text:
In bridge, are there penalties for "table talk" that can only help the opponents?
Declarer is playing a hand. Dummy has very limited rights to talk, such as "no more of the suit, partner?" to prevent a possible "revoke."
But suppose dummy asks indiscreetly, "why did you do that, partner?" Declarer answers something like, "transportation." This occurs after the play was made, but before the hand was over.
Now declarer has just given away part of his strategy to others at the table. On the other hand, his side will not benefit from this revelation because dummy doesn't get to play. The declarer, of course, knows his strategy, but his opponents might possibly benefit from hearing it before the hand is over.
In such a situation, is the declarer's side penalized?

Even with my very amateur cryptographer hat on, I can easily create a code where this does benefit the declarer's side: for instance, asking "why did you do that, partner?" could be code for "lead a spade next". So long as you don't use the channel too often, nobody would figure it out.

@PhilipKendall. However, it is a violation of The Proprieties to make such an accusation without proof. Three yeas ago there was a huge ruckus when it was discovered that a pair was signalling to each other by how they placed their scoring pencil and the attitude by which they placed their Opening Lad on the table - but these accusations were backed by hours of video testimony. Several other world-class players shortly afterwards also voluntarily forfeited recent awards and withdraew from the upcoming (at that time) World Championships.

In a club game, nothing would happen after such an exchange. The more serious the event, the more closely the proprieties are upheld. I do think exchanging levities is fine, no matter the occasion, but the dummy should be extra careful in initiating it.

@JYRK That very much depends on the club. Some clubs would bar a player for repated table talk -- I have seen it. See my answer below.

The Laws of Rubber Bridge (2014) make clear that this behaviour is unacceptable by Dummy (my emphasis):

Law 43 - Dummy's Limitations
Dummy may not participate in the play (except to play the cards of dummy’s hand as directed by declarer) or make any comment on the bidding, play or score of the current deal. If he does so, Law 16A may apply. During play dummy may not call attention to an irregularity once it has occurred.
Dummy forfeits the rights provided in Law 42 if he exchanges hands with declarer, leaves his seat to watch declarer play or, on his own initiative, looks at the face of a card in either defender’s hand.

In many cases a comment such as you describe could not be claimed to contain unauthorized information. One obvious exception is if there is still trump out in Defender's hands, when the comment has been made particularly if one or more rounds have already been drawn. Other circumstances, such as appearing to abandon Dummy with an unplayed established long suit, might exist.

Law 16 - Unauthorized Information
A player may be subject to penalty if information is conveyed from his partner other than by a legal call or play.

A. Regarding information obtained from partner: If a player conveys information to his partner by means of a remark, question, ..., [it] is unauthorized. When the offending side has profited by use of this unauthorized information, it should, in conformance with Proprieties 1, redress any damage done to the non-offending side.
B. ....

....
A player on the offending side must not base any subsequent calls or plays on such unauthorized information. If it is determined that this has been violated and the non-offending side has been damaged, the result should be adjusted to redress any damage done to the non-offending side.

However the intent of Rule 16 is to restore equity in these circumstances. There is no penalty applied under this rule unless damage to the non-offending side has occurred (as assessed by an unbiased reasonable  observer). If your game happens to have an Arbiter, there is an additional extension of Rule 16 that can be enabled by the Club to have the Arbiter make such a determination.
Dummy also has certain rights enumerated in Law 42, which are lost if Dummy engages in specific activities noted above. If Dummy has forfeited his rights and subsequently attempts to use them certain procedural penalties apply to Declarer, as noted in the second half of Law 43.
The Proprieties also state:

Proprieties
1. General Principles
These Laws cannot cover every situation that might arise, nor can they produce equity in every situation covered. .... The guiding principle: the side that commits an irregularity bears an obligation not to gain directly from the infraction.
To infringe a Law intentionally is a serious breach of ethics, even if there is a prescribed penalty that one is willing to pay. The offence may be the more serious when no penalty is prescribed.
....
Furthermore, the following are considered breaches of propriety: ...
H.  indicating approval or disapproval of a call or play.

It is eminently obvious here that Dummy is both in violation of the Proprieties, in a manner, as noted above, so egregious that no specific penalty has been prescribed. This should be politely noted to Dummy when such behaviour occurs, perhaps by quoting the paragraph above from The Proprieties.
Note that:

The Scope of the Laws
The Laws are designed to define correct procedure and to provide an adequate remedy whenever a player accidentally, carelessly or inadvertently disturbs the proper course of the game, or gains an unintentional but nevertheless unfair advantage. An offending player should be ready to graciously accept any penalty set forth in these Laws or any adjustment or decision of an Arbiter

And, if all else fails in regard to a recalcitrant offender

These Laws do not deal with dishonorable practices where ostracism is the ultimate remedy.

Update
In any organized competition the organizing committee has the right (and should publicize in the conditions of contest) to impose additional penalties, up to and including expulsion from the event, for repeated violations of The Proprieties, whether or not otherwise covered under The Laws of Rubber Bridge.

The excellent answer by "Forget I was ever here" spells out most of the issues here. But I would like to more explicitly point out that by saying "why did you do that, partner?" a player clearly indicates that s/he thinks partner has made an error. This could draw partner's attention to that error, which might lead to partner taking a different and more successful line than had attention not been drawn.
Even when no unauthorized information is passed, this kind of table talk can be highly distracting, and in serious play, even club level play, would draw disapproval from the other players and in club-level duplicate, a rebuke from the director, possibly with a warning of a penalty should the offense be repeated. I have seen a player warned of possible expulsion at the Honors club in NYC for this sort of table talk.

I believe you, of course. And fully understand the point. I have never heard "why did you do that, partner" in my club either. And I would not expect to hear that outside the beginners course. Undoubtedly our club is less serious than the one you mentioned :-)

@jyrki Honors is the largest club in New York City -- a good many high-level players are regulars. It has inherited many of the regulars from the now defunct Beverly and Manhattan clubs.  Not quite your local 6-table once-a-week game.

Over and above the other answers (which are absolutely accurate), the biggest penalty (for criticizing partner at the table, before, during, or after the hand) is not one applied by the TD or the club.  It is one of Jeff Goldsmith's Imperious Rules of Bridge:

Be good to partner; try to keep him on your side. It's easy to convince him to join the enemy.

(Please note: These "rules" have no value in Law, and are frequently quixotic:

If something strange is going on, double the Israeli.

or

Hartman's Law: 4D doubled always makes. Jeff's corollary: all doubles of 4D are takeout.

for instance.  But apart from the ones like the above that you can throw out as obviously "there was those couple of weeks where...", it's worth at least considering them.)
I usually phrase this rule as "Remember, there is exactly one person in the room that wants you to do well.  It's easy to convince her to join the other side".  And it is.
Criticizing partner - especially when you can only see 13 cards and she can see 26 - can easily lead to these patterns:

"Oh, I'm just bad (tonight)" - which leads to lack of concentration, and more errors
"hmm, maybe he's right, I wonder..." which means not paying attention to this hand, which leads to more errors
"I could try this line, but if it's wrong, I'll be hearing about it for the rest of the round.  So I'll take the line I can't be criticized for" (but is booked for below average)
"I don't [] care any more.  Let's just get through this session and I can go home/never have to play with him again/can get a drink."  When you get to "pushing cards" mode, you've lost.
"[] this for a lark.  If he thinks I can't play, he can find out what happens when I deliberately can't play."

I have seen all of these.  I have won (side) events at Nationals because a pro pushed his client to at least stage 4.  I have committed most of them.  I have been the person pushing partner to almost all of them.  It was wrong when I did it, too.
Find out from your partner what is the best way to review issues, both regular play and systemic.  Agree on something and 100% stick to it.  Probably best is "nothing at the table, mandatory review of all hands at dinner/at the bar after/coffee the next day".  But that's more like work.  One of my regular partnerships' rules was "one question, one answer, after the hand.  If it takes more than that, end of session."  One of my partner's rules with her regular partner is "after the round, away from the table, only."
Bridge is a game played by smart people, and a habit of smart people is they like to show off how smart they are.  In bridge, that frequently leads to "See? I'm smarter than you, partner" - and that doesn't fly well.
I feel it is fitting to leave this with yet another of Goldsmith's Imperious Rules:

If partner makes severe errors two hands in a row, offer to get him a Coke. It will break the losing rhythm and maybe get you back on the right track. If you make an error two hands in a row, offer to get your partner a Coke. Same reason. (If partner or you don't drink Coke, know what the appropriate substitute is.)

The counter example to all this is of course Barry Crane. But then, Crane was the exception to every rule one could think of - he was one of the top players on the planet (regarded by many as the best Match Point player ever), and richer than most clients.

Yes - and no.  From Grant Baze:For three days I have been trying to think of a Barry story that would put him into a good light. I have not been able to think of a single one. So I will choose some stories that I know firsthand. [...]
Jeff Meckstroth went one better. He played with Barry in a two session regional event just because he thought he should play at least once with "Mr. McKinney." At the end of the event Jeff tore their convention card into ribbons and threw the pieces at Barry, making it very clear that he would never play with Barry again.

