text:
What happens when a creature with Persist AND Undying dies? ('return to battlefield' issues...)
Say I have a creature with Persist and I give it Undying until end of turn. Later this turn, it is put into the graveyard, and I choose for the Persist ability to resolve before the Undying ability. Persist resolves, returning my creature from the graveyard to the battlefield with a -1/-1 counter on it.
At this point, I can think of three different things that might happen:

Undying returns it to the battlefield with a +1/+1 and a -1/-1, which then cancel out.
Undying never resolves because the creature can't be returned to the battlefield if it's already there, so it just keeps the -1/-1.
Undying returns it to the battlefield as if it was just summoned with no counters on it, and then puts a +1/+1 counter on it.

I would assume that the second ability would 'fizzle' as explained in this question because the creature is not longer in the graveyard, making #2 correct, but I'm not completely sure. Could someone explain what happens after my poor death-resistant-battlefield-loving creature is put into the graveyard?

Undying: When this creature dies, if it had no +1/+1 counters on it, return it to the battlefield under its owner's control with a
  +1/+1 counter on it.
Persist: When this creature dies, if it had no -1/-1 counters on it, return it to the battlefield under its owner's control with a
  -1/-1 counter on it.

Also, when you put an ability on the stack first, this implies that it is on the bottom of the stack, and resolves last

Whoops, edited to fix my LIFO issues. :)

This property is actually the basis of a fairly powerful modern deck using Mikaeus, the Unhallowed with a persist creature and a sack engine (Sacrifice a creature: x ability).
The better known equivalent combination is Melira, Sylvok Outcast instead of Mikaeus.

This sort of interaction is similar to Persist with something that gets +1/+1 as it enters the battlefield, like an Ally deck.

I do something similar to this with Sigil Captain (when a 1/1 enters put 2 +1/+1 counters on it) and persist creatures most notably Glen Elendra Archmage in an EDH deck. Since she comes in after persisting as a 1/1 she gets 2 +1/+1s one of each counter removes and she's left as a 3/3 able to counter again.

Both abilities trigger, and you decide the order that they resolve. If you choose to have Persist resolve first, then when Undying is trying to resolve, it fails to find the creature in the zone that it expects. Undying could normally find the creature that moved from the battlefield to a public zone (the graveyard), bu when Undying triggered it was looking for the Object that got moved to the graveyard where the object no longer is.

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

400.7d Abilities that trigger when an object moves from one zone to another (for example, "When Rancor is put into a graveyard from the battlefield") can find the new object that it became in the zone it moved to when the ability triggered, if that zone is a public zone.

This all, is of course assuming that both abilities triggered (you said that they did). It is even possible for both abilities to not trigger (as ikegame mentions). This could happen for example if your Undying+Persist creature was dealt damage by a source with Wither and it had a +1/+1 counter. State-Based Actions would be checked, and the creature would be sent to the graveyard at the same time that the counters got removed.

704.5f If a creature has toughness 0 or less, it's put into its owner's graveyard. Regeneration can't replace this event.

704.5r If a permanent has both a +1/+1 counter and a -1/-1 counter on it, N +1/+1 and N -1/-1 counters are removed from it, where N is the smaller of the number of +1/+1 and -1/-1 counters on it.

The Comprehensive Rules give an example for Undying illustrating this:

704.7. If a state-based action results in a permanent leaving the battlefield at the same time other state-based actions were performed, that permanent’s last known information is derived from the game state before any of those state-based actions were performed.

Example: You control Young Wolf, a 1/1 creature with undying, and it has a +1/+1 counter on it. A spell puts three -1/-1 counters on Young Wolf. Before state-based actions are performed, Young Wolf has one +1/+1 counter and three -1/-1 counters on it. After state-based actions are performed, Young Wolf is in the graveyard. When it was last on the battlefield, it had a +1/+1 counter on it, so undying will not trigger.

Is it correct that both abilities can resolve successfully, if the creature dies again between the abilities resolving?

@Fax: That interaction is not covered by the exceptions for 400.7. The once-again-dead creature would be a new object that the second trigger of the old card cannot find anymore.

This case with undying and putting/removing +1/+1 counters is really hard to grasp.
F.e. if i have a walking ballista with one +1/+1 counter and undying until e.o.t. and i remove the counter, it remains in the graveyard because 704.7 as you said? There's no difference between putting -1/-1 counters or removing the +1/+1 counters in the case that the creature dies afterwards?

