get into trouble. Backed up by thickness, you can attack with carefree abandon. Also, in a ko fight the player whose groups are thick will have the advantage. Hence, in the first half of the game, building thickness is just as important as making territory. The key idea in handling thickness is to treat it with respect and not to play too close to it, whether it be your opponent’s thickness or your own.
Let's consider another example.
$$Wcm1 White is very thick but horribly abuses the value
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . X . , . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . X . X . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . O . O X . . . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . 2 . . O O O X . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . . O , . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . X . 1 . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+

The white extension to 1 in this example is, well, hideous. Clearly Black 2 is a larger move than White 1, fixing black's problems and creating territory.
Instead, white should invade like this:
$$Wcm1 Use the thickness to attack
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . X . , . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . X . X . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . 0 . . . . . . O X . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . 8 9 . . . . . O . O X . . . . |
$$ | . . X . 6 7 . . . 2 . . O O O X . . . |
$$ | . . . 4 5 . . . . , . . . . O , . . . |
$$ | . . . X 3 . . 1 . X . . . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+

Continuation
$$Bcm1 Use the thickness to attack
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . X . , . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . X . X . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . 1 2 . . 9 . . O X . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . X O . . . . . O . O X . . . . |
$$ | . . X . X O . 4 . X . . O O O X . . . |
$$ | . . . X O 3 . . . , . . . . O , . . . |
$$ | . . . X O 5 . O . X . a . . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . . 6 7 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+

Black has some difficulty finding severe moves. Due to the presence of White’s thickness he had to make defensive plays at 2 (dia1) and 9 (dia2), and the invasion was a success for White. Note that 'a' still remains as a large yose point for her.
$$Bcm1 Black can hardly fight back
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . , . . . X . , . . . |
$$ | . . O . . . . . . . X . X . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . O X . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . X O . . . . . O X . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . X O . . 2 . . O . O X . . . . |
$$ | . . X . X O . O . X . . O O O X . . . |
$$ | . . . X O X . . . , . . . . O , . . . |
$$ | . . . X O X . O . X . . 3 . . O . . . |
$$ | . . . 1 O X O . . . 4 . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+

If Black had used 18 in the last diagram to capture three stones, as with 1 in this diagram, he would have suffered a big loss. White 2 captures a large territory. It is pointless for Black to extend into the teeth of White’s thickness with 3. White 4, in conjunction with White’s thickness, deprives Black of eyes.
When your opponent has made thickness, you should try to deal with it by establishing some stones a safe distance away from it. After making such a base, you can approach more closely. However, slowly approaching thickness is, well, slow - it means you won't make points as quickly. This is a drawback of allowing your opponent to have thickness.
Creating a moyo
$$Wcm1 Nice moyo for black, thanks to the newly created thickness.
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1 . . |
$$ | . . X . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7 . . |
$$ | . . . , . . . . . # . . . . . X 5 . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+

In response to White 1, the niken takabasami of Black 2 in conjunction with Black , is a good strategy. The 3-3 invasion of the corner with White 3 is the usual continuation and with the sequence to 8, Black has made thickness on the outside while White has taken profit in the corner. The marked stone has now become an ideally placed as it is a good extension from both the shimari in the upper right corner and the wall on the lower right side.
Overconcentration
You probably already know this situation:
$$Bcm1 Note that the white extension is 2 space, not 3 space at 'a'.
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . X . 2 . . . . .
$$ | . . . . 1 O . . O a .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . .
$$ +----------------------

By kicking at 1, black can force overconcentration of the white group.
The very same idea can be used to counter bad use of thickness. I've found a great example for this:
$$Wcm1 Imagine this situation.
$$ +---------------------------------------+
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . . . . X . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . X , . . . . . , . . . . . , . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . X . . X . . |
$$ | . . . X . . . . . , . . O O X X O . . |
$$ | . . . . . 1 . . . . . . O X O O X X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . O X O . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+

