text:
When is the woodcutter worth buying in Dominion?
So far I've found every card in Dominion has its own niche, but the woodcutter's seems to be exceptionally small. I only buy 1 or 2 if its the only card that gives +buys, otherwise a silver is better 99.9% of the time.
Am I missing a key factor of the woodcutter? Is this the best way to use it?

The utility depends entirely upon what's been placed into the initial setup. If it's the only 3-cost card, it's pretty useful.
Remember: some people play with random card selection.
Also, it's a +2 coin and +1 buy action. Silver is a +2 coin, but costs no action. So it's essentially a silver that trades an action for a second buy. Which is wonderful when trying to buy out the villages and other cheap cards.
If your options include villages and mines, having a short deck with village, mine and woodcutter allows grabbing extra copper to convert to silver...

Even if there was a mine available I doubt I'd buy copper to convert it to silver unless I had a very strong reason to risk clogging my deck. Maybe if I had several mines and absolutely no silver or copper whatsoever. I completely agree with the rest though. :D

I agree - if I've already mined my Copper into 7 Silver, I probably don't even want more Silver (from Copper) anyway!

If you're mostly silver, odds are the extra buy already goes to another mine or village...

Don't forget that Mine is a lot more useful if you have Prosperity, which also has Platinum and 8 specialty treasures.  Upgrading a Gold to a Platinum increases its value by $2 instead of $1.

I recommend the insightful writeup at the Dominion Strategy blog.
It boils down to mostly what you said: +Buy can certainly be very key, so if Woodcutter is the only way to get it, Woodcutter is useful.  It also works well with Gardens, but in the long run it's just one of the least useful cards in the base set.

The time woodcutter stands out best is if there is a thief in play.  You now have almost a silver that cannot be stolen.
When i play dominion i keep a mental count of how many extra actions i have vs action cards in my deck.  If the action number gets high woodcutters become a much better card

Even in the Thief case, Woodcutter is one of the WORST +$2 cards in Dominion, though.

Woodcutter shines even more against Pirate Ships... and if you're playing with Seaside maybe you have one of those fantastic villages (Native or Fishing) which could both (a) make you want more buys and (b) make you not mind spending an action.


text:
What are the differences between the Fluxx games?
I currently have Fluxx and Zombie Fluxx, and I've noticed there are some differences:

obviously, Zombie Fluxx is more centered around creepers.
Zombie Fluxx is considerably less random. Less crazy things like X=X+1 and less weird rule cards.
Since it's less random, Zombie Fluxx tends to have slighty more strategy.
Zombie Fluxx can seem to have more of a 'point' to new players. With regular Fluxx I often find new players getting bored because the goals are so random, and there's little to no choices they can make that will affect the game. In Zombie Fluxx you can at least focus on getting rid of your zombies and improve your chances of winning most of the time.
For some reason, Zombie Fluxx works a little better with large numbers of players.

Fluxx also seems to be one of the few games where all the sequels are 'better' than the original, at least with BGG rankings and my personal preference. As I said above, the expansions seems to have just a little more strategy and just a little less randomness.

Have you noticed any other general differences between the other Fluxx games that would be good to know before buying?

Ecofluxx has a much bigger emphasis on "X eats Y" goals; where if you have X and anyone has Y, you win.  It theoretically makes it a little easier to win the game.  It also has a card named Extinction (I think?), to permanently remove any one keeper from the game.
Monty Python Fluxx has a lot of cards that say "Do this on your turn to earn extra rewards", e.g. Speak in a funny accent to pick up another card.  It makes the game more...  Interactive.  It also has a number of the 'knight of the round table' keepers - they are often interchangable for goals.  In the same way as "Food", sometimes it is one specific knight, but often it is "X plus any knight".
Stoner Fluxx has a number of cards that are meaningless unless you have marijuana available (e.g. "Everybody Toke!"); I suppose you could either remove them from the deck or have a house rule you can play them as cards when you really don't want to do anything else.
The upcoming Pirate Fluxx sounds like it will be awesome and different, with an emphasis on an incredibly strong keeper "The Captain's Hat", that provides the player with a number of bonuses, along with everyone else receiving +1 Draw / +1 Play.

@thesun Fluxx 3.1 is probably my favourite game :)

Monty Python Fluxx definitely seems to have more silly cards with actions to conduct yourself (singing, accents). Zombie fluxx only has the one AFAIK.

Also, +1 just for alerting me to Pirate Fluxx!

@Jon I'm so excited, I can't even tell you.  I'm terrified about how long it will take to get to Australia though. :(

Zombie Fluxx has a lot of the interactivity of Monty Python Fluxx, perhaps more so.

Monty Python Fluxx really annoys me for some reason. I'm a huge fan of Monty Python - in particular MP and the Holy Grail (on which MP Fluxx is largely based) - but a lot of the wackiness seems a little... forced.

The only Fluxx variant I have played that has not yet been mentioned is Family Fluxx.  It's a greatly simplified version of the game that can easily be grasped by small children.  Ideally you do want to play it at a family gathering, as there are various cards that, e.g., give you a bonus if you're a grandparent.
I actually think it may be my favourite of all the Fluxxes.  In general I find Fluxx a bit too silly and random to hold my interest for long; while at the same time having the potential to get so complicated it makes your head hurt (notably when that X = X + 1 card, whatever it's called, comes into play).  Family Fluxx is for children so you can forgive it its lack of true strategic depth, and obviously it doesn't have any of the real brain-melting card combinations.
But it's a sweet and charming game that you'd actual be happy to bring out when there are kids around - it certainly beats the Dora the Explorer boardgame into a cocked hat, plus it is clearly a gateway drug to ensure that your small relatives are likely to become proper gamers when they're a bit older!  Get 'em while they're young...

In my experience (I own Martian, Star, Oz and Batman Fluxx), the Creepers are one of the biggest sources of variation between versions. Zombie Fluxx and Martian Fluxx both have lots of Creepers, whereas Star Fluxx and Anatomy Fluxx only have 3 Creepers each, but they attach to your Keepers! In Batman Fluxx, the Creepers (Villains) prevent anyone at the table from winning, not just the player they're in front of -- but on the other hand, any Goal that requires a Villain ignores this restriction, even if there are Villains in play other than the ones required by that Goal.

This does not add anything to the question that was not provided in another answer.

I disagree. Yes, the previous answers mentioned that Creepers were first introduced in Zombie Fluxx, and that Zombie Fluxx has more Creepers than other variants. But they don't say anything about the fact that Creepers actually work differently in different versions, which I think is a pretty important difference.

You could have posted a comment on another answer and had that updated to clarify the differences.

You're right, I could have done that. For that matter, so could the person who posted about how much they love Family Fluxx. But since my comment was a reply to the original question, and not in direct response to any of the previous answers, I chose not to do that. In any case, that's not the same as "does not add anything".

You just gave a little more detailed explanation of creepers and did not include any of the other differences which is why I made my comment. It would be much better to have the information in one answer then spread across multiple ones where it can easily get lost.

I see your point, but there are already three previous answers focusing on different versions and different aspects. I think trying to compile them all into one post is a lost cause at this point. And I get kind of irritated when someone edits something I wrote without asking me, so I'm not going to do the same to someone else.
(Also, you first complained that I didn't say anything new, and now you're complaining because I didn't repeat what had already been stated by other people. Do you see the contradiction there? It's hard to address your criticisms when you keep moving the goalposts.)

I would point out that two of those answers are 7 years old and the newer answer does attempt to list more then just one differece

The later Fluxx games brought in new card types. The basic sets were:

New Rule

Allowed a person to add a new rule to the game; there can be more than one New Rule

Goal

Allows the player to change the current objective of the game

Keeper

Generally used to win the game

Action

Other cards that do many things, e.g. clear all New Rules

Later versions bought in:

Creepers

First introduced in Zombie Fluxx
If a player has a Creeper in front of them, they generally can't win unless the Goal says otherwise

Surprises

First introduced in Pirate Fluxx
Allows out of turn actions to disrupt another player's turn, including preventing them from winning. They can also be played during your turn for a slightly different effect

Ungoal

First introduced in Zombie Fluxx
Allows all players to lose the game; the game wins instead!

So it's often good to check how old the Fluxx game is and whether it would contain the new card subtypes as well! Not all new games contain all of the new sub-card types; the context of the universe matters. (E.g. Firefly Fluxx doesn't have any Ungoals, but does have Surprises and Creepers.)

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/

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

sort: votes


text:
What happens when I play a Swindler and no cards with the same cost as the trashed card are in the kingdom set?

Swindler: +2 Coins, Each other player trashes the top card of his deck and gains a card with the same cost that you choose.

Say my opponent has played a Black Market and now the top card of their deck is a 4-cost card they purchased with it. There are no cards in the kingdom set that cost 4, and I play my Swindler. My opponent trashes the 4-cost card from the top of his deck, but what, if anything, does he gain since there are no other 4-cost cards in the kingdom set?

As always in Dominion, you do as much as you can of what the card instructs. Since there is no card to gain that has the same cost, your opponent gains nothing. You still trash the card that was turned over because you can do that part of the card's instructions.

Its funny when a swindler starts turning curses back into coppers as the curse pile is empty, haven't seen a swindler start trashing them though!

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


text:
When should Italy NOT take over Tunisia on its second turn in Diplomacy?
Tunis is the only supply center that Italy is guaranteed to have by the first fall of the game, but are there any playable openings or situations where Italy should delay getting this guaranteed build? If Italy moved their fleet to the Adriatic Sea, it could help attack Trieste or convoy into Albania, and if it moved to the gulf of Lyon it could attack Marseilles or convoy into Spain.
It looks like the extra unit outweighs the benefits of an early attack on either Austria-Hungary or France because they could repel the attack or re-take their territory before you build a fourth unit. However, I was curious if anyone preferred an opening that didn't involve ordering a fleet into Tunis in the second round.