Did you read that link? The whole thing. I have, many times. "On the plus side, he was good for bridge. He created a lot of action at and away from the bridge table, he was a celebrity in and out of the bridge world. ... Barry loved a McKinney race. ... Barry wanted the race to be acrimonious, ... This made the year more exciting and therefore more fun for Barry, and frankly it made it more fun and exciting for the rest of us, whether we were directly involved or not. ... Also since Barry's death, there has not been a real race for the McKinney."

That's the "yes" (as is the many parts of his "system" that is basically expert standard now).  The "no" is that even Passell and Meckstroth were visibly annoyed with him (and tell me that didn't affect their play).  And he did it to himself: "When he came back he deliberately threw the next six boards in a row (we lost the event by one-half of a matchpoint, and of course he blamed me)."

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


text:
Does General Onimaru's Clockwork Soldier prevent retreats?
General Onimaru's Clockwork Soldier ability prevents players from moving backwards.  Does it also prevent retreating from a dashing strike?  If a player is forced to retreat past the Clockwork Soldier, does the Clockwork Soldier keep advancing and if so, is the player now prevented from moving past it in the opposite direction?

Yes, movement is treated the same regardless of how the pawn is moved. David Sirlin answered this question here:

Q: Onimaru's Clockwork soldier state that the opponent cannot move behind the token. Does it also prevents any retreat? Because the way I see it, your opponent has a "wall" that moves toward him 2 case per turn, but the wording of the card implies something else.
A: The movement rules are the same across the whole game. By "movement," that means "the rules for changing the position of your pawn for any reason, when it would reach an obstacle" are the same across the whole game. It doesn't matter if the "movement" is a move, push, dashing strike, retreat, etc. It doesn't matter if the obstacle is a player pawn, the edge of the board, or a clockwork soldier. In all cases, you go as far as you can, then stop when you reach the obstacle.

Gotcha.  The coloring of the word "move" made me wonder if it only applied to move as to other movements.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How to handle handicap as white?
I found it very difficult to handle the handicap when my opponent is given 6 or more stones. I don't really like to force something complex when I know it could be severely punished.
The right way to handle such handicaps must be to play opening moves that are very light and flexible. However, I have never found any books providing guidelines for playing white in handicap games. Are there any? Or is there any kind of general advice I should know about?

There are a few good books about handicap go.
Handicap Go is a really good one, but it's out of print.
Get Strong at Handicap Go has a lot of examples of good play by both White and Black.
Kage's Secret Chronicles of Handicap Go discusses handicap games played between two professional players of nearly the same rank. It also includes reviews of games with professionals giving stones to amateurs.
In a high-handicap game, avoid strengthening Black's stones. If Black plays correctly you won't be able to avoid this, but then you need to lower the handicap.  You need to keep your groups light, and think about sacrificing often.  Many times you can convince Black to capture a few unimportant stones in gote.  As long as you keep from making Black too solid, you should be able to exploit shape problems later in the game, and in the endgame you should be able to pick up 20 points or so.  Also, never resign.  You never know when Black will give you a gift :)

You obviously have to read better and avoid any unnecessary losses. Your endgame has to be superior, and you should not make any tsumego mistakes.
Apart from that, playing flexible is probably the most important idea.
At the same time, you should also see further and try to let black have what he wants, while you're working for a bigger goal that he is unable to see. There's a nice saying: "White is always trying to kill a bigger group than black is trying to save."
Another idea that is very fun to use (and that also requires you to have superior reading) is to make black overconcentrated. In many instances, black won't even notice that his 20 stones make for a solid 8 points of territory.
Since your tsumego and shape skills are superior, you will also be able to find invasions that hurt black. Frustrate him by invading right before he could close his area - or happily punish if he forgot to do so.
Apart from that, watch out for moyo potential and make a plan for taking care of it early - limiting with the idea of overconcentration could be a way.
Apart from that, playing flexible is probably the most important idea. Keep your groups light as necessary, avoid giving black an easy target, and solidify them in an active way later.

In a handicap game of six or seven stones, there are two distinct ways for white to play. This is defined by the fact that Black has san-ren-sei stones on the left and right sides of the board, but not at the top or bottom.
The "safe" way for white to play is to make kakaris from the OPEN portions of the board on the lower and upper sides. That is a slow, "patient" way of playing for White to catch up to Black's handicap.
The more aggressive way of playing is to start with kakaris on the against the stones on the upper and lower right sides of the board between the corner and san-ren-sei stones, with the third move being a "capping" move against the san-rei-sei stone. This leads to a quicker win (or loss), depending on how well Black plays tactically.
It could be that Black is tactically only three or four stones, weaker than White (although six stones weaker overall), and can hold his own in the complications, given the extra stones. In which case the safer course is to kakari from the open sides.

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


text:
How to protect a large piece of side territory
I've played several games where I have gained a good chunk of side territory, but lost it due to invasion by the other player.
Below is an example, ignore the placement outside of the area black surrounds and focus on solving the problem inside.
$$ Defending the side
$$ .............
$$ .....OOOOOOO.
$$ ..XXXOOXOX.XO
$$ OOX..XX.X.X.O
$$ OX.....X...X.
$$ XX.........X.
$$ X..........X.
$$ -------------

White has several points of injection, what would be some good strategies to make any attempt at minimizing or taking away this territory fruitless.

@Paul, what is your level in Go? So I know how to direct the answer

@mafutrut I have a 4 stone handicap in this instance, I'm not sure if there is any other indicating my level.

The answer is: Don't, unless you really have to.
The situation shown in your question is already solid territory. In this case, adding any inside stone to "protect" your territory further will reduce your score.
You should try to decide if there is anything that can be exploited in your area. Let's see how it is in your case:
$$ Initial position
$$ .............
$$ .....OOOOOOO.
$$ ..XXXOOXOX.XO
$$ OOX..XX.X.X.O
$$ OX.....X...X.
$$ XX.........X.
$$ X..........X.
$$ -------------

As a simple rule of thumb: Imagine your opponent playing all inside forcing moves in sente, then try to find the vital point. Is there a way to live?
$$Wcm1 Is there a way to live? Even if black plays very simple, white cannot do anything after B10.
$$ .............
$$ .....OOOOOOO.
$$ ..XXXOOXOX.XO
$$ OOX.0XX6X4X8O
$$ OX219..X537X.
$$ XX.........X.
$$ X..........X.
$$ -------------

If not — as in this example — do not add stones. If you are unsure, it is good practice to still play away (this is vaguely related to the concept of kiai). As sole exception, if you're far ahead and it's an important game, well, I suppose you may add an inside move to make 110% sure.
Of course, sometimes you do have to defend without question. Usually, you should try to defend actively, by moving out or attacking a weakness of your opponent's stones to make your own stones more secure. If that is impossible, simply add a move at the vital point.
Where is the vital point? Shape sense will tell you. Around 10 kyu you should see spots that defend most or all weaknesses. Until then, there is no recipe, so just keep playing until you've built up enough experience.
Again, as a rule of thumb, try to fix potential cuts, make sure every part of your group has enough eyespace or is solidly connected. If the inside area is very large, play somewhere in the center to make divide the potential invasion space in two fractions, each too small to do anything.

I use what I call the "three cut point" rule. That is, my position is in danger if there are three cut points close to each other.
For the time being, your position is "safe." There are only two cut points on the left side.
The main danger comes if white takes the ko. That potentially creates a bunch of other cut points. With the move, I might consider filling the ko and eliminating this aji. If white took the ko, I might connect at one of the cut points, and let white fill the ko.
The other danger is that White will play a insertion move on the right side, "forking" two Black stones. The one nearest the edge is a stray stone and can be given up. The one more toward the center needs to be protected, because losing it would create more cut points.

Defending a large chunk of territory is not easy, that's why the 3-3 point is highly regarded.
In your position, the main weakness is at 2:
$$ .............
$$ .OOOOOOOOOOO.
$$ .OXXXOOXOX.XO
$$ OOX.8XX.X.X.O
$$ OX246..X...X.
$$ XX35.7.....X.
$$ X..........X.
$$ -------------

Note that you can't completely ignore what is going on on the outside - I have added surrounding white stones.


text:
Is an early escape normal in encounter 1C?
In First Scenario 1C
Scenario objectives :

Win : Kill 2 investigators
Lose : Investigators escape from Foyer

During my game session investigators revealed objective very quickly, and most of them managed to escape mansion before event was triggered and door's become locked with rune puzzle
Is this normal situation?

Are these experienced players that knew where to go?  Or just players that got lucky?

A bit of luck and a bit of experience i think. Joe Diamond and Ashane Pete with Duke make it very fast

Yes, this is a normal situation.  It isn't very fun, sure, but it is a normal one.  I've had it happen several times and each time I swear off playing this scenario until I find a new group of victi-- friends who have not yet experienced my wra-- version of fun.
In fact, I had a situation where one of my players simply wanted to "try and leave to see what happens".  Everyone else followed.  Game over in the first couple of turns.

FYI, from the FAQ, Investigators can only escape the map if the objective has been revealed and it allowed them to escape.

Confirmed that they can't escape till the objective is revealed.
Also, they're supposed to be hardened investigators, dedicated to rooting out evil, not munchkins attempting to game the system. If they try and pull this stuff on me, it's time for: "The door is sealed. You turn around. The Dead Have Risen. Take a horror test for each Zombie punching its way through the floor. Also, there is a Shoggoth. Take a horror test for the Shoggoth. Your turn ends due to your shock."