If the creature had neither +1/+1 nor -1/-1 counters on it, both abilities trigger as the creature dies. Since you control both, you place them on the stack at the same time, in the order you desire [CR 603.3b].
Whichever you placed on the stack last will resolve first (Last In, First Out), moving the creature to the battlefield and placing a counter on it.
Whichever you placed on the stack first will then resolve. It will be unable to find the card in the graveyard, because cards become new objects when they change zone [CR 400.7]. As such, it will fail to do anything to the card.
So,

If Undying was put on the stack last, you'll get a creature with a +1/+1 counter.
If Persist was put on the stack last, you'll get a creature with a -1/-1 counter.

If the creature had either a +1/+1 or a -1/-1 counter on it, only one of the abilities will trigger. It will proceed to move the creature to the battlefield and place the appropriate counter on it. If it had a +1/+1, it will come back with a -1/-1, and vice-versa.

If the creature had both a +1/+1 and a -1/-1 counter on it, neither of the abilities will trigger, so the card will stay in the graveyard.
Normally, you wouldn't encounter this situation since +1/+1 and -1/-1 counters cancel themselves out as a SBA [CR 704.5r]. It is possible only in the case of the addition of -1/-1 counters brings the creature to 0 or less toughness, or low enough for the damage marked on it to kill it. In both situations, the creature will go from being on the battlefield with both type of counters, to being in the graveyard without, and neither Undying nor Persist will trigger.

Let's look at your example. All three of your options are wrong.
#1 and #3 are wrong because Undying can't find the card. It's now a new object on the battlefield.
#2 is wrong because Undying does resolve. It simply doesn't do anything. That said, #2 does accurately describe the final state.
"Fizzle" usually refers to a spell getting moved to the graveyard instead of resolving for not having any valid targets [CR 608.2b]. Since Undying doesn't target, it can't fizzle.

You will have a creature in the graveyard and two triggered abilities waiting to be put on the stack. You as controller of both the abilities then can choose in what order you want to put them on the stack. Then it will be a case of last-on-in-first-one-out.
So if you choose to put the persist trigger on the stack first, with the undying trigger on top. The undying trigger will resolve, the creature will then return to the battlefield with +1 counter. The persist trigger will then try to resolve, but with th creature no longer in the graveyard it will simply do nothing.
The inverse is true if you put the trigger on the stacks in the other order. With the undying trigger on the stack first with the persist trigger on top, the persist trigger will resolve and the undying trigger will have no creature to return.
Remember triggered abilities resolve one at a time in reverse order from the way they where put on the stack. In Mtg there is no blending of spells or abilities. They only do that what there rules text allows them to do. If they try to do the impossible, they simply do nothing.


text:
Games that are quick to teach to new people, yet still fun and strategical
I love board games and don't mind sitting down for 10-15 minutes with some experienced players to learn how to play a complex game. However, I don't think most of my friends are as tolerable of complexity as I am. I have a feeling they might get a little spooked at seeing a shadows over camelot board, but might be able to handle something like dominion.
What are some good games that newcomers can get started at quickly and feel proficient within a couple turns? I love games where brand new people can start developing good strategies within a few minutes.
related: How can I recognize games I should avoid buying if I only play with non-hardcore gamers?

and many of the listed items here: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/1039/games-that-have-no-element-of-luck

@warren no luck doesn't mean its easy to play. I'm looking for stuff I can play with my friends who haven't realized board games are fun yet. If any of them tried to play go, chess, or stratego they would probably be overwhelmed quickly and never want to touch a board game again.

that's true. However, many/most of the games in the other question fit the bill, in my experience :)

There is a community wiki question partially covering this one, with light strategy party games. http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/2050/best-light-strategy-party-games

poker and chess :)

Othello advertises itself as "a minute to learn, a lifetime to master".

Ticket to Ride or Carcassonne are the two games that we generally use. We have been so successful with Ticket to Ride Europe that not only have friends bought the game but they have taught it to friends of friends who have also gone and bought the game.

I think Ticket to Ride is much easier to grasp.  "Run a train between these two cities" is a nice concrete direction to give someone.  Carcassonne is more abstract.  It's hard to achieve "score the most points" when you don't know ahead of time what will definitely net you more points.