White is trying to use her thickness to create territory on the lower edge. We can make use of this wrong attempt.
$$
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . X . . X . . |
$$ | . . . X 5 1 2 . . , . . O O X X O . . |
$$ | . . . . 3 O 6 . . . . . O X O O X X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . O X O . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+

Black should play tsuke-osae with 1 and 3. The sequence to Black 7, which is joseki, will follow, leaving Black with a large profit in the corner and White with thickness along the lower side. But what is this thickness worth?
$$
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ | . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . X . . . . |
$$ | . . . . . O . . . . . . . X . . X . . |
$$ | . . . X X X O . b , a . O O X X O . . |
$$ | . . . . X O O . . . . . O X O O X X . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . O X O . O . . |
$$ | . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ +---------------------------------------+

If White were to make an extension from his formation on the lower left side, the ideal
point would be at 'a'. On the other hand, the ideal point for an extension from the
formation on the lower right side would be at 'b'. The sphere of influence of these two
formations overlap. Eventually, White may have to play on one of these points to prevent Black from invading. But, for White to play on one of the points will result in overconcentration.

consulting a few books right now, not satisfied with this answer at all yet

I used a modified example from Sensei's and a few examples and text passages given in Strategic Concepts of Go by Yoshiaki Nagahara 5d, chapter 4 and 5.

Hm, I guess I am confusing influence with thickness! :) Does this mean you can have influence without thickness, but not thickness without influence? My main problem in using thickness is black simply escaping in your second "Use the thickness to attack" diagram (after black 9). It doesn't seem like white has gained all that much considering the amount of stones invested. I know this is probably my kyuness speaking.. :)

On the top of my head, yes, thickness is always influence.

Actually, you brought up a very good point there. It doesn't look that great for white, you're right. However, compare this to black defending with a one point jump after white played wrong direction (or black playing that jump even without playing anything) - now that looks great for black! By comparing, we can see that in one diagram, black is very good, and in the other dia, it's even. Do you see how vast the difference is now? We always have to compare, because an even situation is a lot better than a bad situation.

@mafutrct: Yes, I can definitely see that, when compared it definitely sticks out as much better. This is a very tricky idea to use for us noobs.. :-/

Just try to apply it in your study and games and it will become more natural quickly. :)

+1 - Nice Answer! I hope you don't mind, I took the liberty to add SL links for japanese terms readers may not be familiar with.  When possible I tried to put a reasonable translation in the mouseover

Also -- As my understanding goes, it is possible to have thickness without influence, however usually this type of situation is uninteresting from a discussion point of view (it is usually an alive group completely surrounded by another living group). Since there is no way of really using that kind of thickness, I think it more or less gets ignored (aside from just calling it alive).

@Mef Afaik, the definition of thickness implies "center access". I remember a higher dan talking about it very precisely in a NannyOgg game review years ago, but I can't find it right now, so not completely sure.

@Mef Sure, thanks a lot for fixing and adding links.

@drHannibalLecter For a good example of influence without thickness think of the placement of handicap stones. Influence is exactly what they provide, but no thickness.

The way to use thickness is this: When your opponent makes a move that approaches your thickness, you make a move on the FAR side of the opponent's stone from the thickness. Thereby sandwiching your opponent between the your thickness and your "far side" stone.
The worst thing you can do is to place a stone between your opponent's stone and your thickness. Then you end up "overconcentrated."
Your opponent will erase your thickness, but suffer in doing so. Meanwhile, you reinforce your FAR SIDE stone(s). Thereby "recreating" your advantage in a different part of the board.


text:
At what level should one try to teach go?
I am now at a level where I don't consider myself to be a complete beginner, and I can now recognise at least some of the mistakes made by lower level kyu players.
I would like to help other people but I'm sometimes to afraid I'll give them wrong advice and push them in the wrong direction. Having someone stronger than me in the same room do a review of my review can eliminate that problem, but that's rarely the case.
How can one know when he's ready to teach weaker players?