The question here is how they revealed the objective so quickly. The main problem I've found with Mansions of Madness is that it doesn't give the Keeper enough info on how to run the game, which you have to figure out for yourself.
In the case of the first scenario, EVERYTHING should be geared to getting a maniac out and stealing samples as fast as possible, then forcing investigators to chase him rather than seeking the objective. The zombies can also be used in the same fashion, or be used as "blockers".
If the players don't stop the sample carrier, you can quickly build up enough threat that you can simply waylay them with Mythos cards.
One advantage you have is that by combining "Steal Sample" and "Command Minion", you can move 3 spaces on any turn where you start off sharing a space with an investigator, which allows you to outpace your foes and usually put a wall between yourself and any bullets, and that in the early turns you can gather Panic and Mythos without spending threat.
Combine this stuff with a continual pounding on their weaker stat (generally sanity for men, and health for women), and you can really slow them down.
Break a leg. No, literally, get them down to 4 health, and break their leg.


text:
Do heroes recover health and fatigue at the end of each quest?
Do heroes recover health at the end of each encounter or at the end of each quest (usually two encounters)?

Heroes do not recover health at the end of each encounter, only fatigue. Heroes do recover full health and fatigue at the end of each Quest (two encounters).
The rule book regarding Quests (page 18):

Heroes keep all damage suffered during Encounter 1.

Heroes recover all fatigue suffered during Encounter 1.

and (page 20) The Campaign Phase

2). Cleanup: All heroes recover all damage and all fatigue....

Are the rules for the second edition the same?

@Tass, my mistake, linked to an expansion, not Descent JitD 2nd edition rules. Corrected.


text:
Can the Wand of Dowsing Draw from Door Cards?
I was a level 7 Cleric who won my fight, drew a level up card, then played the Wand of Dowsing to take a previously discarded Divine Intervention for the win. Being such a cheap way to hit level ten, a debate ensued as to whether or not go through the discards to find any one card you want means door cards as well as treasure cards.
The only solid argument against my play was that dowsing wands are used to find underground wells, but also gold coins or other treasure (in real life, that is). It seems that, being a trasure card, it could be interpreted this way. I couldn't find anything about this card's specifics in the forums...does anyone know if my play was a legal one?

It's Munchkin. If the rule can be interpreted to give you an unfair advantage it should be.

Yes, according to Andrew Hackard (post #7), who appears to be a Steve Jackson representitive.

Originally Postedby Arctivlargl 1) You are a lvl 7 Cleric, you have a Wand of Dowsing + Bungee Cord + some other card in your hand, Divine Intervention is in the discard pile. - Your turn starts and you use WoD to get DI - are forced to play it immediately - you go to level 8 - You use Bungee Cord to get WoD back - repeat - you go to level 9 - Instead of Kicking Open the Door you take DI from the discard pile and discard your other card - you go to level 10 win and can mock everyone mercilessly
That seems likea legal play to me. It requires a very specific combination of cards, but if you can get it, congratulations.

All other answers need not apply! Everyone is satisfied with the SJ forum verdict here. Thanks!

I'll be better to copy the answer from post instead of put the url.

authors: Антон Сергунов


text:
Why is there no position 108 on the Ravensburger multilangual edition
I recently bought Scotland Yard at a thrift store. And when examining the map, I found, position 108 is missing. There was a discussion on boardgamegeek about this but it has no real answer, just speculation.
Does anybody know the official reason for the missing 108.

108 is just south of 105, Southwark Cathedral.  Looking at the BGG post you referenced, it appears that some versions of the map are missing it or call it out as a different number.

Looking at Wikipedia, it states:

There are two mainboard editions, one typically associated with Milton Bradley, and another typically associated with Ravensburger. The primary difference between these is in the numbering of the stations: five stations are numbered differently, with 108 missing from the Milton Bradley boards, and 200 missing from the Ravensburger boards. There are also minor differences in the routes, such as a bus line between stations 198 and 199 that is changed to a taxi line in later editions, and the removal of a taxi line between stations 13 and 14 sometime after the renumbering.

You likely have the Milton Bradley version.  The version I just pulled out and took a picture of is the Ravensburger version.

There are more Ravensburger versions. Mine is the multilangual version and it has no 108.

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


text:
How Does Wooly Bully 2's Waterproof Wings Variant Work?
I've started an online game of Wooly Bully (La Guerre des Moutons) 2 with the waterproof wings variant "on", but I'm not 100% sure how this rule plays out in practice.
The key line in the rulebook seems to be:

2 enclosed fields containing the same color of sheep separated by the
  same pond are considered a single enclosure.

But can you have a "superfield" of more than 2 enclosed fields joined together by ponds?  What if a Wolf cancels out a field adjoining its Forest - does this cancel out fields of the same colour on the other side of ponds too?  (Does the Wolf get water wings of his own, in other words?)


text:
Any gotchas/common mistakes for first time players playing Asia Engulfed?
A number of years ago (... 5ish now I think) I played a game called Europe Engulfed a few times, and loved it.  Since moving a few years back, I have not had anyone to play with locally.  Recently, a friend of mine expressed interest, and we are going to try another game in the series first, Asia Engulfed.  I have read that the rules are a little simpler (in that there are many less sub factions), and since I have not played it, I felt it might help even the playing field.
All that said, I remember the first time I played Europe Engulfed, we made a number of strange rules mistakes - the type of thing beginners do when trying out a new, fairly complex board game.  Does anyone have any experience with this game?  Any specific gotchas to watch out for?  Any recommendations for general strategy that I can share with my "opponent"?  As I want to be able to keep playing it, it is in my best interest to make sure we start on as even a footing as possible.  :)


text:
Can the hero who goes last push a monster off the end of the momentum track?
On a test playthrough of Thornwatch, we had two heroes and a "Husk" on the Momentum track.
The Husk was in first position, and after it had done the actions for its 4 pawns, the Guard dealt it 1 damage, pushing it so the tracker was:

Guard (tapped)
Husk (tapped)
Sage

As I understand it, it is now the Sage's go, but even if their action dealt the Husk 8 damage, it would still only push the Husk to the end of the tracker, and everything would then reset, "wasting" the attack.
Thus I advised the Sage to "Plan" and go first next round. Was this good advice?
Is it correct that, unless the monster is "on the edge" on the momentum tracker, the final hero of a round cannot kill it?

That is correct. See page 15 of the rules under 'Getting Wounded'.
If its momentum card is not on the edge of the momentum track when wounded, it shifts a number of steps equal to the number of remaining hits; if it reaches the edge, ignore the remainder.
Tactically, if there is only 1 target left, and it is not next to the Edge, then the last player should strongly consider taking the Plan action after powering and slotting Action cards.
Your advise was sound.


text:
In Ghost Stories Black Secret what is the balance between the Taoists and Wu-Feng?
We played one game with this expansion on normal, feeling pretty confident that we can beat normal most times and the Wu-Feng player absolutely destroyed us. It feels like even on the easiest setting we would not stand a chance.
My question is, what is the balance between the two sides? How often should the Taoists be expected to win? Let's assume Wu-Feng has as much experience as the other players.
Also is there anything in setup that can even the odds and create a more balanced game?
Here is the basic breakdown of what we did. We had 3 Taoists. We did not have a red player and that may have been our mistake. Wu-Feng was able to focus dropping only ghost that had impact, and took away our resources. Any ghosts that would give us a break were instead dropped as curses or demons. The game was busted wide open when Wu-Feng got to haunt the key tiles directly with no chance of us to do anything about it. Once from rolling a curse die, once from doing it directly. We quickly got caught up defending our tiles, and instead got overrun, quickly seeing 3 flipped.

It looks like you are not the only one: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/369624/negative-review-co-op-fan

@ToonKrijthe to be clear, this looks like feedback on the main game, which I do not think is too difficult for a good coop. It's with the Black Secret expansion, and a human working against the other players who would get better, as we get better, where I had trouble understanding if we could ever win..


text:
What are some good strategies against land takeovers in Alexandros?
I recently purchased Alexandros and after a few games I found that getting a head start makes you the primary target for land-takeovers. A slow start can also cost you the game, however, and make it very difficult to catch up.
Being targeted for land takeover twice can leave you trailing so badly that it's impossible to come back. Usually, the player in second place benefits the most.
Are there any strategies to mitigate this?

Also, does the game depend on chance or hidden info, or is it completely open.

Disclaimer: I have never played Alexandros, but have read the rules and examined the board.
Try to be the player in second place during the early and mid-game. This is known as the bicycle race strategy. Occupy small to medium value provinces. Spend turns collecting cards to position yourself to occupy a high value province while appearing to just be coasting. To keep the leader from getting too much of a lead, break up his provinces with Alexander.
Let another player grab a province from the leader first. With any luck, they'll use their excess cards fighting trading land grabs. Then us all those cards you've been accumulating to grab a big province and levy taxes.


text:
Can a Cloister be scored if one tile is an all-city tile in Carcassonne?
I am a little confused about the scoring in the situations shown. It says the Cloister must be surrounded by land on all sides. In both cases illustrated, one of the six tiles surrounding the Cloister tile is technically an all-city tile. I thought since a solid wall was made that this is okay - the Cloister is still technically surrounded by grass. My partner thought it wouldn't count as no land exists on that tile. Any ideas here?