Well quickly to address the last sentence. It is actually quite common for Italy to take Tunis with an army rather than a fleet. Then with F ION and A TUN, there are options for ION-AEG, ION-EAS and the convoys TUN-ALB, TUN-GRE which aren't possible with a fleet in Tunis.
But to answer the question in the title, there are certainly occasions when Italy does not take Tunis on the second turn (and is still playing intelligently), but these are rare.
Occasionally Italy will forgo the Tunis build to try to take Greece. The other case one sees is if Austria has let Italy into Trieste in the spring, Italy is now guaranteed a build and can order ION-AEG instead of going to TUN in order to gain position in an attack (allied with Austria) against Turkey.
But I should emphasise that not taking Tunis is a minority opening, and almost always played with an expectation that Italy will be getting a build elsewhere.

Good question. A short answer is that Italy doesn't "need" Tunis as a fourth supply center when it ALREADY has a fourth supply center.
As another answerer pointed out, this may occur when Italy can use the Fleet Ionian to take Greece, (with the help of an ally) or better yet, has Trieste in hand after capturing it the first move.
Italy is, in fact, one of the weaker countries in the game. Its main advantage is that it represents "no threat" to the others, but is just strong enough to tilt the balance of power in its favor if it has a fourth supply center.
Usually, that fourth supply center is Tunis. But if it is another one, then Italy might be advised to refrain from taking Tunis as a FIFTH supply center in the first year, in order to remain "non threatening."
The reason is that Tunis is "only" a supply center that is not strategic. Whereas Trieste and/or Greece are STRATEGIC supply centers. If Italy has one of those, she is already ahead of where she'd be with Tunis, and "nothing" else.

I agree that the reason to not take it is because you're taking something else.  I don't necessarily agree that not taking Tunis as a 5th is advisable, everyone is going to assume it is yours and assess you as such anyway.  Unless you're playing with inexperienced players that just count pieces on the board, I'd still grab it as a 5th in 1901 if I could.

I played a 7 player game many years ago as AH, when Italy decided that taking Trieste in Spring 1901 was a better deal than taking Tunis. Accepting that I could no longer WIN the game, I instead played to ensure that Italy finished 7th. I finished 4th for my worst result of that tournament.
You are not truly playing any particular country in a Diplomacy game, you are playing your opponents, and your own strengths and weaknesses. The ability to build trusting and/or respectful relationships with your fellows will have far more influence on your success in the game than any answers to questions such as "When should I take Greece/Trieste instead of Tunis as Italy?".
Make your alliances explicitly time-limited; learn what those lengths should be as each co-party to an alliance; and earn a reputation for backstabbing only when provoked, but completey, utterly, and ferociously when that occurs. Earn a reputaion as a player who ensures increased success for your allies, and you will have more allies, on better terms; and more wins overall.

How did you keep Italy No. 7? I suppose you made an alliance with France to crush Italy. And coming in 4th, who did you outlast? Probably either Russia or Turkey, in addition to Italy (and one other)?

I made a treaty with predominantly Russia that I would limit myself to Vienna, Budapest, Serbia, Venice(!) and Trieste once I took it back. Everyone was nervous about Italy after the first turn backstab, so even France (who was the prime motivator for the action) was content to join my alliance against Italy. Finally Italy had to agree to a deal under which he withdrew from Trieste and I agreed not to take Venice. I of course reneged and took Venice and received hearty thanks and congratulations from everyone except Turkey and Italy for doing so. England and France came 2 & 3.


text:
As Italy, when is it profitable to attack France?
Some experience playing Italy has shown me that attacking France can be quite difficult. If France has a unit in Marseilles, the only way to break through is to bring a fleet to the Gulf of Lyon, which usually takes over a year (it takes a similar length of time to even get a shot at Spain). Since a unit in Piedmont can do little more than bounce in Marseilles, I generally forgo moving there at all, preferring to focus on my Eastern front as long as I'm not worried about a French Invasion.
Is this usually the best choice? As Italy, when should I attack France?

Simply, when it is a commitment required of (or an opportunity provided by) your best possible alliance.
Although the tactical situations are not irrelevant in Diplomacy, they should always be regarded as secondary to the choice of allies and alliances. Any country can win, and one should regard the game as more akin to Survivor than to a typical strategy board game.
Assess the credibility, veracity and trustworthiness of the players who are offering you alliances, always bearing in mind that if it sounds too good to be true, it certainly is. Investigate, as best you can, the behaviour of your potential allies in previous games as part of assessing their credibility, veracity and trustworthiness. Remember that the strategic assessment of other players should be performed differently in a one-off game, as compared to a single game played as part of a tournament. In the latter case players know that their behaviour in early games will affect their ability to make alliances in later games; but that tis effect wears off slowly as the series continues.

Italy attacking France is a tough one. I've seen it done (or done it myself) at two points in the game: the opening year, when there's a chance to either take Marseilles or keep France from taking Spain or Portugal, and later in the game, when Italy teams up with England or Germany (teaming up with both is unlikely).
The first option - attacking right away - is pretty high risk. As Italy, you already have a guaranteed build in Tunis, and if you go after France, you most certainly will appear greedy and warmongering. A pissed-off France is guaranteed no matter the outcome.
Something very neat that can be done, though, is Italy and France entering into an alliance and bouncing each other in Marseilles in the Autumn of 1901 (France: Spain-> Marseilles, Italy: Piedmeont-> Marseilles). That way, they appear to be fighting and each gain the trust of their respective neighbors.
The second option is more of a case-by-case basis - if, as Italy, you can ally with Germany or England and take out France - do it. Just be careful of Austria and Turkey allying against you.

The most profitable time to attack France is when you have England as an ally. That's because you and England can launch "diagonal" attacks on the Northwest-Southeast access. Germany isn't usually as good an ally, since it's relatively easy for France to build up an east-facing barrier in Marseilles, Burgundy, Picardy.
You do have to worry about France because it can get two supply centers, Spain and Portugal, versus one for you at Tunis, the first year. Fortunately, England, which gets only Norway, has the same fear. If England can't work something out with France (e.g., to concentrate on Germany), you're his natural ally. In this event, England will derail French expansion by e.g.: F Edinburgh to NS, F London to EC, A Liverpool to Wales, and possibly to Brest or Belgium in the fall of 1901.
So watch out for what England is doing, and be ready to respond in kind. It will take a while, but a successful campaign for you would be Portugal Spain and Marseilles, with England getting Brest, Paris, and Belgium.
For alternatives, I would recommend looking up the answers to this question. I would guess that these occur the majority, perhaps two thirds of the time, and the above, one third.


text:
How difficult is Puerto Rico to learn for first time players?
I've heard a lot of good things about Puerto Rico, but from the 12-page manual it seems a little complex. I revel in the challenge of learning new and difficult games, but sadly the friends I play with aren't as hardcore as I am and are slightly less inclined to reading gigantic rule books. I have no experience whatsoever with Puerto Rico, and want to get some advice before buying. :)
How difficult is the game to teach to new players? Can non-board-game-geeks handle it with some good coaching in the beginning? Are there any other games I should be adding to my collection before Puerto Rico if I'm concerned about new player friendliness but still want  a good flexible strategy game?

Puerto Rico is one of those games that if you play a 'sample' round or two, the game mechanics and the different role cards can be quickly learnt. It is also such a great game that first time board gamers get hooked on board games because of it. The mechanics of the game are actually pretty simple, but has a good depth of skill required to be a good player.
We often use Puerto Rico as the first game to play with new players. Our second choice is Power Grid.

Also, the game is very forgiving.  No matter the role you choose it has a benefit.  My group once played with a five-year-old who ended up beating us all.  Since everyone does the action, it's easy for one player who knows it to execute what needs to be done properly.

@Neal - I'm not sure if that says more about Puerto Rico or about your group. :)

We got better. :P

@Code your new players can handle power grid!? that's awesome! Whenever I go to a game store and ask if power grid is good for new players they tell me its one of the worst choices unless they enjoy doing plenty of math to plan ahead multiple turns...

PowerGrid rules are pretty simple. They are unlikely to win because of the strategic element, but they can get to grips with it really quickly. New players don't expect to win first go, but to play a game that is not too complex, yet still enjoy the strategic elements of it has been a good way to hook new gamers.

I wouldn't have thought of recommending Power Grid for non-gamers. Most of the people I introduce to games have a deep rooted fear of lots of bits and numbers. They drift more toward games like Carcassonne; next time I will give Power Grid a try.

Having just recently completed our first full game of Puerto Rico I have a fresh perspective on this. Previously we only played about an hour into the game. This time we had one new player and she came second place with 1 point behind and 10+ points ahead of the rest.
All in all the individual parts of the game are not that difficult to learn. The manual is very good and with Scott's video you get a good overview on how to get points.
However as others told you already the game is difficult to master. There are a lot of options and it requires some experience to not make too many mistakes.
Contrary to what some commenter said, the game is [or at least can be] very unforgiving for its length. A few bad choices early on coupled with some bad luck can essentially ruin you. To realize that you've doomed yourself to last place and then having to play the remaining 1.5 hours can really hurt! Thus I strongly support Codemwnci's suggestion of playing some sample rounds (~5) before you go for the full game.
Important points to pass on to new players:

You win through shipping goods and constructing buildings.
Know exactly under what circumstances the game ends.
Keep your options open. Make sure that you can profit from most roles even (perhaps even especially) when someone else picks it.
Do not neglect your cash flow.

What killed me in our game was cash. I ran out of it in the first or second round and had to pass up three or four building phases. After that everyone had such a big advantage over me that I was never able to catch up again.