@Trevoke: I meant only reviews/teaching games on KGS. Though it would be nice to earn money as well..maybe one day :)

Whom to teach
You definitely can teach beginners. Showing scoring, atari, ladders, simple shapes and tsumego is not a problem at all, and as your students improve, you will still be able to give them a few hints, show them tesuji and shapes they missed.
You should however bear in mind that your knowledge is limited. You can't be completely sure about some things, so it is a good idea to tell when you're not sure, and to give ideas and reasons instead of just telling "this is wrong, and this is right".
Another good idea is to keep a reasonable distance between you and your students. Personally, I prefer to teach people around 4 to 9 stones weaker. If they are closer, it's a little hard to teach, instead it becomes more of a joined study session (which is not necessarily bad, but it's simply not "teaching"). If they are further apart, I tend to dive into details too quickly and confuse them with too advanced thoughts, but this is probably just my personal weakness.
There is one aspect to this that greatly helped me when I was DDK. At that time I had several teachers that were advancing the ranks at a similar pace as I did, and they were just a little step faster. This meant that they clearly remember the mistakes they just fixed in their play. A teacher who is many stones stronger won't necessarily remember which tesuji is learned at what level, while those slightly in front of you more often do.
Using references
It may be useful to copy from the lessons of stronger teachers or from books. Those resources tend to be reliable, and give you a good overview of what to cover in a certain topic. For instance, if you recently read a book about various 3-3 joseki variants, or about a specific fighting shape, or a cool yose tesuji, then transfer your newly acquired knowledge to your student: Ask him if he's interested in learning about an awesome tesuji, and show him!
Like this, you will certainly get some questions that you didn't think of yourself yet. If you're reasonably sure about the answer, tell him, else, refer to your original teacher (or the book) to inquire about it. The nice side effect is that you gain a more thorough understanding yourself.

I definitely like the idea of "learning through teaching", and that one of my motives to teach actually. Assuming the estimate on KGS is valid, I'm ready! :)

My mind still feels too messy to teach anybody but an absolute beginner. The only things I'm decently sure about, are those I can read out. And telling the student where he misread isn't very useful. Teachers are useful to learn strategy. But in that area I'm never sure myself. I can only say "Feels bad", "I would play elsewhere". Not very useful either.

@CodeInChaos-LiKao If it's really that tough for you, you should probably have a look at a few books. As an amateur, it's very difficult to be sure of some things, even if you're a strong player. You need backup. -- Apart from that, if you present your ideas as, well, ideas, it should still be fine. The student will still gain some insight, at least he knows of your pov and your reasons and can take them in consideration in the future.

A thumb rule for amateur players is, if one cannot win handi 2 games, probably he shall not teach. For me, if I can't win handi 3, I'll recommend a stronger teacher.

I strongly dislike if someone who is just few(4) stones stronger pretends to teach.
Let's imagine: 10k level teach  15k. He will talk about all that second line moves in the beginning, stick to weak stones, all that silly moves instead of just jumping out to build territory. He is not completely familiar with living forms, and cannot count it. He does not know some principles like attacking for weaker side, or getting points from attack and a lot of more.
My proposal is

sdk for rules and intro to go /before 15k
up to 9 stones handi before dan level,
and pro/7dans for dans.

I personally never analyze other games on goladder if I not 4 stones stronger, and if just 4-6 stones stronger, only suggest some common things that I sure can suggest player more stronger than myself. I can analyze my own game better if 2 stone stronger will look on it.
Otherwise do tsumego (not goproblems which is bad for the same reason), read book, listen pro lectures.

That's a strict view, and I think it has a very true core. However, and also for practical reasons (7 dans to teach dans for free are very limited in number, after all), I would add that a student can also learn a lot from simply listening to the teacher's reasoning. While the move may still be wrong, the student will gain some insight from learning a new perspective, if possible even those of several different teachers. However, the teacher has to be careful to clearly differentiate between (highest certaincy) facts and their personal opinions. Just this also enables same rank study sessions.