Links, links, links :)

Ticket to Ride is perfect for meeting the questioner's needs, I think.  The mechanics are SO simple, yet after a while one realises there's a fair bit of strategic depth as well.  And there are several other Ticket to Ride games (at my house we are quite fond of Nordic Countries) that add even more strategy through simple mechanics like ferries and tunnels... the perfect gateway drug to boardgames addiction!

Dominion
The base set for Dominion is really simple to teach. I find that non-gamers are able to grok the rules a bit easier than gamers.  The mechanics are simple although I think people can get hung up on the discarding your entire hand at the end of your turn.  It's pretty easy to see the strategic options, not very easy to get it working in your favor.

it helps a lot if you leave out certain cards that make things a little more complex. Its very easy to teach, but resolving 4 card combos can be difficult for some people. This is easily counteracted by leaving out cards that give more than one action, and maybe attack cards as well for your first round. :)

it also helps if you play a little nicely the first time. The absolute most annoying thing about dominion is when you see other experienced players working through 8+ card combos where all you get to do is play one smithy. Its really easy to get over when you show people some strategies, so just get them drawn in enough so you don't scare them away early.

I give this a somewhat hesitant +1.  This is true only if you structure the card set to avoid some of the more brutal/crippling combos; this is a game where even if you know what you're doing, a superior strategy (or sometimes just a bit of luck) can result in one player absolutely running away with it.  And that's no fun.

Small World
We've taught several people Small World as their first game outside the regular realm of Monopoly and Sorry, and almost everybody wants to play it again.
Small World is an area control game dressed up as a wargame. People understand the point and the theme right away.
It's really only got one mechanic which makes it easy to teach, and a zillion combinations of race / special power which makes it eminently replayable.

Pandemic
In general, cooperatives are easy to teach because there are no issues with advising players on what to do. With Pandemic, it's really not a problem to look at another player's cards and help them make decisions.

forbidden island is a bit simpler, but pandemic is fine too. Cooperatives are awesome for beginners because there's no risk of being the only one who loses and you can all share strategy. :D

On the other hand, you risk one player playing at random makes everyone lose (as opposite to just him losing), or you risk a single player actually taking over a lazy player and telling him everything to do.

Settlers
We usually introduce new people with Settlers, which lets them see that games can have different mechanics than the usual family games they're used to, but is still pretty simple to learn.

I disagree, takes ages to teach my parents Settlers!

I love settlers, but I've had friends balk at playing it since it looks complex to them.  It's not a quick game to teach people.

Explaining the ports, robber, and different development cards I usually leave until after the first few turns, but you can definitely do far worse. You usually need to play a game or two before they grasp the strategy.

I find it easy to learn new friends to play Settlers. I usually just explain the basics and then its learn-as-you-play.

I've always had the phenomenon happen that Settlers is hard to explain in words, but people seem to pick it up quickly once they start playing.

@GSto:  Yup.  I always preface my rules explanation with "I know this LOOKS complicated, but you'll pick it up FAST once we start playing."

Dixit & Dixit 2
I played this last evening with my family which included my kids whom are 6 years old and my grandma who is 92. None of them knew the rules beforehand.
I think I spent roughly 3 minutes covering scoring and how to play. It's not overly strategic perhaps but it's loads of fun for everyone including people who normally do not play much games.

Wonderful games and very much suitable for all the family.  Not really a Eurogame in the Settlers mould, but one of the prettiest gaming options out there.

Go
My 7yo got the hang of go's mechanics in a few turns (you take one of your pieces, put it where two lines intersect on the board, surround opponent pieces or empty space to capture), however there is a great deal of strategy to go, and I've played it for years without learning it all.
Also, Go's built-in handicapping system makes for challenging games even when players have a great disparity in skill.

I would expect a 7-year-old to like Go if a parent was teaching them.  I would not expect the same from an older non-gamer if a friend was teaching them.  In my experience, non-gamers that are significantly older than 7 do not enjoy perceiving large amounts of strategy that they do not understand.

@BrettWidmeier That's something of a tautology.  Replace "gamer" with "person who enjoys learning different games, especially those involving a certain depth of strategy or role play" and you'll see what I mean -- if you enjoy it, you get classed as a "gamer", if not, it's "non-gamers wouldn't like that".