It depends entirely on the group of people.
I'm good at explaining games, and good at streamlining the concepts to make them easy to understand, but Puerto Rico is far, far too complex to teach to my parents and many of my friends. They would simply fade out after hearing "there are two ways to earn points." These are folks who are thrown by the twelve points rule in Qwirkle, and are much more common than you might think.
Other friends, despite not being boardgame fans, would have no trouble learning the game, and would indeed pick things up after playing a couple of rounds.
Use caution and carefully scope out your audience. See if they're fading out and keep them in the explanation by asking if they have any questions so far, what you should cover again, etc.

Having just finished my first game, these are my reactions.
The initial explanation didn't take extremely long, primarily because we left the non-production building explanation for later when we would actually need them. We were able to start playing after about 10-15 minutes of carefully guided explanation.
If the players are open to new things and aren't going to freak out from a lot of parts or a bit of explanation before playing you should be okay. If not, you may want to spend a little bit of time on intro-games to see if they want to take a bigger plunge.
If all the players are new to the game (as in my case) its actually pretty fun to be able to explore it together. I imagine if you had to walk into a jungle when you knew every tree accompanied by 2 people who were still fascinated by the undergrowth you'd be pretty bored.
We started really seeing and taking advantage of the strategies as we found them about mid-way through the game. We were able to share insights and start really applying things. I imagine the next game we'll know our way around more and be able to make more informed choices.
I'd definitely consider it a success. If you have people who are willing to go on the adventure, you'll be able to have fun learning you're way around. I wouldn't play with any experienced people until you've had the time to wander around, get lost, and find the way our yourself. :D

I don't think the game is that complex.  I do think, from personal experience, that it's a tough game for newbies because they can get screwed over pretty easily.  When I first started playing Puerto Rico I was regularly reduced to despair by watching my hard-accumulated goods rot away on the pier.  Until you've played a few times and have a feel for how the timings work, you'll have to be supernaturally smart to see this kind of thing coming.  Many less hardcore gamers don't like this "school of hard knocks" route to success and will give up before they get there.
I've also always found that the buildings - which, let's not forget, are a bunch of nearly identical purple squares covered with tiny text - are impossible to "grok" the first time around.  Again, you have to have played the game a bit before their differences and uses become anywhere near obvious, and it takes some stamina to get that far.
In addition, I've heard tell that experienced players get very frustrated with having newbies at the table... because in Puerto Rico you can get such huge advantages from the person sitting next to you producing goods at an opportune time for you, someone acting cluelessly can create a huge swing in the power balance of the game.  So not only is the game not much fun for the hapless newbie, it may also be not that much fun for those trying to teach the game to beginners!
But after all that doomsaying, I do have to say that Puerto Rico is well worth it once everyone gets the hang of it.  I'd just recommend building up to this level of Eurogame (pretty much the top tier, eh?) in incremental steps, so no one's head explodes from coming to it direct from The Game of Life :D

I definitely think that its a bad choice if you are going to mix experienced players with new people. Its kind of like pitting an advanced chess player against a beginner.

@CrazyJugglerDrummer: its much worse that pitting an advanced chess player against a beginner, because of the multiplayer effects.

The mechanics are not that difficult but the feeling that a newbie has no clue how to play well is intimidating. I always make sure that they understand that the first few turns don't really matter that much (in a newbie game) and that they'll get the hang of if in a couple of turns. They should just let the complexity wash over them for a couple of rounds.
TRIVIA: The one rule that NO ONE remembers at first is that you can't have two of the same building. I make a point of telling them and adding "...you'll deny that I told you this rule". They still deny it.

Wait, what? I didn't even know about that rule...

@MrHen: there's a question confirming it, although I imagine you've seen it by now.

I tried to learn Puerto Rico two years ago, and had a second "go" in the past week, "cramming" the rules and strategy recommendations over several nights, and I think I'm still confused. Perhaps it's because the game concepts are different from what I am used to in other games.
The mechanics are simple enough. Each player picks one of several roles (builder, settler, mayor, etc.) and then the players take turns playing that role, with the original picker getting some extra benefits over the other players of the respective roles. Which brings me to the first point:
Puerto Rico is what I call a "curved" game, insofar as what matters is not how much benefit you get in the absolute sense from a role, but how much more you benefit compared to other players. In this regard, its shared roles makes it most like hold 'em (poker) with its "shared" board. If you're a poker player and you understand how hold 'em differs from other forms of poker, you'll get my point about Puerto Rico versus other games. (And if you don't understand this, maybe it's not the game for you.)
The goal in the game is end up with the most victory points, but aiming directly for them might not be the best way to get there. Early in the game, it makes better sense to go for cash, to acquire buildings and other elements of a victory point "machine," and then switch to playing for victory points about mid-game. This back-and-forth is not to everyone's taste.
And then the matter of the victory condition itself. I'm used to games where someone wins if they are the first to reach a specified number of victory points, say 15, or if they have the most victory points at the end of a specified number of rounds, say 15. But that's not how Puerto Rico works.
Basically, you win if the game ends (in one of three different ways) when you have the most victory points. So the goal of the game is not just to get the most victory points, but to end the game when you have the most. If you have the most victory points and can't end the game, and someone overtakes you while ending the game, the other person wins. On the other hand, you shouldn't end the game at a time when you don't have the most victory points, because someone else will win.
Puerto Rico could be a fascinating game for hard core gamers who are willing to take the time to learn its nuances because they plan to play it many times. But as a game to learn once and forget about, I would not recommend it.

I only played the game once, at a gamers meeting some years back, but this description rings true as best I remember.

Puerto RicoBGG is pretty simple to learn.  The rules are not too complex and the turn actions are pretty straight forward.
However, like most games that have Victory Points, the game can take a few plays until you understand the flow of actions and which moves are "best".
I would highly reccommend this game.  I learned it at lunchtime at the office and, even with experienced players, did pretty well, even tying for the win my third game.

Nice discussion here, but hard to answer.
The opinion of Ryan Sturm, who is an educator and also the host of the "How to play" podcast, is that the complexity is a "Black diamond".

These games cross the realm into 'gamer's games'. They typically can last over two hours and require a significant amount of mental effort to learn. Though the games are manageable enough to play strategically in one play.
The complete complexity rating scale here:
http://howtoplaypodcast.com/about/htp-complexity-rating-scale/

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


text:
Basic strategies for each country in Diplomacy
I found out one of my friends has Diplomacy and wants to play. He's never played before, and neither have I, nor anyone else in the group. I'm confident I can explain the rules, but I don't really know a lot about the strategy as I've never actually played. I'll be able to convey the general strategies, like backstabbing at key times and making sure to make their key borders as well protected as possible.
However, I don't really know what to do about the strategies for specific country, and I think we'd all enjoy it more if I didn't end up advising them what to do due to time constraints and its opposition to the spirit of the game. Ideally, I want everyone to be as independent as possible, meaning not relying on other players for their strategies and moves because I think that's more how it was meant to be played.
Does anyone know of some brief, meaning a few paragraphs long, descriptions of strategy for playing each country? Something like this:

Germany: Since you are in the center of the board, you will be in the middle of many other countries' way. Try to make alliances with 1 or 2 of them so you won't be fighting on all sides. [country] is most likely to attack you in [place] because it's critical to their expansion and future development, so watch for this early in the game. If you make friends with Italy, the two of you can proceed to conquer this area of the board and quickly grow in strength...
Your ideal alliances would be with A and B, but if A refuses then you can do this to minimize your vulnerability...

As I said, I know nothing about diplomacy yet, so I don't know exactly how the game develops. But if I could give each player a piece of paper with some advice on it for certain situations, I think it could help a lot, especially in the beginning with answering the question 'what they heck do I do?!?!'.
Does anyone know of some good brief summaries that I can give each player to help them get off to as good a start as possible? Naturally these would be kept secret from other players and I wouldn't read any before-hand except for the one for the country I'm playing.

What's cool is when you can win without any backstabbing.  It's takes way more diplomacy doing it that way.

@Lance: My favourite Diplomacy memory is of playing with a young man who was so paranoid about being backstabbed that he insisted on seeing everyone writing their moves on their physical order sheets before he would enter any agreement with them. This eventually got irritating, so on a crucial turn I made two order sheets, writing one out solely for his benefit and submitting another. It might not have been very ethical but his disbelief and outrage as my units ploughed into him from behind was definitely worth it. Some people deserve a good backstabbing!

@thesunneversets This is great.  #SatisfyingStabs

IMO diplomacy is more fun when no one knows what they are doing.

The Gamers' Guide to Diplomacy has exactly the brief summaries you're looking for as well as much more. It's hard to get hold of so I put it online here. p7 of the 2nd pdf has the brief country by country summaries.

The link no longer works. Any chance there's an updated site? Thanks!

If you want even shorter summaries of each country's strategy, this site has them. I have never played Diplomacy before, so I'm not sure how accurate the strategies are, but they are a quick read. Also, warning, Comic Sans.

I can't speak with regard to some of the other countries, but can answer specifically your questions about Germany, which I have some experience in playing.
Germany is tough to play, at least at the start, because it is surrounded by four countries on two sides. So it has to make an alliance with one party (E.g. with England vs. France, or vice-versa) and with Austria vs. Russia, or vice-versa, ON EACH SIDE. Then it has to ensure that the remaining countries, Italy and Turkey, either fight each other, or its enemies and not its allies.
For this reason, the German player sometimes begins discussions with these two, and then works backward with its neighbors.
IF IT SURVIVES, Germany's central position works to its advantage later in the game. There is a saying that whoever owns Munich wins the game (because it's hard to get to 18 without it.)  Germany STARTS with Munich. It will either lose it early (to France, Russia, or possibly Austria) or else it will become strong enough to defend Munich and central Europe generally.
Once the enemies have been reduced to one eastern and one western power, plus one or two in the Mediterranean, Germany can become the "go to" country for others, because it can do the most harm to anyone.