I believe "tile" and "land tile" are synonymous.  The rules for scoring cloisters states:

A cloister is complete when the tile it is on is completely surrounded by land tiles.

And the rules for drawing tiles is (emphasis mine):

Placing land tiles
First a player must draw a land tile from one of the face-down stacks.

As you can see, tiles are referred to as "land tiles" when drawing.  We can then infer that "tiles" and "land tiles" are the same thing.  So a cloister only has to be surrounded by tiles, not specifically tiles with grass on them.

Yes, that cloister is complete and can be scored.  Cloisters earn points per tile touching them, with nothing specifying what kind of tile it is.
For some reason the rules says "Land tile."  It is referring to any kind of tile you can place.  If, by placing a "land tile," a cloister is completely surrounded by tiles (including The River tiles, the starting tile, etc.), then it is completed.
Here are pertinent scoring rules:

Cloister completed during the game - 9
  points Cloister at end of game - 1
  point for each tile (cloister tile and
  each surrounding tile)

...

If, by placing the land tile, cloisters, roads, and/or cities are completed, they are now scored.

As far as I can tell, the phrase "Land tile" is only to distinguish it from "starting tile."  Weird.


text:
Counting cards in Catan?
Since most moves in Catan are public knowledge, one could count cards and keep track of the opponents' hands at all time.  However, it seems that there are a few obstacles to doing this.

Have any of you had success in card counting?

In particular, how do you get around obstacles like under the table trades, discards when a 7 is rolled, and randomized robbing?

I've tried counting cards while playing Catan, and I've really found it a needless distraction.  It really isn't worth the effort to know that Player X has exactly 4 Ore, a Grain and a Sheep in their hand.  It gets much too confusing too quickly, especially when you throw in robbing and trades.
Instead, I focus only on counting my most scarce resource.  Since that's almost always the one I would try to steal or trade for, that information is valuable enough to make the effort for.  There are relatively few of that good in circulation, so keeping tabs on them as people buy, trade, and build with them is much easier.

In addition, often offering trades for a resource you need may give you free information on what your opponents are holding...which is ripe for playing your "Monopoly" card.

I am a big believer in counting cards I keep rough track of what people have a lot of and what is scarce and not in the game. It expedites trading and makes sure I get the most value for my cards. I win far more than I lose so I figure it works pretty effectively.

It is a disruption that is too difficult to be useful. It could be counter productive because it diverts attention from other important details.
It is often obvious when one of your opponents is about to do something. You can infer what cards players have based on the trades they offer, and their reactions to dice rolls. Observing your opponents yields more valuable information than attempting to memorise their cards.
I do track cards when there is a rare resource or a player is about to win. A player with eight points on the board and two army cards, for example. The player may need one ore to buy what could be a third army card, so it's worth keeping track of cards.
I do count development cards. It is easy to tell what development cards other players have. There are five victory point cards, for example, and usually players hold on to them for much of the game.
You can gather information using deduction: Given the development cards you have, ones that have been played, and how many remain, you can make high fidelity guesses and estimate the probability of pulling out a card you need.
Recently two development cards remained in the game and I knew that both were victory point cards, which allowed me to win the game.

I track how many of each resource has been picked up. Its quite quick and easy using your roads/settlements/cities as counters. You can be pretty sneaky about it too. Its always nice to know what is out there when you get a monopoly.

Counting cards is very useful. Yes, it can't be done perfectly, but you can do it decently. You generally know when you have incomplete information, and can adjust your play accordingly. When playing in person, you can keep an eye on discards, which are the hardest to keep track of because of the volume. Even if you don't catch every card, you can make educated guesses about what the player's goals are with the remaining cards. I find that players often exhaust their hands, and you can reset counting from there. You don't need to keep an exact count in your head each turn, just the last few rolls and builds and knowledge of what the player had previously. Sometimes you'll guess wrong about the cards after a discard or a steal, but the risk is pretty small, and the benefits are great.
Generally, I would say that having a clear idea of what other players have allows you to manipulate the game to your advantage. If everyone else also has a decent idea of what other players have, it might not be quite as useful.

You can determine exactly what a player needs to do what they want to do, and what cards in their hand they don't need. This gives you a lot of advantages. If you are playing a high paced game, being able to quickly demand exactly what a player will be willing to give you allows you to negotiate optimal trades quickly, before other players have a chance to be a part of the action. You can also determine exactly what a player needs, and offer trades that don't quite fulfill their needs. The trade that gives you one production victory point now and one to another player in five turns is usually a good deal for you. Finally, even if you're not involved with a potential trade, you can tell loosing players how much they can demand in trades, making it less likely that winning players will get away with good trades.
It is necessary with Monopoly. I am generally a fan of targeting Monopoly cards toward resources that will give you 20 or so cards that you will then trade for other cards. Astute players will keep from informing you of just how many of the least in-demand resource they have when you've been sitting on a Development card for a few turns and suddenly start asking for a resource you probably also have a lot of.
It allows you to persuade other players to rob from one another: If you can tell them the probability they can get the one resource they need from another player, that's really powerful.
In the endgame, it can tell you if a player has the necessary cards to win, allowing you to persuade others and yourself to use knights effectively and know if you need to make a development card victory point gambit.


text:
Can a berserk unit advance in Advanced Squad Leader?
In ASL, may a berserk unit advance in the APh? It seems logical that it can't, but I cannot find the rule.

I expanded ASL based on what I thought it meant, please correct if I'm wrong!

I figured, but I think the Googles will like us better if we have both ASL and Advanced Squad Leader on the page.  Here's hoping anyways :)  Thanks for the question and welcome to the site!

It can't advance while berserk:

A15.431: ... nor may it move in the
  APh ...

but, it may lose it's berserk status in the Advancing Fire Phase, and then advance in the Advance Phase:

A15.46 RETURN TO NORMAL: A berserk unit loses its berserk status and returns
  to Good Order whenever it (or the
  group it attacks with) eliminates all
  (but at least one) Known enemy units
  in its Location with either TPBF
  (halved) during the AFPh or CC, or if
  at the end of a charge there is no
  Known enemy unit in its LOS (15.431).

Note:  I'm not sure what rule version this is from.  I'll load my rulebooks onto my USB stick, and update if needed next week.

Thanks. I can not understand how I could have missed it. Your quotes match 2nd edition by the way. I checked.

My memory is that Bezerk units must move including into an enemy hex the maximum movement points during movement phase towards nearest enemy in hexes.  Then they get triple fire in Advanced fire phase if they survive Defensive fire.
If the advance during advance phase was removed, then that would make there movement bonus not really a bonus.  And sometimes a penalty.
Whatever the current rules say, they should be able to advance, and adding CX penalties is wrong also, being Bezerk, that extra 2 movement points is the bonus of not hesitating.
Not sure what the newer versions of rules might say on the topic.


text:
Are there any rules differences between the two versions of Unexploded Cow?
Cheapass Games' first game was Unexploded Cow, which like many of the company's early products, consisted of just the basic cards and required players to scavenge other game components from elsewhere (e.g. getting money from Monopoly). Recently, they released Unexploded Cow Deluxe, which includes color cards and all of the game pieces.
Are there any rules differences between these two versions? Or is the only real difference the components included?

Cheapass Games did a fair bit of retooling the game.  The core is the same, but the mix of cards and costs is a bit different, and they've also altered the rules:

Ante used to include filling the Pot (for general play) and the Bank (a prize for whoever won the city game).  The Bank has been eliminated, and the game works with just the Pot and the 500 franc ante from each player.
Speaking of, all the amounts have been converted to "francs" to use the new tokens that are included.
The starting money is now 5000 francs, not $2000, but the ante is now 500 francs, and not $100.
If the Pot becomes empty in the old game, it stays empty, and no one can get money from it until more funds end up being put in through normal play.  In the new game, it can still run dry and fail to provide funds, but all players must re-ante if the Pot starts a turn empty.  Keeps the money flowing.
City cards in the old game just run number values from 1 thru 12.  Now they have varying values (the highest is now 6 or 7, more average towns), and a second effect (take money, get another cow, etc)
A bomb roll simply used to count down from the right side of your field and then around the table until it matched a cow to explode, yours or someone elses.  It still does but now rolling a six forfeits the roll, you fail to find a bomb completely, and the player to your left gets a free roll using his field, as though it was their turn (yes, this means they can take a city on your turn, if you screw up the bomb roll).
Instead of taking the bank for winning the City score, the game now ends in a Sudden Death roll-off.  Players keep doing bomb rolls and exploding cows until they earn out the last of the pot.  Winning the City score earns you the first roll.

The rest of the game remains the same.  The event cards like "Natural Causes" and special cows like spies, mechanics, and generals remain the same.  Some of the costs and values are tweaked slightly for balance, but that's it (sadly it looks like I won't be able to show card-by-card here, but there are several shots of the new game online, and Cheapass has released the original version for free as a print-yourself-and-play).  So it's a polished up game, plus the remade art (which I have to mention is great and continues the hilarity of the theme) and much much better card stock.


text:
Can I cast "Find Gate" when delayed in Other World?
In Arkham Horror, while delayed, can I cast "Find Gate" in Other World?
The spell 'Find Gate', reads:

Movement: Cast and exhaust to immediately return to Arkham from an Other World.