I think I agree with you. However, by that definition the OP's friends are given to be non-gamers. Importantly, your definition allows some non-gamers to be interested in occasional more-simplistic gaming (let's call that group "partial gamers"). My point was only that I consider Go to be intimidating for the partial gamer.

Tsuro
This is the absolutely simplest game I've ever had when it comes to teaching people how to play it.  Tsuro is an abstract strategy game where players lay a tile and following the path through the tile.  The object is to be the last person on the board.
I can describe the rules of the game in under two minutes, and have people playing shortly afterwards.  This isn't a deep game, but it's fun, and people quickly learn it.  I've used it as a warm up game when I've had friends over for game night before diving into something more complex.  It plays well with 2-8 players and plays fairly quickly.

its definitely an awesome quick-start game. Its hard to find anything with simpler rules.

Hive
This game is made of bakelite tiles showing different insects. On your turn, you play a tile touching the others or move one according to its specific move.  The goal is to surround the opposing queen bee.
The tiles are very sturdy, and there is no board, so the game is very easy to play anywere (I've played in the sand on the beach).

Blokus
Dead simple rules, probably takes 30 seconds to explain, but the strategy really gets interesting. As you get better the game will evolve with you. :)

I like No Thanks, a small little game from Z-MAN. The rules take about 3 minutes to explain and games go in no more than 10 minutes, and while there's a lot of luck, there's also a lot of strategy.
If you want something more involved, my single favorite card game to date is Wizard. It's fast-moving (but a bit long to play the whole game), and is familiar to players of Hearts, Spades or other trick-based card games. There's enough luck to let beginners get in the door, but enough strategy you can't win by accident.

Khet
Fits the bill perfectly. Stratigically similar to chess but without much less complex rules. Most people pick it up after a few turns

You forgot the most important point - It's Chess, with fricken laser beams!

Carcassonne
: I've found that Carcassonne is very easy to teach in a few minutes by simply demonstrating the game.  Shuffle up the tiles and play a few sample turns, explaining what the optimal move for each tile would be and why.  This will give players a basic understanding on the various ways to score points, and they can discover advanced strategies (adding additional meeples into fields or buildings, blocking other player's moves to freeze meeples on the board, etc.) as they play the game.

Qwirkle
Fun, puzzly tactical decisions and people pick it up almost instantly. While it's not one of my personal favorites, I've introduced it to many groups of non- and light-gamers to great acclaim.
Print out this scoreboard (or one of the others) or use anything besides their suggested method of tracking scores with pen and paper: not only is the pen and paper a hassle (everyone scores every turn and turns are fast) but knowing who's in the lead at a glance allows for a little leader-semi-bashing, making the result more fun.

Qwirkle is awesome - and so simple to grasp!

Bohnanza
The mechanics are very simple, and everyone I've played with makes all great decisions after the first round. Remembering which cards are still in the deck takes some focus, and the social aspect of trading keeps things interesting. :D

forbidden island
The rules are fairly simple, and like other cooperatives its a great first time game because you're not worried about losing alone, you're worried about your entire group losing. I've gotten several groups of friends addicted to this game after one play, and soon they all knew the rules better than I did and were able to correct mistakes I didn't even know I was making.

Roll Through The Ages (Both the basic version and the Late Bronze Age expansion).
Quick to teach, quick to play, and many paths to victory.
Granted that it may take a new player one game to really grok the options, but it plays quickly enough that it's not a big loss/investment of time.

Power Grid
Has very few rules to get to grips with, but strategically quite varied. It does not take long for someone to realise that money and resources is key to winning the game, but the change of turn order, buying the right power plants at the right time, give a great mix of strategic fun that is quick to learn.
My group introduced a new player using power grid, and he was up and running in minutes, and has never looked back!

Wow, I love Power Grid, but I thinks it too heavy for an intro game.

Puzzle games like Ricochet Robots, Eleusis and Zendo seem to me to be easier to explain than a typical Euro game. Eleusis might not be that simple, but there's Eleusis Express to introduce the game to new players who can then try the full game next time.
Ricochet Robots is a fun series of small puzzles, a real brain burner and very stressful as you race against the other players to find a solution. Eleusis takes longer to investigate and solve each puzzle. It's got much less time pressure, so it feels more relaxed. Still, you are trying to get rid of your cards before the other players, and you can declare yourself a prophet if you think you've figured out the rule.