With some experience as England and Russia, I can say this:
England:
England is a safe country. Negotiate with France or Russia (one of the two) and then attack the other and raid the neutral territories they might want (Spain/Belgium or Sweden/Norway). Make lots of fleets and dominate the coastlines before using the convoy order to move further inland. England will not lose very often due to their position in the ocean and they can survive until the later game with their ally.
Russia:
Russia, unlike all the other countries, has 4 starting supply centers. This can work to their advantage as they can multitask and build more than any other country. You want to take Scandinavia early on- Norway is much more vulnerable but much more vital than Sweden is. Meanwhile, ally Turkey and kill Austria Hungary (Italy and Germany may help). Once you have done this, use your navy to defend against England (if they attack you) or use your army to squash Germany (whoever has Munich wins the game, it has been said). Russia is a strong faction, but in case of a backstabbing, it is hard to defend yourself and if you let your allies get too strong, you won't last long.

I have some Expierence with Italy and Austria.
Italy: don't focus yourself to one area. Take bits here and there, and make sure to talk to everyone. If you talk to everyone, you can directly influence how the game goes. For example, turn Austria against Turkey with yourself. Turn England and Germany against France before sneaking in and taking Marseilles. Always put yourself into a position where it is hard for the enemy to mount a counter-offensive because they have 2 or more enemies against them. Always make sure your "allies" have a new target ( or are the target themselves) before you become the target.
Austria: Always watch out for that Italian backstab into Trieste. Never attack Germany or Italy early in the game. You really only have two options, Crush Turkey with Russia, or Crush Russia with Turkey. If you want to solo, typically allying with Russia is the better idea. Make sure you start building fleets as soon as you can without leaving your land-locked supply centers vulnerable. If Austria does not build enough fleets, they will easily be crushed later on in the game. Again, talking to everyone and manipulating the game to how you like is essential.

France is fairly easy to play at first, but winning can be very difficult. Feel out both Germany and England to see which one you click with best. If you click with England, ask Germany for a bounce in Burgundy and play Marseilles - Burgundy, Paris - Picardy and Brest to Mid-Atlantic Ocean. This will effectively eliminate Germany's power over Belgium. Then have England try to take Holland while you try to take Belgium. Germany will get only one build and will quickly crash unless Russia intervenes mightily on his behalf. Take Belgium and Munich and then surge south after Italy. Try to take Tunis and an Italian home center (like Rome) before stabbing England. Then, try to power your way through to St. Petersburg for the solo win.
If, on the other hand, you favor Germany then tell both England and Germany that you will not contest Belgium. Play Brest - Mid-Atlantic, Marseilles HOLD and Paris - Gascony. Then convoy Gascony to Portugal while Marseilles takes Spain. You'll be left with a fleet in Mid-Atlantic and after a fleet build in Brest, you will be strongly positioned to take out England. Tell Germany that his part is Belgium/Edinburgh while you take Liverpool/London. But once you get your part, don't bother helping Germany to get his half. Let him struggle on his own and convince him to go against Russia. Then, surge south towards Italy and try to take Tunis and an Italian home center (like Rome). Once you have that, stab Germany and try to power your way up through St. Petersburg for a solo victory.


text:
Strategies for playing the Traitor in Shadows Over Camelot?
I've played SOC several times but I've never actually been the traitor myself, so when I was, it came as a bit of a shock. I tried to think about strategy in the first several rounds while pretending to be perfectly loyal to give myself time to think. Ultimately, it came down to the big question of if and when I wanted to be revealed. Whenever I was loyal, we usually tried not to reveal the traitor until the final few rounds of the game to minimize their power. But what does this mean for for the traitor?
If I played completely loyally, doing everything possible to help the loyal knights for the entire gameI could earn black swords from the other players false accusations and my bonus 2 white swords to black at the end for being undiscovered. But this doesn't seem very traitor like as I'd just be another loyal knight who happened to flip black swords at the end. This seems somewhat like what a traitor might actually do.
If I made it blatantly clear that I was the traitor, literally doing everything possible to stop the knights before I was revealed (just moving around and never playing white cards, always choosing the progression of evil that would hurt them the most, etc.), the other players would choose not to reveal me toward the end because I would be able to do more damage when revealed. This seems like a good strategy, but its definitely the most boring for everyone.
If I took a middle path and tried to halt the knights quietly until the end, it would seem like I would most be following what the traitor is 'supposed' to do. But it also seems like the weakest strategy. Its very difficult to secretly stop the knights as they will be able to see all of the face down cards I play eventually, and if I do anything obvious the whole jig is up, they will choose not to reveal me to the end, and I'll end up going with the second strategy. It just seems like the traitor has virtually no options to plot quietly against the knights without revealing himself.
Which of these strategies is best in terms of stopping the loyal knights? Which tends to be best in terms of making the game fun? Is there anything important I'm overlooking about the abilities, choices, and overall power of the traitor?

Typically, being the traitor at Shadows is sort of like playing games where bluffing is involved. Success depends on you managing the table's personalities. Here are the rules I set for myself as traitor and I try to stick to them as much as possible:
Don't lie. This is the number one rule. (Technically speaking the rule should be "don't get caught lying", but I find personally that if I think that's the rule, I spend a lot of time worrying about whether a lie is worth making, whether I can get caught out, etc, etc, which drains away my ability to spend effort on actually playing the game to win as the traitor, so "don't lie" is easier, oddly enough, to follow and win.) The only question you're allowed to lie to (unless it's an official accusation) is speculation that you are the traitor. And you don't want that accusation to ever be made, so...
Refuse to engage in speculation and try, quietly, to defuse it. Don't fall into the trap of parties of speculation, or trying to "defend yourself by accusing someone else". This is a fool's game, because it puts the issue of accusation on the table as legitimate and once that's done, you're as good a target (better, in fact) than anyone else. Do everything you can to get people not to speculate about the traitor's identity or make accusations, which can lead to table management principles...
Be jovial and pleasant, almost carefree. Chit-chat. Encourage others to chit-chat. Be friendly, be funny; ask for the snacks, pass the snacks, enquire after others' desire for snacks, ask if anyone would like more snacks. In other words, as much as possible, try to put the other players in a friendly mental space where they're not thinking too much about the game other than the mechanical "optimal choices" they have to make on their turn, which leads to...
Encourage others to make "the best choice". Get the other players to avoid the conclusion that finding and accusing the right traitor is a wonderfully good thing for them to do; you can do this by focussing on optimal moves whenever possible. Whenever the discussion turns to strategy for an individual player turns, always encourage discussion about evaluating options that don't have to do with the traitor issue. This helps lull your fellow players into a mind-set that the game can be beaten without exposing the traitor, and that exposing the traitor isn't a legitimate strategic option to discuss. While this discussion is going on, try as hard as you can to not offer advice yourself: try to exclusively ask questions, and not answer questions (i.e. "What do you think we should do here?", "Do you think it's better to play a bunch of high cards here?", and so on). This makes you look like you're contributing, but relieves you of the burden of actually contributing to good choice making (and prevents you from being caught lying). Don't overdo it, because this can lead to being suspicious.
Make the others play your hand. This goes hand in hand with the previous point: rather than getting caught out making sub-optimal plays, as much as possible get the others to direct your play. Don't lie, but continually ask the others what they think you should do, how you should play your cards, and so on. You can't break the rules about card-talk, but you can set the others up to spending extra effort to think about playing your hand as well as theirs. Be very careful not to look purposefully dumb (especially if people know you're good at games) and be very careful not to lie (or get caught lying). But spend your thought-effort on figuring out how to damage the group's chances, and not on what the best play is for your own resources: your best play is always to strategically make it harder for the group to beat the game.)
When you have an opportunity to knife invisibly, be merciless. When occasions come up in the game where you can damage the group's chances, with not chance of being caught, do that. Quite often this comes up when you're allowed to examine action cards, defer action cards, re-arrange action cards (as long as you're sure no-one can notice this). Offering bad tactical advice is generally a bad idea (see "don't lie"), but putting the group in the position where they have to choose between a sort of bad thing, and a really bad thing (by quietly taking the good choice off the table) is awesome.
The game presents lots of opportunity for the traitor to submit the group to death by a thousand cuts, so do that every time you can. This makes it far easier for you to...
Stab overtly right at the end only when you're sure it makes you win. If you can make a masterstroke at the end that comes from lying or overt betrayal, do it, if you know the others can't avoid losing the game. This will be a LOT easier if you've submitted the group to the death of a thousand cuts policy: you want, as much as possible, to keep the game tense and tight at the end, because this means that even small choices you make can have correspondingly great effects. You want your masterstroke to be as small, quiet, and deadly as possible because you want to maximize your chances of not getting caught.

Excellent answer.  The only thing I'd add is "get the armor". Choosing one of two black cards is very very powerful.

The best traitor players come across as "Loyal but inept"... just having bad runs of card draws. At the end of the game, holding onto all the 5's, for example.
Remember: all discards are face down... so if you have three 5's, spend them on a hit-point.
Once the siege engines are out, alternate between them and the black cards.
Always play facedown black cards on Lance, the dragon, and the knight.

Agreed. When you play with people you know, you have to be very careful not to appear more inept than they know you are (or are not). And you have to be careful not to declaim to be too unlucky, or be caught out in a lie (i.e. getting caught out making an obviously awful decision). Breaking up card sets by using them in ways that can't be easily verified (especially discarding them) is an excellent suggestion.