Can I, for example, cast this immediately after being drawn through a gate during the Arkham Encounters phase? This would effectively skip the Other World Encounter that is about to happen this turn, in addition to the one that would happen next turn.

I went ahead and edited the full text of the spell into your question. I know it might make it look a little more silly, but I think it makes things clearer too.

These edits substantially changed the question that was being asked. Yes, I did pose two questions, but the more specific one, that is now the only one that remains, was more of an example question to show where the other, more broad question, would apply. In fact, an answer to the broad question would have also answered the specific one. Now, the two answers here didn't address the broad question, and that might be because I poorly worded the original post, but I'm not really a fan of the edits that have been made. I believe the broad question is of more use, even if it is unanswered here.

Spells (and other items) will usually have some casting phase or timing defined on the card that states when they're allowed to be used.
http://www.arkhamhorrorwiki.com/Find_Gate
Find Gate has Movement: on it, so you can only cast Find Gate during the Movement phase. So if you were drawn through a gate due to an Arkham Encounter that said some thing like 'A Gate and a Monster appear!' you wouldn't have the opportunity to cast Find Gate before your first Other World encounter. But you would be able to cast it the turn after that.
This has been resolved as per the FAQ page 7 under spells:
Q: Can a delayed investigator in an Other World cast Find Gate?

A: No the only things a player whose investigator is
delayed in an Other World may do during his Movement
Phase is stand his investigator marker up and/or trade with
another investigator in the same Other World area.

This answer previously held links to places where the rules around the Find Gate spells was discussed. Since the final ruling from Fantasy Flight Games i have removed this information and the links.

I didn't see anything about that in the rules. I would have expected it to be in the 'Casting Spells' section where spell casting is explained. Is this ever explicitly stated in the rules?

Hmmm, that's a good observation! Right now, the closest thing I can find is this from the FAQ:
Q: When can a character perform actions during a phase?
For example, if a player with the ally Duke (“discard to
immediately restore your Sanity to its maximum”) draws
an encounter and has to roll a die and lose that much
Sanity, when can he discard Duke to restore Sanity: not at
all once the encounter card is drawn, before the roll, or
after the roll?
A: Actions can be performed at any time during their
listed phase as long as any given conditions are met.

Being delayed means you loose your movement phase, as is. You may not generate movement points and subsequently use them. You can not - without further interpretation - do anything but standing your investigator up and trade with another investigator, that is in your exact location.

You have to cast it during your movement phase. Which is over when you enter the gate.


text:
When is mystify worth using?
In Day and Night when you are playing Day mystify rarely seems to be useful. Towards the start of the game time spent attempting to mystify squares will either be wasted when night swiftly reverses them, or gain you a square which doesn't end up being important.
Towards the end of the game, time spent trying to mystify a couple of key locations to force a win often results in night overwhelming you with quick tile turn-overs to gain their second temple, when it would have been better for you to simply concentrate on turning over night's tiles to prevent this directly.


text:
double movement in Scrabble
Can you resolve a dispute between myself and my girlfriend? She recently won a game with what I think is a double movement (although there's no mention of this in the rule book).
She put one two letters down to make one word, which also scored linked to another letter. But she then added another letter immediately to the left of the finished word, which then extended the second word. I just don't think you can make a second movement like this in scrabble!

My sister placed down W, D and E, the ones that I circled in red. Is she allowed to do that? I told her it was impossible is it?
Can you resolve this for me please?

can you be more specific?  For example: TRIP was on the board going across.  She played SO going down to make SO and TRIPS, and then added an S to the front of TRIPS to make STRIPS.

Example would help.  "one two letters" is throwing me off.

Is it your sister or your girlfriend?

From the official rules:

All tiles played in any one turn must be placed in one row only across, or one column only down the board.

As you know, it is perfectly fine to score for multiple different words you made on your turn, but only if you made them from tiles played that turn. Since any tiles played on that turn must be in a single row or column, you cannot play two letters in one column and start a word, and then finish it by playing another letter in a different column. If I'm understanding your example properly, then you are correct in that she made an illegal move. :D

Does this mean that you could add two words, as long as all tiles you place are in the same column (possibly with space between them)?

@TimothyJones No - if you look at the link provided, you'll see the 'five ways that new words can be formed'.  A move can 'bridge' between played tiles, but it can only form one word in doing so.


text:
Bohnanza - If no one wants the cards drawn in Step 2, does the active player HAVE to plant them in Step 3?
We love this game, but we have one big question about the rules for Step 2/Step 3.
For the 2 cards flipped in Step 2. If no one at all wants them, does the active player have to plant them come Step 3, or do they go in the discard pile?

Yes,
They have to be planted by the active player if not traded to another player.  However,the active player can plant one (ripping out whatever was there) and then, if all his bean fields have no more than one bean planted, plant the second in the same field (ripping out the first bean).
Don't forget that the active player can donate those beans too.  Sometimes it is the best option.

One of the biggest sadnesses I have about Bohnanza (in the groups I play with) is that hardly ever does my group elect to "screw" a player by communally refusing to take their unwanted beans off of them.  I feel like to could be a valuable lesson for an over-ambitious player!  Maybe I'm just a big meanie though.

Don't forget that you can't rip up a field with a single bean unless all your fields have single beans.  Thus if the active player has two fields with 2+ beans in each and they can't get rid of either flipped bean, they may end up having to rip up both existing fields.

Yes. However if that active player is desperate they are able to donate the cards. in a "free trade". As long as someone is willing to take them.


text:
What are the restrictions on picking up locomotives?
If, after drawing one of the five cards from the face up train cards, and after replacing that card, the second card is drawn from the top of the deck and is a locomotive card, is the player allowed to keep that card?
Likewise, if both cards are drawn from the the top of the stack and the second card is a locomotive card, is the player allowed to keep that card?

@those who rejected the tag: As mentioned in the lead answer, this question applies perfectly well to Ticket to Ride Europe as well.

It varies by which Ticket To Ride game you're playing.
In USA, Europe, and Asia, you may do any of the following on your turn:

Draw a face-up locomotive
draw two face-up non-locomotive card
draw two cards off the deck
draw one face-up non-locomotive and one card off the deck, in either order.

In Switzerland and Nordic Countries:

draw two face-up cards
draw two cards off the deck
draw one face-up card and one card off the deck, in either order.

The difference has a lot to do with how they are used - the Switzerland and Nordic rules don't allow engines to be used for plain routes, only for tunnels and ferries.

While there are some differences to the rules, in the scenarios the OP is asking about it doesn't vary (especially since before the edit the title specified North America). In any edition of the game, whether you pick up or draw the first card, if you are eligible to draw a second card and it is a locomotive, you get to keep it. There is no version where if the second card drawn from the stack is a locomotive that you do not get to keep it.

The general rule is that if a card is drawn without looking at it, then it doesn't matter whether it's a locomotive or not - you get to keep it regardless. So the answer to both your scenarios is "yes". In fact, if you're really lucky, it's possible to draw two locomotives from the stack.
When you are considering picking up a visible locomotive (i.e. one present in the five face up cards), then different rules apply. You can only pick a face up locomotive if it is the first and only card you pick up. So if you pick another card, either face up or from the stack, then you cannot pick up a face up locomotive.

Yes - just as if the first card drawn from the top of the (face-down) deck is a locomotive card, the player still gets to draw a second (which may also be a locomotive!).  The key point here is that cards drawn from the deck rather than from the face-up cards are private; they're information that you don't have to share with other players, so in particular you don't need to let them know whether you've picked up a locomotive card or not.


text:
What are good general strategies for Forbidden Desert?
In the same vein as the question "What are some good general strategies for Pandemic?", and what the consensus is on the luck-difficulty curve (how luck-based the game is as a function of difficulty) of Forbidden Desert. In this context "difficulty" includes the initial storm level, however one could also make an argument for how difficulty scales with player count. It would be interesting to consider this for all of the Matt Leacock games or the Forbidden series itself.
Generally the game seems to be more manageable at higher difficulty settings for lower player counts, since for example in a 2p game there is less variation of the board state between turns. The two largest effects of this is

when spending a turn outside a tunnel (or solar shield) you have fewer opportunities to be exposed to Sun Beats Down cards before being given another chance to move again.
the board changes less between your turns, so your plans don't need to account for as many changes (and less variance allows leads to lower risks).