Referring specifically to the goproblems.com issue: Indeed, sometimes we (as students) are presented wrong problems/solutions. I believe it is very important to challenge everything that looks suspicious, in a constructive manner: First try to find a counter claim yourself, and try to refute it - if you cannot refute it, ask a stronger player. Either he will explain something you missed in your reasoning, or he'll confirm that in fact the problem is flawed. This process is extremely important in actual games: You should challenge every move your opponent plays in the explained manner.


text:
Where can I find a good Joseki database?
I've been wondering about certain positions that arise often. To help me understand them, I would like to study the joseki moves. Since printed joseki dictionaries are out-dated very fast, I'd prefer an electronic database if possible.

(1 item per answer preferably)

Should this be CW?

Josekipedia
http://www.josekipedia.com/
This is a kind of wiki for joseki. This system has the big advantage of offering explanations, deviations from joseki and refutations,... But I don't know how complete or accurate it is.

(Disclaimer: I'm a top contributor at JP) The sourced variations are accurate, though their description is sometimes off. Nonsourced variations tend to be "reasonable", but not as reliable as, for instance, KJD. Recent variations show up almost instantly, though many of them as "question".

Kogo's Joseki Dictionary
Kogo's Joseki Dictionary is certainly the best known resource in the west. It's an SGF file that contains a huge list of common and uncommon joseki moves including some comments, some even with the game where they occurred.
It is reliable in general, even though there are some mistakes (that are probably difficult to spot unless you're dan or even high dan level).
KJD is included in Eidogo online, so you don't need to download the SGF anymore.

This is what Nick Sibicky is recommending.

Brugo
http://www.brugo.be/
Brugo is probably the only dictionary maintained by pros. It includes a few variations not seen anywhere else and tends to be very reliable (as far as I can confirm this).
There are a few tools (like a joseki quiz) rarely found anywhere else.

Daily Joseki
http://dailyjoseki.com/browse
This joseki database is condensed from a database of pro-games. One problem with this approach is that it doesn't contain any explanations or refutations.

It also offers some joseki memorization system, but I never tried it myself.

Nice idea, but seems to offer little practical value

Nice one with discussion of the positions is here:
http://senseis.xmp.net/?Joseki
This page is referred to as a source by Josekipedia.com:
http://senseis.xmp.net/?GendaiJosekiJiten
But I am not actually sure what that is, if it is equal to http://senseis.xmp.net/?Joseki or not.

The Gendai is one of many sources for both senseis/joseki and josekipedia, but I would be very surprised if anyone actually input all of Gendai's content into either database. Further, those databases contain (tons of) information from elsewhere. So they are certainly not equivalent, but rather supplementary.

I use this one:
http://www.learngo.co.uk/Joseki.php?Sequence=4-4,6-4
This one is the best in the sense that you immediately see how the board will look like afterwards, so you can choose proper Joseki according to your current context. But some Josekis (like 5-3) are unfortunatelly missing there.

It looks very limited to me; looking at http://www.learngo.co.uk/Joseki.php?Sequence=4-4,6-3,8-3 , after ◯ enters at 3-3 I only see ⬤ blocking at 4-3 (between 3-3 and the kakari), while 3-4 is also a standard variation to close ◯ into the corner. While it is nice to see all intermediate stages, it does take an awful lot of screen space to present josekis like this.


text:
How to play teaching game and give a useful review
I've reached a rank where I'd like to start and help weaker players improve their games.
How can I make a review useful for the opponent?

Should I go deep into variations
Talk about theory?
Should I comment every move until the very last one?

Are there guidelines or best practice to give a good review?