First, let's keep in mind the losing conditions for the loyal knights, as well as a few facts. Loyal knights lose if:
1) there are 7 black swords at the round table.
Keep in mind that 1 white sword becomes a black sword from a false accusation.  2 white swords convert to 2 black swords if you can remain unidentified as the traitor when a "victory" condition is met.
2) there are 12 siege engines surrounding Camelot.
This gets very difficult to avoid when the Grail, Excalibur and Dragon quests are complete since those cards now mean add a siege engine.  "Perhaps it wasn't such a good idea for the loyal knights to win that quest so quickly..."
3) all of the loyal knights lose all of their life points.
This is practically impossible.  I do not suspect there is any way to build a strategy around this losing condition.  Just make sure that you do not die off, because if you do, you cannot do your Progressions of Evil and steal white cards.
4) The only way they win is if the majority of the (at least) 12 swords at the round table are white.  If you remain hidden at this point, they will still win if they have 12 swords, 9 of which are white, or 13 (or more) swords, 8 of which are white.  So the best thing for the loyal knights would be to win a bunch of quests as close to simultaneously as possible giving them one of the sword ratios above.  This would give the traitor very little time to make false accusations and turn white swords to blacks, and not enough cards draws from completed quests to add more siege engines.  Better for you (the traitor) is that they win Grail or Excalibur early on.  Then you have a basis for strategy # 5 below and if you get called out, strategy # 4 should be easy.
My hints for good traitorous play:
1) Find ways to dump your good cards.
It always seems suspicious when the cards have been shuffled but the Heroism card hasn't been used yet and there have been several quests that have been won.  That is because you (the traitor) dumped it into the lake at the Excalibur quest, or discarded it as your white card penalty instead of losing a life point.  The Merlin's Company expansion seems to have powers for the new knights that make this very easy.  Warning:  don't be too obvious and eager about opportunities to "dump" cards in this manner.  "I'll dump three cards so you guys don't have to" makes you suspicious.  Keep in mind that all discards (Excalibur quest, penalties from special black cards, and knight powers) must be done face down so the loyal knights cannot see that you just dumped your Reinforcements card, for example.
2) Notice how you play when you are not the traitor.
If your play (behavior/mannerisms) is similar/identical to how you play when you are loyal, it makes it more difficult to spot you doing something devious.  Ex:  I generally always make my first few Progressions of Evil as losing a life point in order to delay having to play black cards or place siege engines.  If I started a game out and did not ever lose life points, the other players would suspect something right away.
3) Don't be a moron.
Other players will know that you knew better.  Ex: Fighting a siege engine with only 4 fight strength.  "Well I thought I had a 50/50 chance." isn't going to cut it.  Nobody is that desperate, and furthermore, that's only a 3/8 probability of winning (because you lose on ties).  Likewise, travelling to the Grail quest with only 2 grail cards is not very smart.  Travelling at all without the proper counters to the Travel Cards (Merlin's Company expansion) is also not smart.  You fellow players will sniff you out really quickly if you try something so foolhardy.  Remember, you are trying to remain hidden until they think they have won so you can switch 2 whites swords.
4) Expose the traitor early.
An alternate way to play the traitor is to get out early on.  It seems reasonable that you get exposed early in the game, to maximize the damage that can be done by your white card stealing, and minimize the "good" that you have to do while you are still loyal.  This may only work once per playing group, but if you can convince them to ferret out the traitor early on, say, before you have even earned 1 white sword, they will waste many Heroic Actions with their accusations to expose you.  You also, can waste your Heroic Actions making what you know is a false accusation, wasting some of your turns.  In order to do this, there needs to be 6 siege engines out.  Once you are exposed, you only need to get 6 more down to win, all the while you can be stealing their cards making it hard to them to finish quests (or even start one) or fight off the siege engines.
5) Falsely Accuse.
Tip #4 above is great, but won't work very often when they see how devastating it can be to expose the traitor too early on.  Wait till there are 2-3 white swords in play (and preferably 2-3 black swords as well), then start making some false accusations.  This will convert the whites to blacks.  Once you have 7, you win.  This may force them to expose you sooner than they wanted since you keep turning all of their white swords.

Note: Each knight may only accuse ONCE in the whole game, you can't make more than one false accusation, and normally this will get you accused straight back.

Also note that the dragon quest repeats, it doesn't become siege engines.

@xorsyst this is what "the book of quests" says in "the dragon's quest" section Once won or lost, the Quest is removed from the game. Any future Lancelot/Dragon cards drawn
will add a Siege Engine around Camelot in lieu of being played normally.


text:
What is the difference between "flying" and "this creature can only be blocked by creatures with flying"?
Tons of creatures have flying in Magic:The Gathering, but I noticed Treetop Rangers have this ability:

Treetop Rangers can't be blocked except by creatures with flying.

Obviously this means that Treetop Rangers can't be blocked by creatures with Reach, which can block creatures with flying. Is that the only difference? When else would this distinction matter? Is Treetop Ranger's ability generally 'better' than flying?

I know it's the "simple answer", but I have to add it for completeness' sake!
A creature that "can't be blocked except by creatures with flying" has about half the functionality of a creature with flying.  In terms of its evasive power, it's quite similar to a creature with flying; a little better because it can't be blocked by the likes of Giant Spider, and "super-high-flyers" such as Cloud Elemental.
In terms of its defensive capabilities, however, it's much worse than a flyer, since it can only block ground creatures, never a flyer!  And as David Z rightly points out, it is susceptible to a different class of spells such as Earthquake, while laughing at the likes of Hurricane and Plummet...

One difference is with cards like Hurricane that affect only creatures with flying, or those like Earthquake that affect only creatures without flying. If flyer removal is common in your metagame, something like Treetop Rangers can be pretty good because you can easily get rid of the creatures that can block it without removing the Rangers themselves.

+1 - that's what I get for looking for the link for Moat.  Well, actually +1 when I get my votes back in 22 hours.

Also, perhaps it is obvious, but another difference is the rangers cannot block flying creatures on defense.

@Affe, +1 - since this is by far the most obvious and important difference between a creature with Flying and a Treetop Ranger, I'm amazing that two answers so far hadn't mentioned it!

Yeah, I completely forgot about that... :-/

@thesun -- it was too obvious, but I should have included it for completeness.  Oh well.

Creatures with "Can't be blocked except by creatures with flying" essentially have the same evasion as flying, without the downside of being affected by cards that affect flying creatures, such as Wing Puncture and Hurricane.
On the downside, it can still be affected by cards such as Earthquake and Moat, since it doesn't have flying.
Is it "better" than flying?  Depends on the situation.

Unless the rules have changed recently (which is entirely possible), treetop rangers can be blocked by creatures with reach, since reach allows a creature to block as if it had flying.

The rules have indeed changed, Simon - in the old days creatures had the ability "can block as though it had flying", which enabled the blocking of Treetop Rangers.  Since the keywording of "Reach", which explicitly means "this creature can block creatures with Flying" - the Rangers are unblockable.

Compare Treetop Rangers with Orchard Spirit


text:
What are the Pros and Cons of using cards from multiple different sets when drafting?
My friends and I have never drafted before and are planning to try it in the next few weeks. However, one thing we're not sure of is whether its better to mix cards from different sets or just have them all from one set (We're actually just using random cards selected from my copies of the sets and not boosters, but I don't think that will make a difference for this question). Currently I'm planning on having the first 2 rounds be all M11 and M12 mixed together and the last round be Innistrad, but I don't have any reasoning for doing it that way and am curious what others think.
Are drafts normally done with boosters only from one set, or from different sets? Why are they done this way? If multiple different sets are used, should the packs from that each set be all used in one round or used one in each round (1 round of all Innistrad packs vs. at least 1 pack of Innistrad mixed in each round with whatever the other packs are)?

We call them "wacky drafts" at our shop. Someone will get 8 people and draft Zendikar, 8th Edition, and Fallen Empires (or something like that). It's great fun to discover the weird interactions.

Normally drafts are restricted to a single block.
In sanctioned drafting (with sealed boosters), the distribution looks like this:

Core set, the first set of a block, or a "big third set" like Rise of the Eldrazi or Avacyn Restored: three boosters from the same set, e.g. M12 / M12 / M12.
The second set of a block: one booster from the new set, two from the first set (which is bigger), e.g. Dark Ascension / Innistrad / Innistrad.
The (small) third set of a block: one booster from the third set, one from the secondset, one from the first set, e.g. New Phyrexia / Mirrodin Beseiged / Scars of Mirrodin.

(Note that, before Scars block, the pack order was reversed.)
As you can see from the list above, the size of the potential card pool will vary. M12 / M12 / M12 has around 250 possible cards. NP / MB / SOM is closer to 600. Thar larger card pool is trickier for players to learn (folks who play regularly will learn it incrementally, as new sets are introduced). I've heard of triple small-set drafts (e.g. Worldwake or Eventide), but many players say that these have very stilted environments -- both because the card mix is to small and because they were never designed to be drafted stand-alone, so a lot of the card pool assumes you'll have cards from the other set to round out your deck.
The main advantage of staying within a block is that block themes provide players with a reference point for making draft choices. Stepping outside of a single block presents players with additional challenges in evaluating cards against the "metagame" of the total card pool. This may be desirable if you're specifically looking to force players to think on their feet in an unfamiliar situation, but novice drafters have enough to worry about without the extra complexity.
Generally, the cards in a block are all designed to work together (in draft more so than anywhere else, actually -- only some of the cards in each set are intended to be "Constructed-worthy"). When you stray from that structure, you risk watering down the archetypes built into a set / block. For example, M12 has a lot of bloodthirst creatures in it. Red and black, the two colors with the highest concentration of bloodthirst, have access to common-level "enablers" to make bloodthirst decks run smoother: Goblin Fireslinger and Tormented Soul. Mixing up M12 and M11 cards would make it more difficult to draft bloodthirst due to the lower probability of finding these cards (although you might be able to compensate with M11 cards like Lightning Bolt and Prodigal Pyromancer). It's not to say that you can't break up blocks, but ideally you should have a pretty good reason for doing so. In particular, watch for sets with "parastic" mechanics like Kamigawa's soulshift -- diluting the card pool with cards from another set will greatly weaken these cards, making for a wonky and unbalanced drafting environment.
As I said in this answer, I don't think absolute pack-for-pack correctness is super important in a DIY draft, because I don't like going into pack 2 knowing you're absolutely "cut off" from any more set 3 if you didn't draft them in pack 1.