Good call on Richochet Robot, anyone who has an interest in puzzles can get into this game easy.

Dog/Tock/TAC
Most folks should already be familiar with Pachisi style games so explaining the rest to them is easy and the game is a lot more fun that the more traditional versions.

A good rule of thumb is that if you spot a game you like at a place that DOESN'T cater to hard-core gamers (like Target or Barnes & Noble), you may wish to consider it as a gateway game.  Somebody with a lot of money at stake is certainly wagering non-hardcore folks will enjoy it, at least.

Our local Target now carries Ticket to Ride, Blokus, and Settlers of Catan, but that's about it for their eurogames. Can't really expect them to do much more though for exactly the reasons you've stated. :D

Jungle Speed
Very nice game revolving around turning cards with similar symbols and grabbing a wooden totem in the middle of the table if cards match up. Very easy to learn!
Caution: you might get injured, especially when playing with people with long fingernails - you are warned!

Terrace
There are only a handful of very simple rules, yet in either the two- or four-player variants, it can take hours of skull sweat to play. Or you can be done in under an hour - it's truly up to the players how much time and energy they want to expend.
Originally created in the 1950s, it was sold and simplified in the 1980s and became a prominent prop on Star Trek: The Next Generation

Alexandros
I think the best way to describe this game is that it's a combination of Carcassonne and Ticket to Ride. It's far more reliant on strategy than it is on luck, although the element of cards invariably means some luck is involved. The strategy, however, while very simple to learn, is rewarding and presents you with endless possibilities. It's a divide and conquer game with many twists.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Quick engaging card games that can be learned quickly by a new group

Possible Duplicate:
What are good games to play during a one-hour lunch break?

I'm looking for some games to play in short 10-15 minutes breaks in between classes. Here's some of my priorities, more or less in order:

Quick to learn. Total teaching time preferably less than 3 minutes before gameplay starts. Have to be able to teach new people quickly.
Transportable. I'm mainly looking for stuff with regular decks of cards, but if other inexpensive proprietary games meet this criteria they're fine.
Short playing time, preferable less than 10 minutes. Obviously I'd love to be able to play a full game of Settlers, but we just don't have enough time for playing or even teaching it.
Engaging. Fairly quick turns, more or less constant action. Inter-player interaction is always good.
A moderate level of luck is fine, but not a TON, like Uno, if possible.

Any suggestions for 'in-between-classes' games that meet the criteria?

to the subjective and argumentative close voter: This question is no more subjective than many on the front page. If we purge all subjective questions in favor of objective ones only, this site will become dull and boring, and miss the whole point of having fun while talking about board games.  http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/4/good-board-games-for-single-player

Can this question be handled as a subset of a previous question.  Personally, I don't see a lot of value in having different questions about a similar theme, "short games".

BTW, if you are ever just in need of a new card game, every lover of cards should know about http://www.pagat.com/ Pagat has the rules for just about every game and variation you could imagine. Its an invaluable resource for me.

Uno is not even a game

Fluxx springs immediately to mind: almost zero teaching time ("The rules are on the table!  Draw a card then play a card!"), can easily be over inside of ten minutes, inconsequential enough that no one will really mind if the bell goes and you have to quit before anyone has won the game.
Lunch Money could probably work inside the given timeframe, but a disturbing game about children beating the crap out of each other in the playground might get you some strange looks, or even disciplinary action, in an academic environment :D
I thought of a couple more good options, so I'm editing them in:
Parade has really taken off in our group lately - it's simple but brilliant.  There are 6 suits of (Alice in Wonderland-themed) cards, valued from 0 to 11.  Beginning with a "parade" of 6 random cards, each player adds a card to the end of the parade.  You must then add to your collection all cards that are equal-or-higher-valued or same-suited as the card you just played - except for the n cards immediately in front of your card, where n is your card's value.  (i.e. if you play the 10, you pick up nothing unless the parade is now 12 cards long.)  At the end of the game, you score negative face value of card, UNLESS you have the most cards in a suit, in which case they're only -1 each.  Trust me, it's really good.
Coloretto is a simple card game which happens to be the engine behind popular boardgames like Zooloretto and Aquaretto.  Players either draw a card and add it to a pile or take a pile.  Most of the cards have a colour: at the end of the game, you score positive points for cards in 3 of those colours, and negative points for cards in other colours.  Pick up piles too early and you may end up short of cards; wait too long and the other players will screw you by leaving you with a pile of cards of multiple different unwanted colours.  Simple but a lot of fun!