However this second effect could be a downside if strategies which take advantage of variance prove to be highly effective. Strategies which rely on near-static board states are simpler however they fail to utilise a part of the game's environment.
Higher player counts start with higher storm levels, however they also have a more reliable draw of the different player roles. Further, with more players it's possible to spread them out further. This can be advantageous, such as allowing for faster exploration, however to me aspect of this which opens up new strategic decisions as player count increases is the exploitation of tile movements. With enough players you can place someone on tiles in each cardinal direction of the storm (or further out) to "ride the storm". Whilst this is random, players can use knowledge of storm cards already drawn and tiles they'd rather get closer to improve their odds of getting a favourable outcome. However this might be a weak strategy as it requires taking on risk of sun exposure to get everyone into position, although depending on the position of the tunnels it may be worthwhile (such as if tunnels are of little use for transport).


text:
Forced Response to a Convenient Minor Opening?
My bridge club plays by a rule that an opening of a convenient minor requires a demand response by the partner unless intervening opponent does an overcall.
Situation:

My partner opened with 1-Diamond; opponent passed.
As Responder I had no 4-card major, 3-cards each in the minor suit, and less than 6 points.  We play that a minor response to a minor opening implies that the responder has a 5-card minor suit, such as the bidding:  1H; pass; 2D (5-card diamond suit)
But in my case I did not have 5 diamonds or anything, really.  After fretting whether to pass (against our rules) or bid "something" (leading to a disaster), I bid 1-NT expecting/hoping partner to put contract in her best suit.
My partner (the opener) responded 2-NT and the bidding: 1D; pass; 1NT; pass/
                                                       2NT; pass; pass; pass
And we went down big time.

To me - and hoping partner would realize it, my 1NT implied a bust hand and she was to then pick her best suit.  But didn't work that way
Any advice how we can properly handle this situation the next time?  What is the ACL rule for responding to a "convenient minor opening"?  Is a demand response the rule?

no 4-card major and 3 in each minor suit is only 12 cards?

The rules (and usually bridge clubs) don't "demand" bids. The bidding system does, which players are free to ignore (likely to the detriment of the partnership). Not sure why a bridge club has a rule forcing the responder to bid something. Or is your question mainly about the bidding system which almost everyone plays in your club? (or did I misunderstand what you wrote?)

You would do well to learn the difference between implied and inferred.

First of all, the Laws of bridge do not mandate any particular bidding system and except in dealing with an irregularity, do not mandate any particular bid.
Secondly, it is very unusual, and not permitted in ACBL open games, for the bridge club to mandate a particular system, much less a particular bid in a given bidding sequence.
Thirdly the question says:

I had no 4-card major, 3-cards each in the minor suit

But this is not possible, as it leaves at most 12 cards in the hand. There must be at least one 4-card suit in the most balanced possible hand (4, 3, 3, 3)
Fourthly, most players using convenient minor that I have played with or against do not bid with a bust, even if partner opens 1 club.  They will strain to make an otherwise borderline bid. If your agreement is that 1C must not be passed, then you should discuss what bid(s) to make with a sub-minimum hand. I would favor bidding a 4-card (or longer)  major, or 1D with no such major. Responder would be free to pass any rebid that is not forcing (A bid of 2H or 2S would be a reverse, and 2NT would be a strong jump, and any of those would be forcing.)  However, other agreements are possible.

Playing in North America, I have noticed two main approaches to responding to a convenient minor opening:

Only respond with normal responding strength (usually given as 6 HCP).
Respond with any hand that has an ace, a king, or shortness in the minor opened.

The first is covered by many bidding books, so let us discuss the second.
First of all, you must not respond 1NT without at least 5 HCP; this will lead to disaster, as you have learned. When you are broke, your first priority is to bid a four-card major; if you do not have one and partner has bid 1C, you may bid 1D and pass partner's 1-level rebid (or 2C -- other 2-level bids are reverses and thus forcing).
The real issue comes when partner has opened 1D, and you hold a hand like Jxx xxx x xxxxxx. This is the worst case, and probably the least bad action is to pass and hope that your left-hand opponent comes into the auction. The only alternative is 1NT, but this is a terrible alternative (you must not bid 2C, as this must promise strength).

1C - 1D - 2D is a raise of partner's suit, not a reverse, I would think. as 1D would usually show  at least a 4-card suit.

Other answers are correct.  "Convenient minor", even "could be 2" 1♣ (if 4=4=3=2 exactly), are not demand bids and can (and should!) be passed with appropriate dead minimums.
If you want to just read the "but here's something new, rather than support for other answers", go to the bold bit.
But many players have this "rule" - basically "It's not forcing, but you can't pass!"  Nobody mentions it until something goes wrong, of course.
It's only a problem if they are in fact short and end up playing 1♣ on a 2-2 fit where anything else would be better (they don't realize they might be doubled and even -300 in 1♣-3 is better than -500 in 1♥X-2, or that the opponents might bid if you found a fit, and be +400 or +600 in game) but boy will they complain to partner about it.
For some reason those players also complain when it goes 1♣-1♥; 2NT-p and partner puts down that 1-count with some clubs.  Especially if they have 4 or 5 this time, and 1♣ would have been a very comfortable contract.
Players like this also are very reluctant to (or annoyed when partner) raise the "convenient minor", especially if it "could be 2").  The convolutions they go to are usually worse than any 3♣ passed out on a 5=2 fit would ever be.
I don't know how you win playing with those partners; except maybe by not.
Now, stronger players also "will bid on anything" - but they know when the odds are on there being a better contract they can stop in; they know that there are times (like that 18 balanced) where it will be wrong and it will be their fault; and they are better at discouraging partner from flying to the moon (1♣= for +70 is still better than 5♥-1 for -100!) - and their partners will be more capable of reading said discouragement, because they "expect" it.  But even then, they know when to pass, too.
Also, system may be a factor in "bidding on nothing".  For instance I play a weak (12-14) NT in my primary partnership; more often than not, partner's convenient minor is a strong NT - that everybody else in the room is opening 1NT.  Assuming 1NT plays about as well as 1m, we won't score better in 1m; and at matchpoints, +70 in a room full of +90s (or +90 or +110 in a room full of +120s; it happens!) is the same zero as -200.   Of course, when partner doesn't have the strong NT, or has the 18-19 instead, I look foolish.
But there's another issue with this "agreement" - Full Disclosure.
If it truly is a demand bid, then according to the definitions in the Convention Charts it is "Forcing" by agreement.  That means, in the ACBL:

you must Pre-Alert this agreement ("a 1-level Opening Bid that is ... Forcing");
This allows the opponents to have a meaning for "pass and come in" knowing that they will get a chance, that they don't necessarily get without that;
This information must be in any explanation of any response that could be a hand that "would have passed except for the forcing opening";
if "convenient minor" includes opening a 2 card suit that is not exactly 4 cards in each major and 3 diamonds, it is also not Natural.  That also must be in the Pre-Alert, and allows for much freer defences (and much lower Alert requirements, especially of bids in that suit) from the opponents.

As most of the people who "play" this "it's not forcing, but you can't pass!" treatment only are willing to complain to partner, after the hand (or after the auction, if they're really frustrated), rather than ensure the opponents know their agreements; it opens up another way to get a poor score: "Director, if we had known..."

I've played systems like this, but only One Club demands a rebid of one diamond. In this situation,the opener will bid one of a four card major, or 1NT, or pass the 1 diamond bid with four diamonds. This is still too high opposite a bust hand, but no worse that a "weak NT" opposite a bust.
One diamond can be passed by a bust hand, because the bust bid would be 1NT (leaving the majors open for "natural" bids). The ABCL frowns on bidding systems where the "bust" bid is higher than the one suit rank above the opening bid (2 clubs, 2 diamonds is okay, 2 clubs, 2NT (bust) is frowned upon), because it takes up bidding space.
Besides, your team has left more room for the opponents to overcall following the approach I outlined.

re "has left more room for the opponents to overcall following the approach I outlined": The fatal flaw of ill-thought-out Forcing Club systems is to provide a road map to the hand without actually taking up bidding space, allowing opponents to both bid and play the hand half-a-trick or more better. Time to double the stakes when opponents choose such a weak bidding system.


text:
what is the maximum number of achievements a player can have in an 2-player innovation game?
Considering the game of innovation  (see, eg, https://boardgamearena.com/gamepanel?game=innovation) a 2-player game ends on 6 achievements.
Usually an achievement takes an action to complete, but special achievements occur when a condition is met.
Therefore, it is possible to end the game with more then 6 achievements, if the last 2 (or more) where special achievements. For example, you can have the empire achievement and the universe achievement met with a single meld.
I am trying to come up with a way to do the 5 achievements at once.
For 4 achievements, we can have empiricism causing a splay (if the last unsplayed color, wonder achievement) with the melding of an ten (if the last color with card < 8, universe) that might reveal clocks (world achievement) and other symbols (that might be sufficient for the empire achievement).
(for the purposes of this question, let's exclude expansions. I will ask another question for expansions if no solution can be found)

Are you including expansions?

lets start excluding expansions. If that is not enough, I will ask another question including them.

The rulebook doesn't seem completely clear on this point, but I believe the game ends immediately when someone achieves the 6th achievement? So to get multiple they would need to be claimed completely simultaneously, not just caused by the same action/dogma, right?

idk. We can try to answer the two questions... But I fear that immediately (rather than finish your action) will lead to a boring answer (perhaps 2)

You can do at least 3 exactly simultaneously, but I agree that if you don't get to finish your action, then it's clearly impossible to do all 5, because you could never simultaneously cause a splay and change the value of your top cards.