Triple-small-set badness example: lots of folks say the best strategy in 3x Eventide draft was just to overload on Mimics.

@Alex P's answer is fantastic and explains in great detail why competitive drafting is always from the same block.
In a friendly game that is less competitive the things you need to consider all:

As he said, it will affect the metagame.  Card drafting guides and strategies built up for drafting cards will be somewhat less applicable.
Some cards are meant specifically to work with a certain type of card, and if that type is rare, then those cards might be less valuable (many cards from the kamigawa block assumed a spirit-rich environment...)
On the flip side, some cards may not have a good answer since they were relying on certain things in the block.
Different blocks sometimes have somewhat different power levels.

Whether those things are advantages or disadvantages depends partially on your point of view, particularly the way it will affect the metagame.  If I am someone who knows how to play but I haven't studied the current metagame, I might for instance prefer some weird mix of blocks so that effectively no one has studied the metagame.
On the other hand, if I am preparing for competition I might not want anything from outside the current metagame, much less a weird mix.
The bottom line is that blocks were designed intentionally to be cohesive.  Breaking that cohesion isn't necessarily good or bad, but it will make the game more random in some ways.


text:
What happens when a deal is passed out in Duplicate Bridge Tournaments?
I understand how duplicate bridge works, but I'm still missing one small conceptual part of the scoring, being the outcome when a deal is passed out. Is the score for that hand just assumed to be 0 for both sides, making it identical to a hand that happened to have a 0 score?
What happens if some tables play the hand and score highly where others just don't play it since they all passed? Are certain measure taken in the creation of the hands to avoid deals that are likely to be passed out?

I understand how duplicate bridge works, but I'm still missing one small conceptual part of the scoring, being the outcome when a deal is passed out. Is the score for that hand just assumed to be 0 for both sides

Yes. Why would there be an exception? Passing out the hand is a perfectly valid way to play it.

making it identical to a hand that happened to have a 0 score?

There are no other ways to have a 0 (raw) score.

What happens if some tables play the hand and score highly where others just don't play it since they all passed?

The usual rules for converting score to matchpoints (or team IMPs, if you use those) apply.

Are certain measure taken in the creation of the hands to avoid deals that are likely to be passed out?

No. It's not a TD's responsibility to speculate on how a hand is likely to be played before play occurs.

In tournaments, certainly, a passed hand is treated like any other; both pairs get a zero score.  But in some (NB not all) of those clubs where the hands are dealt at the first table rather than set up by the TD, it is the convention to re-deal a hand that is passed out the first time, on the grounds that it's likely to be passed out every time, and so give everybody the same score.  Of course, this alters the play at subsequent tables: before you pass out, you have to consider that somebody at the first table did bid on one of these hands.  So it's only used in friendly club evenings.
(FWIW, I am opposed to this variant: I reckon on a small but reliable bonus from simply passing bad hands, and letting the rival pairs go down after trying out their gadgets)

In reality a passed out deal on the first round should not be reshuffled and redealt. The reason it is done is that people pay table-money to play in a tournament and want to play the requisite number of boards with card-play as well as bidding.
Therefore people feel "ripped off" if a board gets passed out.
In a duplicate pairs contest, a board that is passed out will score 0 for both sides and will therefore you will beat any pairs going minus with your cards and lose to any going plus. If the scoring is match-points, this will determine where you are placed in the field, just as with any other board.

If a hand is passed out, every team that passes it out gets a 0 raw score. These players will also get the same matchpoint score as other teams sitting in the same seats (East-West, or North-South) with a 0 score.
There is the likelihood that SOME pair(s) will play out the deal. Then they will get a higher or lower matchpoint score than average, depending on high they do relative to 0.

I disagree with all the above comments.  Duplicate Bridge is all about bidding and achieving the best possible result from a hand.  There are situations where passing (not playing a hand) is more prudent than risking a bid and going down.  So, therefore, a passed out hand in my club gets a marginally higher score than zero. On the traveler, we record 1 point in both the north/south and east/west score.  The matchpoints will then indicate that a "1 score" beats a "0 score". I know this is not the way it is done in competition but it works for us.

I believe most are talking about a raw score of zero, not the matchpoint score...

As Karl said, there is no other way to achieve a score of 0, so does this really make any difference?

At matchpoints a 1 would be no different to a 0 though. The lowest plus you can get is +50 for taking the opps 1 down non-vulnerable.


text:
When would you buy the Thief in Dominion?
The Thief card rarely seems to be of much use, even when my opponents have bought a lot of treasure. Rather than stealing treasure, it seems much better to buy treasure to directly get to the high powered cards that will win the game. Often this card will actually help my opponent by stripping the copper out of the deck.
In what circumstances is the Thief card worth purchasing?

Thief is a specialty card. It improves a lot with the number of players. That and opponent treasure-density are the big factors in deciding if you want a Thief. Almost never buy a Thief in a 2-player game, but there is potential in a 4-player game. (Though honestly, even then it's still rare to be useful.)
There are 2 major drawbacks and one minor drawback to thieving:

It can help your opponents by trashing copper.
The benefit to you is slow: you won't see stolen treasure until after a re-shuffle.
Cycling your opponents deck speeds up their shuffles, thus how soon they can use just-gained cards.*

Thief is a mid-game card, but due to the copper-trashing it's actually bad in the early-game. This is unusual, it's about the only card that can do nothing for you while helping your opponents. You must wait until other players have trashed most of their coppers to get a Thief. However, if you wait too long, your odds of hitting a treasure in a greened deck get slimmer (though stealing a Gold late in the game can make it hard for your opponent to get the last Provinces.) Furthermore, late in the game you might not get a chance to see any of the treasure you steal.
You don't want a Thief unless people have high treasure density: both trashed their copper already and started getting bigger Gold/Platinum. I don't really think it's worth it if Silver is the best you'll get. You also don't want a Thief if people are using action cards for money. Markets, Minions, Conspirator chains, etc. -- forget the Thief.
There's obvious synergy with cards that let you control the top of your opponents' decks (e.g. Spy/Scrying Pool). They can make a Thief much more effective. Additional treasures are also cards that could make you want a Thief. It's great to steal a Harem toward the end of the game, and Venture, Bank, etc. are nice additional targets.
We should compare Thief to Noble Brigand, which has been called in some forums a "fixed version of Thief". This isn't accurate; both cards were designed before the base set was released, they're similar but different, much like Laboratory and Hunting Party, or the different varieties of Village. Thief can steal/trash Platinum, Harem, Hoard, Fool's Gold, and all the other non-standard treasure, whereas Noble Brigand can only steal Silver/Gold. If someone is trashing coppers and buying Hoards, it might be time for a Thief. Mint/Fool's Gold is an excellent 5/2 opening, but a Thief could put a stopper on that. However, for general use Noble Brigand is better because it doesn't suffer from Thief's biggest drawback: trashing Coppers; it actually does the opposite, giving coppers if no treasure is revealed, which is nice for slowing engines.  And it gives you $1. And it activates on purchase. (I do wish Thief had some of those buffs. Even with the $1 and the instant activation it would still seem underpowered.)
If I were to pick a set of Kingdom Cards to make Thief as good as possible, I would want it to be a long game, so the Thief has time to steal and see the rewards, so it would definitely have Platinum/Colony, and probably a Curser (maybe Sea Hag?) to keep things slow. There has to be a trasher or 2 to get rid of coppers, but nothing too effective--again, keeping things slow. Moneylender would encourage trashing of Copper while allowing players to skip Silver and go straight to Gold. Spy is also a good enabler.  But we also want to be stealing interesting treasures! Thrown in some of the nice Kingdom treasures like Venture, Bank, Harem, and things start to look good. Maybe throw in Silk Road to make the Harems extra tempting.
*@Neal pointed out that it goes through opponent's decks, and thus they might miss a card they wanted. Going through someone's deck is usually seen as a con, because for most of the game they're buying cards that make their deck better, so reshuffling sooner gets those new cards in their hand sooner. I would consider this a con for Thief.

It's a con if you use it indiscriminately for that purpose.  However, if you pay attention, it can be powerful to deny someone a card they bought.  Still, I agree that it's awfully specialized in when it's useful.

However, this hurts more in multiplayer because the odds of the deck-cycling hurting more of your opponents than it helps goes down.

One thing that needs to be pointed out: Hinterlands introduced Noble Brigand, which only steals Golds and Silvers... and gives players a Copper if they turn over no money.  It's arguable whether this is a better card, as it can't steal Platinums or specialty money.

@Powerlord added a little bit to the Noble Brigand paragraph to make sure that was clear.