It depends.
As a teacher, the most important is to reach your student and provide him the information he wants and requires in a way he can understand. You have to see how he likes to work and adjust to him accordingly.
However, I can give you general advice as well.
Time settings and at what point to explain
The teaching process should start prior to the game. Talk to your student before playing even a single move. Is there anything he wants to focus on? Or is he unsure what his weaknesses are? Keep the information gained here in mind.
It is possible, though pretty rare, to teach during the game: This is a matter of style, but I like to pause the game after important mistakes or turning points and explain them. Alternatively and more common, wait until the end before you start explaining. Then again, how do you actually define "end"? There is no need to play until resignation or scoring, you are also free to hold the game at any point and start the review (I never had a student who minded this practice).
If you're giving the student enough time and explain during the game, chances are you're forced to cut the game off at some point because it would take too long. Actually, I finish only a tiny fraction of my teaching games. Most of them are stopped in middle game or even earlier, but thanks to my teaching style explained later in this answer the student will still get told enough to make his head spin.
So, if possible, give him a lot of time. Blitz games are unsuitable for teaching. I like to play without time or with 5x60 byoyomi. If he lacks thinking time, you could not expect him to play his best moves and show his full strength. Teaching is not about stupid blunders, it is about subtle mistakes. On the other hand, if you only want to offer him a chance at playing a stronger player and possibly encounter and learn new shapes, a blitz game is fine, just tell him to review the game himself later.
How to explain
So, now that for whatever reason you're in explanation mode:
First, let's talk about situations that came up in the actual game. During the game you should have noticed what exactly the student did wrong in this situation. Did he misread? That's easy, show him the right way, possibly showing the the tesuji he missed. Did he play bad shape? Show him the right shape and how it is superior. Did he play a slow move, or a too wide extension? Explain the reasons and show him the right move.
Next, there are theory questions the student may be curious about, either because they relate to the game or because he's just interested. What is the idea of the Chinese opening? What is its intention in comparison to sanrensei? Show him examples, tell him about the basic characteristics. What's the joseki move in this corner shape? Or earlier, what is the right joseki to chose on this board? Show him the right moves, show him a few common mistakes and explain why they are bad.
The theoretical knowledge required is probably present when you're used to giving and receiving teaching games. However, I met high dan players that had basically no clue about fuseki (they compensated by insanely strong shape sense and reading ability). In case that applies to you, grabbing a good book on the subject will certainly help very efficiently (and make you a even stronger, too).
Go for the root
One particular thing I love to do, but which requires the student to cooperate, is asking him questions. "Look at your move. Is it a good move?". Don't just show them, make them show you! Many teachers disregard this point and simply show the correct moves, but I believe it is rather crucial to remove the roots of the wrong moves.
Make him think about the move, make him critically question his motives and intentions. If he comes up with the right answer, splendid. If not, even better, you just found a flaw in his reasoning. Those mistakes are the most important, and correcting them is the best thing a teacher can possibly achieve.
Note that you can do this for both wrong and correct moves. Is he sure that his correct move is correct? Or was he unsure? You're basically trying to make him be confident about any move he plays. He should be able to tell you his reasons for any move, no matter wrong or right. "I don't know why", "I played there because it's joseki", "I was vaguely afraid so I added a move just to be sure" are typical examples of answers you should focus on and make him understand the situation better.
You should let him know in advance that you'll ask trap questions to avoid confusion. "Do you really think your move here is correct?" - "Yes I am!" - "Excellent, you're right!" will occur often in the review.
This style of review takes a lot of time, but I strongly believe it is the right way to teach in the West since players won't be able to study for themselves as much as they can in the East with tons of strong players and knowledge around.
Note though that you need to take care not to demand too much of your students. If you notice that they reached their limits of understanding, e.g. because they simply cannot read a tsumego well enough, it would be counter-productive to force them to try. In their mind, the situation is simply too complicated, and rightfully so. You should simply move on, maybe a few moves later the situation became easier to grasp, and they can evaluate it more accurately.
I mentioned that I like to play without time. This fits perfectly in this scheme: If he's been thinking for more than a minute, ask him: What are you contemplating? What moves are you considering? What are your intentions (life, get sente, get a vital point, find largest point on board, whatever)? Do you understand the situation (you're dead if you don't play the right move - are you thinking about this or mistakenly about something else)?
Make sure to apply this to the white moves as well. Especially ask him about your mistakes in case you noticed them. Give him confidence to try and find weaknesses in your moves, make him build up kiai.
Know stuff
If you're unsure at any point, say so. Never try to convince him of anything without understanding the situation yourself (understand it at least enough to be able to convincingly explain it to someone of your strength).
It is very useful to have some example (pro) games in mind that highlight the situation you're focusing on. If you have trouble memorizing pro fuseki (like I do), instead try to come up with reasonable similar situations. This helps a lot to understand why certain joseki suck on certain boards and are great on a slightly different board, especially with weaker students that lack the visualization ability yet.
And obviously, knowing the standard content of teaching games is most useful in any situation. Tell your student about the table shape, tell him about the L+2 shape in the corner, tell him about monkey jumps and the wall+1 rule. This stuff can be extracted from books or learned from good teachers.
When I was a kyu player and even now, I got regular lessons by a great teacher who, interestingly, isn't "strong" in the classic sense (low-mid dan). In practice that never mattered and thanks to his particular style I learned very quickly and always found his lessons most interesting and understandable. The teaching style described in this answer is a continuation of his ideas.