I think I have a way (assuming that you get to finish your action).
Dogma on computers, melds self-service. (universe achievement) and splays a color up (wonder). self services is used to dogma socialism (monument, empire and world follow from tucking many cards)


text:
Should the information on match slips be protected?
At my LGS they have started used match slips for bigger events such a prereleases. After the event the store has been placing these slips in their scrap paper bin. So they can use the back for notes, life total sheet, etc..
These match slips contain a certain level of information about players, their name and DCI number and signature. I've been thinking about it and there is a possibility this information could be considered sensitive. Thus the store should not reuse these slips there to protect people's information. I've looked through all the rules documents I can find but I can't locate any guidance on this.

Issues such as privacy of personal information aren't governed by WotC or the DCI, but by laws of the respective state and/or country. Even without such a requirement to treat such information with care, what's the harm in just destroying the info?

Well, you have to be identified somehow, I guess?! And in my experience people at your local LGS know you anyhow, so why make such a fuss about your name? Also, there is always the option to not partake in tournaments.

I'm voting to close this question as off-topic because this is a privacy / legal question only tangentially related to board/card games.

This is privacy law related so it depends on your country.

What information are you worried about being exposed on this scrap paper that has your name and dci number? If you are really concerned the only thing you can do is ask that the shop destroys them. But it would be much better to not have that information on the slips in the first place. If this is a privacy concern after the fact it should also be a privacy concern during the event as well.
During a tournament like this there is no reason whatsoever for the match slips to need to include the players name and dci number. All of that information can be kept in a separate list by the organizers and each player is given a randomly assigned number that can be linked back to the name/dci number after the event for any updates that are needed.
In reality there is no need for your dci number during the event at all as it is just needed during signup and at the end for administrative purposes.

But... The match slips do have name and DCI number. What action do you suggest the author take? (Also I'll note there's a bit of a difference between a controlled piece of paper during an event vs leaving it around in the shop for whoever/whenever.)

As above, the entire problem is that this information was included. This doesn't help the OP to handle the situation at all, hence, how does it answer the question?

@doppelgreener What do you expect us to be able to suggest other than having them ask the shop to destroy the slips after use which the shop can decide to not do. The simple fact is that the privacy has already been violated by putting them on the sheets in the first place and I would be much more concerned about getting that changed than what happens to them after the fact.

@JoeW I expect answers to practical problems like this to contain an actionable solution, that's all. (Keyword actionable.)

@doppelgreener and I edited in what they can do. Outside of providing more information on where they live not much can be suggested. If they live in the EU this might be a GDPR issue.

As that this website is tailored to a global audience I think a the question would be more useful if it were country independent. It is also less of a concern during an event because a the two players on a slip should be the only ones besides tournament officials that handle the slip, thus only exposing the information of each player to their opponent whereas after the fact the wider public as access.

@Fr33dan When some countries have extremely stick privacy laws and others don't it can make a big difference in what answer works for the person. As in it could mean the game shop is in legal trouble for keeping the information or there could be no legal issue at all. As for during the event what is there to stop someone else from seeing the information and recording it with a picture or other means.


text:
What is a fair Scrabble handicap
If it's with someone who is ESL with limited vocabulary and never played Scrabble before with you being a native speaker who played Scrabble lots.

It seems like the real issue here is making the game actually enjoyable for them, not just providing a handicap to even the odds! (And whatever you do in terms of actual gameplay/scoring, you probably want to avoid challenges - maybe just let them challenge you for free, and let them look things up if they're not sure.)

Can you be more specific about "limited vocabulary?" That could mean a huge range of things. And you've played a lot, but how good are you? How many points do you typically score in a game?

Start at 200 points. (To make sure they win the first game.) Every game they win, until you win, subtract 10 points from the handicap. After you win once, reduce handicap by 5 pts every time they win 3 (or 2, decide with your opponent) times running.
Update:
Hidden assumption - Opponent is a competitive Type-A personality who really wants to improve their vocabulary, and is also doing crosswords a few times a week.

Yikes, that could take a really long time to settle, especially if you manage to get lucky and win a single time before you're close to the actual handicap. (Unless the OP is really good at Scrabble, or the other player has a really limited vocabulary.) Why not just guess a handicap to start with and after each game, replace it with the average of the score differences from the previous games?

Really more of a general question- how to estimate a Scrabble handicap

@Jefromi: I give my 18 year old son a 70 point handicap, ad my 16 year old daughter a 100 point handicap, and their native language is English. We have tight games that usually go down to the wire. Maybe 150 is a better starting point than 200, but for an ESL opponent coming up with the survival two-letter words on a bad rack will be really challenging. P.S. OP says he is really good at Scrabble - without evidence to the contrary, I must believe him.

@user2617804: You don't estimate it. You over-estimate it, and then measure the over-estimation.

@PieterGeerkens Well, he said he plays a lot, not that he's really good; people by that description could easily range from 250 to 450 point games. In any case, whatever the starting point, it still seems like a method that will always take more games than necessary to settle on a handicap, and at the same time can even overshoot, because it's not making use of all the information you get from every game.

@Jefromi Why do it by points at all? What's the fun in that? There are better, more fun and more educational ways to even the playing field.

@Jolenealaska Wasn't my suggestion, was just wondering if the method of deducing the "correct" handicap was really ideal.

I play Scrabble with kids all the time, I think the same concepts would work nicely with an ESL opponent. To me handicapping by points (opponent starts with 150 or 200 points or whatever) does nothing to make the game more fun for either player. What does work is allowing my young opponent all the time they need for each turn - I get timed. They get all of the good cheat sheets - I don't (that one is fair even even if I'm playing an adult native English speaker with less Scrabble experience). And if the gap is really big - especially if Scrabble is being used as an educational tool - allowing my opponent timed use of the dictionary or OSPD while figuring their play. For the last one, consider limiting the time the opponent gets to use the dictionary more and more as the gap narrows.
BTW, using timing the stronger player as a handicap only works if that player draws tiles at the beginning of their turn instead of the end of their last one.

I like that last bit - I will use it myself. Perhaps a combination of timing and points would make a better handicap system than either alone.

@PieterGeerkens Do you mean "that last bit" as in the BTW concerning timing the turn, or was it the allowing timed dictionary use that you liked? For what it's worth, I have found allowing dictionary time to be the most fun. Educational too.

Allowing them to use the dictionary also helps them build English vocabulary, giving them benefit beyond the game as well

Give them more Tiles. I think this helps expand what they can do rather then just artificially boosting the score. And the goal of games is engagement not winning. (I know competitive people want to win, but games are about engagement)
Let them pick their tiles at the END of their turn (so they get to look at them longer). Everyone else picks at the start of their turn. Gives them a little time advantage.
They get credit for a BINGO if they use just 7 Tiles.
Give them BINGO +1 credit for each tile beyond BINGO they use.

If they're getting more tiles, I guess you probably want to give them credit for a bingo for 7 tiles still (as opposed to all their tiles) so that you don't make that even harder.

I like these too! +1

A potential issue with giving them more tiles is that the number of potential plays expands exponentially with each additional tile.  More options, especially for someone not good at English can cause decision paralysis, delaying the game and giving them a worse experience.

As others have mentioned, it's not merely a question of strategy and expertise - English spelling rules being what they are, your typical ESL player is probably going to take a lot of penalties for challenged words if you play strictly by the rules. I would think you'd want to not only give them a numeric handicap, but maybe soften up the rules on challenges a bit. Perhaps a successful challenge just means they need to try again with a different word, rather than making them lose their turn.
Similarly, the biggest difference between novice and intermediate Scrabble players is probably  knowing the list of 2-letter English words. I have seen people play Scrabble with a little cheat-sheet of the two letter words as a way to level the playing field.

Along with that, it's probably fair to let them look up every single word you play if they want.

In certain games like golf, the handicap is set by "experience".
That is, each player will know their scoring history and compare them. The weaker player wins if s/he can beat the "spread" suggested by these histories. That may be the best way to compare and "handicap" two players of very disparate backgrounds.

Scoring will be frustrating for one player or another. If the handicap is too harsh, the native speaker will have a hard time; if the rules are too lenient, the ESL player will be frustrated... The best solution would be to play Scrabble just for fun. If you want to play competitively, Scrabble isn't the right game.


text:
Table top maze game
In the 60s, we played a maze type game that used a round disk that was larger than a carrom that we hit with a cue stick. The game board was square and much larger than a carrom board. The play started on the outer part of the table and progressed around the board, eventually spiraling around to the center. There were wooden barriers that each player had to maneuver around or through and each corner had a small opening that had to be entered. There were numbered, painted areas that each player had to arrive at (in order). The object was to continue around the board while precisely hitting the disk to specific spots on the board and finally ending up in the center of the board.
Does anyone remember a game like this? Preferably with pictures.

This reminds me of marble maze though that's certainly not what you're looking for.

What you're describing sounds like the game I'm thinking of, but definitely not what's in the picture. Those girls look like kids in the 80's. I have specific memories, I think it was in elementary school, early 60s, going to another school during summer session. Played the game a lot. I don't know what made me start thinking of it, but as I started searching Google, came across this post. I recall actually being pretty good at the game. The carroms may have actually been plastic checkers pieces but I'm not sure.