Depending on your group's style, a popular strategy may be what is known as "Big Money", which involves mostly ignoring "cool" cards in favour of mostly buying money and then Provinces wherever possible.  Tragically, this line, which is very dull to play (and to play against!) is quite powerful, at least among groups of players who are still getting good at the game.
The Thief provides a useful safeguard against Big Money strategies becoming too dominant.  If people at your table are doing little but stocking up on Silver and Gold (perhaps trashing their Coppers as they go), then the Thief is really going to ruin their day.  If you are plagued with these accountant-like money-grubbing players, then consider throwing Thief into the initial card mix and giving them something to think about!
See also this question for further discussion of Big Money in Dominion and counter-strategies for dealing with it...

The thief is good when the opponents' decks are filled with gold and platinum, and they are trashing their coppers themselves. Treasure Map can make thief a lot more useful, as well as Bureaucrat and Explorer or any other card that adds more treasures to the deck. Stealing your opponent's Potion before they can use it can also be choice.
In an action heavy spread thief isn't very good as you tend to not hit treasure much.

You highlight many of the pros and cons of Thief yourself.  It's true that early on, it's more likely to hurt you through the opportunity cost of having a silver, and may help them by stripping copper.
However, what about later in the game?  One common thing for many dominion strategies is to keep decks small, copperless, and gold heavy.  An opponent with a deck like that is the perfect target for thief.  Getting a gold when you're slightly behind on VP can make all the difference, and it can ruin an opponent's engine, perhaps fatally, in situations where it's be difficult to rebuy the gold.
There is one other thing that should not be missed.  The Thief, like all attacks that force discards, cause the opponent to lose the opportunity to play those two cards in that shuffle.  You can deny someone a card they've really been looking forward to playing that they spent a lot of time buying, at least for a time.

But late in the game you're as likely to deprive them of drawing a Province and a Duchy as your are a Gold and their favorite action.

True.  Advanced Dominion strategy involves knowing when you're behind, early, so you can take risky adjustments to catch up.  The thief is just one of those adjustments.  It's a 'chance' to turn the tide, so only buy/use it when warranted.

Thief is great if your opponent plays a heavy-trashing strategy and then goes for money (Chapel-ing away Coppers is a great way to make yourself vulnerable to Thief).
In general, though, Thief seems to function best as a deterrent—if Thief is on the board, you might want to rethink your Big Money strategy. But you're right that it's a weak card in many games, and it can actually help your opponents more if you are not smart about playing it.

As of the Second Edition, released in 2016, Thief was actually removed from the game, largely due to being too weak to be worth it.
However, as of the Renaissance expansion that was released in 2018, there is a new and potentially strong use for Thief:

If you have purchased Capitalism, then Thief can steal a lot of really good cards from your opponent.


text:
Catan : Multiple extension combination
I just bought the extension Cities and Knights (I don't know the rules very well at the moment).
I already have the base game and the Seafarers of Catan.
Is it possible to combine, on the same board, the Basic game of Catan, the Seafarers of Catan extension, and the Cities and Knights extension?

The rules for Cities and Knights (pdf) address combining it with Seafarers (page 13). They warn that only certain scenarios work well, and provide rules for things like how to treat ships as roads and how a knight can chase away the pirate. There is also a FAQ on combining the two expansions, which addresses a few points that the published rules don't cover.
One crucial point which they don't cover, in either the rules or FAQ, as discussed in an earlier question, is how many victory points to play to. It seems that the consensus is that when combining Seafarers and Cities and Knights that you should add 2 victory points to the victory conditions listed in the Seafarers scenario. See the other linked question for more detail.

Seafarers, Cities and Knights, and Traders and Barbarians are all expansions for Settlers of Catan. Every expansion requires the original game to setup and play.
The various expansions can be mixed. For example, Seafarers and Cities and Knights can be combined without trouble. In some cases the rules conflict - in which case adjustments need to be made. The Traders and Barbarians game manual describes some of the possible combinations. Many more combinations are listed on Catan.com:
Combinations with "Traders & Barbarians"
    The Fishermen of Catan - The Rivers of Catan
    The Fishermen of Catan - The Caravans
    The Fishermen of Catan - Barbarian Attack
    The Fishermen of Catan - Traders & Barbarians
    The Rivers of Catan - The Caravans
    The Rivers of Catan - Barbarian Attack
    The Rivers of Catan - Traders & Barbarians
    The Caravans - Barbarian Attack
    The Caravans - Traders & Barbarians
    Barbarian Attack - Traders & Barbarians

Combinations with "Seafarers"
    The Fishermen of Catan - Seafarers
    The Rivers of Catan - Seafarers
    The Caravans - Seafarers
    Barbarian Attack - Seafarers
    Traders & Barbarians - Seafarers

Combinations with "Cities & Knights"
    Catan for 2 - Cities & Knights
    The Fishermen of Catan - Cities & Knights
    The Rivers of Catan - Cities & Knights
    The Caravans - Cities & Knights
    Barbarian Attack - Cities & Knights
    Traders & Barbarians - Cities & Knights

You are not limited by these "official" suggestions. You could combine any set of Catan expansions, variants, extensions, or scenarios as long as you understand the rules well enough to resolve any conflicting rules before you start playing. That said, some combinations would be harder to resolve than others (like Cities and Knights + Barbarian Attack which have overlapping concepts with different implementations).

Be warned that the more you combine, the longer the game may take.


text:
If I lose control of an equipped creature, does the equipment stay attached to it?
If I have an equipped creature and my opponent Mind Controls it, does my equipment remain attached to it? Can I re-equip that equipment to one of my creatures on my turn? I assume since I control the equipment I'm the only one that can play its activated abilities because it was only the equipped creature that was mind-controlled.
Another example where this could happen would be Act Of Treason.

You are correct. The equipment stays attached to the stolen creature, but you still control it and may re-equip it to a different creature that you control.
Here are the rules for equipment (emphasis added):

301.5. Some artifacts have the subtype “Equipment.” An Equipment can be attached to a creature. It can’t legally be attached to an object
that isn’t a creature.
301.5a The creature an Equipment is attached to is called the “equipped creature.” The Equipment is attached to, or “equips,” that
creature.
301.5b An Equipment is cast and enters the battlefield just like any other artifact. An Equipment doesn’t enter the battlefield attached to
a creature. The equip keyword ability attaches the Equipment to a
creature you control (see rule 702.6, “Equip”). Control of the
creature matters only when the equip ability is activated and when it
resolves. Spells and other abilities may also attach an Equipment to a
creature. If an effect attempts to attach an Equipment to an object
that can’t be equipped by it, the Equipment doesn’t move.
301.5c An Equipment that’s also a creature can’t equip a creature. An Equipment that loses the subtype “Equipment” can’t equip a creature.
An Equipment can’t equip itself. An Equipment that equips an illegal
or nonexistent permanent becomes unattached from that permanent but
remains on the battlefield. (This is a state-based action. See rule
704.) An Equipment can’t equip more than one creature. If a spell or ability would cause an Equipment to equip more than one creature, the
Equipment’s controller chooses which creature it equips.
301.5d An Equipment’s controller is separate from the equipped creature’s controller; the two need not be the same. Changing control
of the creature doesn’t change control of the Equipment, and vice
versa. Only the Equipment’s controller can activate its abilities.
However, if the Equipment grants an ability to the equipped creature
(with “gains” or “has”), the equipped creature’s controller is the
only one who can activate that ability.

And here's the exact wording of the equip ability (emphasis added):

702.6a Equip is an activated ability of Equipment cards. “Equip [cost]” means “[Cost]: Attach this permanent to target creature you
control. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a
sorcery.”

So, essentially, only the equip ability itself specifies "creature you control." If the equipment is already attached, the only restrictions are:

The equipped permanent must still be a creature (301.5).
The equipment cannot itself be a creature (301.5c).
The equipment can't be attached to a creature with protection from it, due to the definition of protection (702.16).

Creatures changing control doesn't violate that.

Your equipment remains attached to the Mind Controlled creature, because no rule or card effect has indicated otherwise.
Yes, you may Equip the the equipment to one of the creatures you control on your turn. The equip activated ability can normally only be activated any time you could play a sorcery, but other cards (i.e. Leonin Shikari) might modify that. At this point, it will become unattached from the former creature.

702.6a Equip is an activated ability of Equipment cards. “Equip [cost]” means “[Cost]: Attach this permanent to target creature you control. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery.”

Yes, you are the only one that can play the equipment's activated abilities, because you are the equipment's controller. Keep in mind though, if the attached equipment causes the creature to gain an activated ability, the gained ability isn't an ability of the equipment. (example: Diviner's Wand)

301.5d An Equipment’s controller is separate from the equipped creature’s controller; the two need not be the same. Changing control of the creature doesn’t change control of the Equipment, and vice versa. Only the Equipment’s controller can activate its abilities. However, if the Equipment grants an ability to the equipped creature (with “gains” or “has”), the equipped creature’s controller is the only one who can activate that ability.

112.1a An ability is a characteristic an object has that lets it affect the game. An object’s abilities are defined by its rules text or by the effect that created it. Abilities can also be granted to objects by rules or effects. (Effects that do so use the words “has,” “have,” “gains,” or “gain.”) Abilities generate effects. (See rule 609, “Effects.”)

You control the creature => You can activate activated abilities of the creature (e.g. Diviner's Wand)
Your opponent controls the equipment => Your opponent can activate activated abilities of the equipment (e.g. equip)
A tricky case is with Blazing Torch. It gives the creature an activated ability so you might think you can use it? The answer is no, this because one of the costs of activating it is sacrificing the torch itself and you can't sacrifice another player's permanents!
Another tricky equipment is Umezawa's Jitte. Note that the equipment is the one with all the abilities...