@shujaa: Yes, thanks, I removed it (my blog is not working right now).

Also, +5 if I could. Excellent answer.

My method of teaching is to point out the opponent's worst mistake, usually made more than once in the game. If s/he can correct it, that may alone represent an improvement of a rank or two. I might go over a small part of the game, but wouldn't go over a whole game (even if I could).
Most learners would benefit more from having one (or two) mistakes pointed out to them than from a full game review.

I am very much a begginer (around 17K currently), but I have benefitted from several teaching games, so after reading maftructs answer written by someone who clearly has experience teaching I thought it might be beneficial to highlight what I find most helpful in people playing teaching games with me.

Playing them on a computer is very useful for a teaching game.  It will let you go back and forth to different points in the game to explore variations.  While you can certainly do this with a hand written kifu (or simply through memory for a strong player with a good memory), being able to go back and see how the board was exactly at that point is extremely helpful for weaker players with bad memories.
It clearly depends on the teacher and student, but in contrast to mafutrct, I have always finished every teaching game.  I do not resign even after clearly hopeless.  Finishing the game provides more fodder for the review and more opportunities to see the patterns in the mid and end games that are not only from a stronger player, but a stronger player focused on highlighting what I need to see.  I always resign when hopeless against a peer or in a non-teaching game where I got a handicap, but I find it helpful to finish games that are focused on teaching.
While I have certainly gotten good advice and had significant things highlighted during the game, I prefer for most discussion after the game.  During the game, I am focused on playing.  Once I make a move, good or bad, I am focused on how the other player will respond and my next move.  Highlighting something then disrupts that thought and makes me go back.  Unless you intend for me to actually take back the move (or end the game there and begin the review) I prefer to discuss it afterwards.

As I said, I am very much a begginer and can only offer my thoughts from the student's side, so take everything with a grain a of salt and feel free to tell me if I am wrong.  But I thought it would be useful bookend to the answers from strong players who are doing teaching.

A quick note about point 2: A major reason for not finishing the games is that it would take too long. Typically I stop around move 50-100 after 1-2 hours. But just like you said, it is better to speed up for DDK players because they make and subsequently understand their mistakes more quickly.

@mafutrct Thanks for the comment, it makes sense.  Like I said, it does depend on teacher and student.  For me (still DDK, though a little better than when I wrote this), I find it helpful to have a full record to review, but that may readily change as I get stronger.  I would also always be happy to stop if the teacher thinks it would be more productive to move to the review.