After some digging it appears that the game you are looking for is "Castle Dungeon Maze" if you search for it in google it appears as you described however there could be variants of it. Hope this is what you are looking for!
Here is the original forum I found it on.
Also here is the picture I found:


text:
When can I use a power of a Keeper in Adventure Time Fluxx?
Some keepers have powers. Can these powers only be used during the turn that you play the keeper or every turn whilst the keeper is in play?

In the official rules, it states:

If a keeper has a special power, you must have the card on the table in front of you in order to make use of the power.

So as long as you have the keeper in front of you on the table, you can use its power.


text:
Arkham Horror heralds with new cards
Playing Arkham Horror with a herald. In the Herald variant rules, it doesn't say to shuffle the new cards in their respective decks.
Does this mean that the herald variant is played without the new cards?

It means that the variant only describes the rules that are different than usual.
Note that it also doesn't say to shuffle the old cards in their respective decks.
This variant doesn't prevent you from using other components from the same expansion, components from other expansions, or rules from other variants.


text:
Proper Opening Moves
What are the most common opening move for 6,2 and 6,3?
It seems the logical move is to take a runner and move 8 or 9 pips.  However, after playing a lot lately online I notice people also like to move into the #7 position with one runner and move 2 or 3 with the remaining runner.  While it seems risky, I also think that unless your opponent rolls a 6,1 or 6,6, they are opening themselves up more than you are opening yourself.
The exception of course would be if you were second to roll and your opponent has other crippling rolls available depending on their first roll.

In The Backgammon Book, World Champions Oswald Jacoby and John Crawford recommend with both 6-2 and 6-3 moving one runner to the bar point and one man from the 12-point into your own outer table; though they concede that there another move almost as good:

The modern play [written in 1970] is to use the six to move one back man to the black bar point and use the other to move a man from the black twelve point into your outer table. ... Unless [the man on the bar point] is hit by a point-making roll (in this case 6-1; double 6; double 3; or double 1) you will have a lot of possible returns against your opponent's  vulnerable blot; and you have lost little anyways. If your man is not hit your position is highly advantageous.

Note that Jacoby and Crawford do not recommend the modern play above with an opening roll of 6-4.
For both 6-2 and 6-3 they regard one alternative move each being nearly as good as the modern play recommended above: with 6-3 running with a single runner to the ten point, but with a 6-2 moving a man from your 12-point to your inner board.

With a 6-2 we don't like the running play [moving a single man from black one point to black nine point) at all, as it exposes your man to a straight 4 or 3-1 or double 2; a total of 14 possible shots.

An awful lot has happened since 1970 - including the ability to do massive bot rollouts. The bots agree with Jacoby & Crawford in this case, but not always...

@JuliaHayward: I'd be interested in any particular instances where the bots disagree with Jacoby and Crawford - do you have any links to such?

All else being equal, 24/18 13/11 (62) and 24/18 13/10 (63) are marginally better. On the upside, increased options for making points with the extra man in your outer board, and return hits with 6s if your opponent hits your runner without covering. On the downside, more risk of being hit. However, in match play, at certain match scores your moves 24/16 and 24/15 are preferred - generally where losing a gammon is particularly bad. But there's not a lot in it.
However, if I understand you correctly, the people playing 24/18 24/22 and 24/18 24/21 are definitely wrong - they get all the downside above and little upside from moving the second runner.


text:
In the card game Do-Over Deluxe, can a Take That! card override another Take That?
I'm talking about the special edition set here.
In this set of Do-Over, there are cards called "Take That!". These cards force your opponent to take the current discard pile and add it to their hand. RAW, can a "Take That!" card override another "Take That!"?

I see Haywire games has the original version rules on their website. Do you have the deluxe rules with your set?

No, we lost them. That’s why I’m asking.

Thought so, I've sent a request to Haywire Games for the Deluxe rules. Will let you know if I hear back.

Direct Answer:
Yes, a "Take That!" card can be played on top of another "Take That!" card. A "Bomb" card can also be used to defend against a "Take That!" card. Relevant rules snippet:

Take That Card - When this card is played, the next player going clockwise must take the entire discard pile and place it in their hand! However, you can defend against this! If you also have a Take That Card you can play it and force the next player going clockwise to take the discard pile. If playing with two players, you send the discard pile back to the player. A Bomb Card can also be used to obliterate the discard pile during a Take That and no one has to take the discard pile; it is placed to the side.

Full Rules:

Thank you so much! This answered my question and also corrrcted a bunch of rules misunderstandings my family has always played with.

Haha, happy to help, figured since you lost them, I would include the full rules in the answer. =)


text:
Dungeon Board Game rules scenario
We're new to the game, and already ran across something that struck us as an issue. Here's the scenario:

Wizard stops just shy of a room, fires in a spell that fails to kill the monster. He stays outside the room.
On the next player's turn, he walks through the wizard and into the room to battle the monster (rules say heroes can pass through the same space, but not occupy it unless it's a chamber). Hero fights the monster, loses, but is not ejected from the room.
Wizard's next turn comes. What can the wizard do now? The way the rules read, if he fires a spell into the room and kills the monster, he enters the room to loot, but the room is already occupied by the other hero, so the wizard is forbidden entry. Even worse, the wizard is still just outside the room.

What happens if during the combat in the room, the hero who pushed past is forced out of the room? Technically, the wizard was already in the space just outside the door, and there is nowhere for the hero to retreat to.

The older TSR version of the rules make this process a bit clearer:

Die roll: 4-5-6; Light Wound!  Drop any 1  treasure card. Retreat back to the nearest empty corridor space. Lose one turn.


text:
Income Tax Audit
My friend was playing a very slim hand; two cards.
I drew an Income Tax curse, and laid my best card, worth 600 gold.
He refused to play along...his excuse: "I have two Go Up a Level cards, I don't have to show or pay anything".
Are we allowed to force his hand, so to speak, and prove to us that he's technically exonerated from this play? Is he truly exonerated?
Thanks.

Cards in hand cannot be items. They are only cards.
The Income Tax rules text:

Discard one item of your choice. Every other player must now discard an item, or items, totaling at least as much value as the item you discarded. If they don't have enough to pay the full tax, they must discard all their items and lose a level.

From the Munchkin FAQ

Q. If you have to lose Items, do you lose the ones from your hand, or just those on the table?
A. Always, always, only those on the table. While cards are in your hand, they're not carried Items yet. If you are meant to lose cards from your hand, this will be specified.

Also from the official rules:

Your Hand: Cards in your hand are not in play. They don't help you, but they can't be taken away except by cards that specifically affect "your hand." At the end of your turn, you may have no more than five cards in your hand.
An item card in your hand does not count until you play it; at that point it is "carried."


text:
How do different sizes of Hnefatafl play?
There are some variants of Tafl games that involve differently sized boards. Obviously there is more to a game than its size, but how do the different variations of the board size affect play?

Don't know that anything beyond the obvious can be said. Smaller boards with small numbers of men will result in play having familiar patterns. Large numbers of men and larger boards have more strategy, but the game can get tedious since it takes a long time to play.

Since the rules of the game seem to have been partially lost in time, which specific rules did you have in mind?


text:
Can you buy with a copper after buying Grand Market?
If you buy the Grand Market in your turn, can you then use spare copper to buy something else? Or does doing so forbid you from having bought the Grand Market?

No. Technically, you play all treasure cards you want to use at the beginning of your buy phase, after which point you cannot play more cards. If you have played any copper, you cannot buy Grand Market, and if you have already bought Grand Market you are into your buy phase already and cannot play any coppers.
There are a few exceptions:

Cards that give you an extra Buy phase, (e.g., Black Market, Villa). You can play all the Coppers you want in one Buy phase and buy Grand Market in another.
Cards that remove treasure cards in play during your Buy phase (e.g., Mint, Bonfire, Counterfeit, Mandarin). If you are able to remove Coppers after playing them (trashing them, or something else like Mandarin), they are no longer in play and you can buy a Grand Market.

Of course, additional exceptions may be created...

Another sort of exception is with Mint.  If you get $11 with two buys, you can buy a Mint, trash the coppers in play, and then buy a Grand Market.

@RobRenaud This may be obvious, but just to clarify this to people who may misinterpret your comment: all the Treasure cards in play are trashed when you buy the Mint, not just the Coppers... it's just the Coppers are the ones stopping you from buying the Grand Market first.

@philosophyguy I could be wrong, but I think that rule was originally introduced in Alchemy.

Another exception is villa..buy a grand market, then villa, then use the coppers you have in hand.

As long as Mint is Mentioned, Mandarin should be as well.

Also Bonfire, and Counterfeit.

Thanks, I haven't kept up at all with expansions for the last few years.

Your first bullet point has a typo. "...buy Grand Market it the then."


text:
Does a builder count as a follower when scoring?
The rules say  you can have more than one builder on a road or in a city, so what happens when a city is completed and it has a follower and builder of one person and a big follower and builder of another person? Does the builder count as a follower or do you only count the other normal followers?

Builders (and Pigs) are not followers and are not counted when calculating a majority.
In your case, the city would be scored for the owner of the big follower.
Originally, builders and pigs were followers but this was changed a while back.  Rio Grande Games adopted this rule upon the release of the Big Box Edition.

Before that, even... I bought T&B before the big box was released, and the builder and pig didn't count towards victory on a given feature.