NO THE equipment does NOT stay attached to the creature when it gets mind controlled.
Look up the rulings for mind control.
http://gatherer.wizards.com/pages/card/Details.aspx?multiverseid=238572

This answer is incorrect.The ruling refers to "control of" auras or Equipments. The Aura or Equipment is still attached to the creature, but is controlled by the other player.


text:
How prohibitive is Glory to Rome's complexity to new players?
I've heard a lot of good things about Glory to Rome, but I've heard many people classify it as extremely complex. I asked around at my FLGS and they said it was more complex than Race For The Galaxy and Puerto Rico, both of which my family and I have enjoyed. How bad is it really? I don't mind reading and explaining a 20 page rulebook as long as its well written, and its also fine if we don't really grasp some of the strategy until 7 or 8 plays. However, if it truly is much worse than that, I should probably think twice before buying it.
How prohibitive is Glory to Rome's complexity to new players? Approximately how long will it take to learn the rules and have a general conception of the strategy? As an aside, how well does it play well with 2 players?

Disclaimer: Glory to Rome is one of my all time favorite games, I may be biased in encouraging others to try it :)
I would say the chief source of complexity and challenge to people new to this type of game is multiple roles for the same card.  Players who are able to reconcile in Race for the Galaxy that the same physical piece of cardboard can be a planet or development, a good, or a payment for a cost, should not be too challenged by this.  The same physical piece of cardboard filling different purposes in different contexts is fundamental to Glory To Rome.
The overall complexity of the game rules is mitigated by the fact that for each turn a player leads a role and everyone else must follow.  So in any given turn everyone has basically the same reduced set of options available to them, and you all learn together.
My opinion, anyone who's not intimidated by the insane information density of Race for the Galaxy cards, and has wrapped their head around the context-sensitivity, will have no issues with Glory to Rome.  (and can master its functionality, if not strategy, in one playthrough.)
My only negative comment might be it may become more luck based with only two players who have mastered the fundamentals, similar to Race with 2 players where it is close to being two solitaire games.  (That is speculative based on the observation that in larger games players can get boosted back in by people who needed the same lead they did, or held back by conspiring social forces.)

I would also say that usually explaining the rules for new players is not an easy task, and usually people need one or two plays to catch the rules. Anyway, then all of them rather enjoy the game ;) I've played also many times with 2 players only, and it is well playable for me, however it is easier to block other player with a good card combination.

When I learned Glory to Rome, I found the hardest part was remembering which roles moved cards from where to where else, for various values of "pool," "stockpile," "hand," and "clients."  ("Vault" and "build pile", at least, were easy.)
It also took me a while to realize that I was giving Craftsmen to my various opponents (which they were gleefully seizing as clients), but that's more of an issue of "how to win" rather than "how to play." If they can understand Race for the Galaxy, and you're willing to point out some of the tactical elements, they'll learn Glory To Rome just fine.
In my gaming group, we now all play Craftsmen pretty conservatively, so the game has slowed down a lot (lots of Thinking just to pick up a Jack so you can use it as a Craftsman).


text:
How can I get better at lying?
In games that allow you to 'backstab' other players (such as Diplomacy and Cosmic Encounter), it is often very important to make other players think you are going to do one thing while really planning on doing another. When I play games like this, I have trouble making other players believe me, and sometimes lose because of this fact alone.
How can I get better at lying convincingly at key points in the game to improve my odds of victory? Are there any vocal, behavioral, or facial tells that I should try to minimize? What words should I say and what should I be thinking when I try to lie? How can I apply this knowledge to figure out when other players are lying?

Jerry, just remember. It's not a lie, if you believe it.

In The Resistance, if I'm a spy and there's suspicion on me, the only way I can keep from cracking is to convince myself that I'm not a spy.

@shujaa I've definitely played Resistance before, been picked for a mission, and only when I looked at the voting cards remembered "oh yeah, I'm supposed to play the red sabotage card aren't I?". The best way to lie is to forget the truth :)

Having not played this game, or played in the group you're playing, I can't give specifics, but I can talk a bit about my experiences with subterfuge in other contexts.  (poker is a classic for this)
The first, most important thing is that you need to have a story in mind that you want the other person to believe.  Simply saying no when you would normally say yes is an easy discontinuity to ferret out, especially when some of your other in-game behaviour doesn't match.  Check out some poker commentary; every now and then, they can tell almost exactly what the player is trying to represent, even though the cards are different.  If poker is too boring, check out stabby's team fortress 2 videos.  He also mentions what he meant for his targets to believe.
Try to keep track of what your recent visible actions have been.  If the story you'd like your targets to believe doesn't make any sense together with your history, it won't work.  Try to account for the other player's perspective.  Any knowledge helps.  In poker, if you're trying to represent an ace, you need to make sure your opponent doesn't have one already.
If your target has incentive to believe your story, it makes it easier.  Give them an angle for possibly double-crossing you.  Make them believe you are too far behind everyone and feel like being king-maker.  Give them a clear benefit in the deal with a small, obvious way that you 'plan' to take advantage, so they can think they're ready to defend.
One important thing, as has already been mentioned, is to not lie most of the time.  If the culture that you a playing in is about always being cut-throat, then you need to shake that up.  Give a few games away, act on impulse or emotion for a little while, but most importantly do this in such a way that it looks&sounds like your lies.  As a kid playing memory tile games, I'd often point out the correct tiles for the others and they'd think I was lying and go for something else.  You might have to be careful with this.  If you mess with the social contract too much, the game becomes frustrating for other players to the point they may decide they don't like playing with you.
Lastly, pay attention to the pace of the game.  If you make most of your decisions quickly or even flippantly, you need to match that speed with your lies.  The bonus with that is that the faster things are going, the smaller the misdirection has to be.  If the game is usually a slow, thoughtful process, you'll have to think through all of the details of your story before putting it out there for others.  In any case you need to be a lot quicker with your thought process when lying than during normal game-play, so it can often be helpful to slow down the game, think through a story, then discard the story and give the truth.
I hope that's helpful.

Sorry about all that text...

Re: the social contract - if you aren't playing, say, The Resistance to win that game of Resistance, then I don't want to play with you. Even if you're on the other team... it's not cool to establish some sort of meta-game at the expense of your teammates' ability to win a particular iteration of the game.

I personally use the following approaches in any game in which you need to tell your opponents something that is not true:

Tell a lie that is close to the truth, but still can give you an
advantage in the game. The smaller the lie is, the harder it is to
detect it.
Lie casually at non-critical moments to confuse detection
strategies that your opponents may use. For example in a game in which
card drawing is an aspect, now and then say "yes!", or "ugh" after
drawing a card, just to give your opponents the idea that you drew a
brilliant/terrible card, regardless of the quality of the card. Or for example in Settlers of Catan be happy with a resource that you have many of already or be neutral about receiving a resource that is very useful to you. Make it hard for your opponents to detect the truth so that detecting a lie is also hard.
Remove aspects that regard your lie from your own view, so you don't
accidentally look at them and give away your lie. For example, in
poker, put your cards face down when deciding to rise so you can not look at
them and see that they are bad and perhaps make a facial expression
that gives you away.

Read this book: How to Win Friends and Influence People.  You can find it as a PDF.  It sounds old and corny, but it's chock full of exactly what your need in Diplomacy.

I play a lot of board games, with the same group, and people know that I am a lier (in game I mean !) and that I will backstab them if this makes me win the game. They also have the habit to target me as first priority in conquest games.
Nethertheless, I still manage to convince them at key points to believe me and to make choices that actually help me.
In short, the reason is I almost never actually tell a lie, and I almost always believe in what I say.
Here are some of the things that could help :

I have the habit of explaining why I do something or why someone should do something. I always give good, true reasons here. I also know the rules really well, so people get in the habit of listening and trusting what I say.
when I want to manipulate someone into a move, I don't even do it deliberately. I start as usual to explain why it would be good to him or to both of us to do this or that. I just fail to underline that it gives me a good opportunity to backstab in a few moves (it must not be obvious)
another key point is believing what you are saying and so avoid lying. Lying by omission is much more difficult to detect ! For games with hidden victory points like Dominion or Small World, you can highlight the recent turns in which some opponents have gained a lot (and forget to remind them it was your turn earlier in the game).
For instance, in a 2 player game (magic the gathering), I was able in a tournament to make someone forfeit a game he should have won on the spot, simply by pointing to one of my cards in play and basically saying, this counters your strategy right ? It was true, except I forgot to mention that I wasn't allowed to play this card at this precise moment so he should have won. And I almost believed I could use it at this point so he also believed me.

One way to get better at lying (at critical points) is to tell a few "white lies" at NON-critical points in the game, when there is apparently nothing to win or lose. If you can get away with lies at such times, it will be good practice for the critical time when your lie does matter.
If you get "caught," all is not lost. Then the thing to do is to tell the TRUTH at a critical point in the game. Because if people now think you are lying, it would be a "double" double-cross.

Don't Backstab other players. Don't lie at key points.
If you never lie, you will be much more convincing when you finally do lie.

That doesn't work in our group because we're all very wary of that strategy (we've seen it many times before). My question wasn't really about WHEN to lie, but about how to do it effectively when I need to. :D

@CrazyJugglerDrummer, certainly, but my answer isn't about when to lie either. Your effectiveness at lying is based on past lying. If you never lie, your current lie will be more effective.

As I said, in the groups I've played with that strategy doesn't work. In a group of more trusting and gullible people it might have more success, but we play very competitively. Thus, we base our decisions on the current state of the game and will always lie if it benefits us, effectively erasing any usefulness previous actions might have on predicting someone's future behavior.

@CrazyJugglerDrummer, Then lying is useless. If your opponents and you will always do the most beneficial current move, your opponents will always always know what you will do regardless of the lie (in an open information game). In a game like Cosmic Encounter with hidden info, not lying most of the time will make your lies believable.

As with any other skill, practice makes perfect.
Learn from your mistakes and learn from your successes. Learn from other players who have fooled you into believing their lies.