I have fluxx, but I've never played lunch money. How complicated is it and how much strategy and interaction is there?

I'd say it has as much strategy and interaction as a simulation of a bunch of people trying to beat each other senseless without any reference the Queensberry rules should.  I hunted out what appears to be a fair and balanced review of it for you: http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_2554.html.

I think Lunch Money's pretty hard to learn:  you can't really play it without knowing the card effects, and there's nothing on the cards to tell you what the effects are.  It was this, and not the theme (I like the theme), that turned me off the game.

Egyptian Ratscrew
Egyptian ratscrew is a simple, fast-paced game that can be played with 2 or more players. It's more of  a game for children and adolescents as it focuses more on fast reflexes and pattern recognition than strategy or reading one's opponents. But it is very easy to learn, has a relatively short game play (usually around 10 minutes), and is a good source of silly fun.

I don't know if that's a good game or not, but it's certainly got an amazingly great name!

That's an awesome, but potentially violent game. We used to play that in university.

Two games with proprietary cards:
No Thanks!
An ingeniously simple press-your-luck game that takes maybe 2 minutes to explain and 10 to play.
6 nimmt
An odd game of continually-diminishing possibilities.
And as far as games with traditional cards go:
Oh Hell
A great, simple, evil trick-taking game, usually for 4-7 players.  (See the Wikipedia article here.)
Ninety-Nine
David Parlett's great, deep, even more evil trick-taking game for exactly 3 players. (The Wikipedia article here says 2-4 players, but it's really designed for 3.)  A full game probably can't be played in 15 minutes unless everyone knows it well, but it's a game more people should know about.

Whist,
I played this very frequently in Brazil. It was extremely quick, easy and a LOT of fun especially for larger groups. It's incredibly strategic yet extremely simple. It's one of the best card games for larger groups in my opinion.
You Need
A deck of cards and about seven tokens per player; a pen and paper to note scores. The tokens can be anything; we used corn.
Objective
Win by accumulating the most amount of points by game end. Win points by getting your bets right.
Start
At game start each player receives one card. The remaining deck gets placed face down. One card is drawn from the top and placed face up. The suite of this card is now the trump suite.
For each subsequent round players receive one additional card at game start. So on round two players receive two cards each; on round three players receive three cards each, etc...
The deck is reshuffled for each round and a new trump card is drawn.
The highest round is seven. At seven you reverse the count, and continue back to one. The game then ends after 13 rounds have been played (1,2,3,4,5,6,7,6,5,4,3,2,1), and the scores are tallied.
Step One: Bet
On every round each player makes a secret bet by placing the number of tokens they wish to bet in their hand. Keep the number of tokens hidden from other players. The number of tokens bet should reflect the number of hands a player thinks will win. When all players have decided on a bet they release their tokens at the same time. It is possible to bet 0.
Be sure to keep the tokens used for the bet separate from the original token stash. Bets are not mixed. A player's bet remains separate from that of others. Tokens are never transfered between players.
Step Two: Play
Play commences as with any normal card game. The holder of the highest card of the first suite played wins the hand, unless someone has a trump card. Trump cards can only be used if the player has no cards of the same suit being played. If a player has neither, he plays whatever he has to no effect. If a player does have a trump card, he or she can choose not to use it.
On rounds that have more than one hand, the winner of the hand resumes by playing the suite of their choice.
Step Three: Score
When the round ends, which is when all cards have been played, each player tallies the number of hands they won. All players get one point for each hand they won. Those who managed to match their bet to the number of hands won receive a bonus of 10 points each.
So, if I bet two tokens and at game end I have won two hands, I receive a total of 12 points.
Additional Notes
If the number of tokens bet is less than the number if players, the dealer must add an one additional token to his bet. We don't often play this rule, but it is rule.

kemps!
you have to have an even amount of people and you have pair up with on another and you have to think of secret codes with each other and the dealer passes out 4 card on the table and you have a choice of switching card with amy of the 4 cards on the tabel. once you have 4 of a kind in your hand you signal your partner with your secret code! it is a really fun game!

A number of traditional card games can be learned and played pretty quickly.  I like Spades and Hearts both quite a bit, and both are very easy to learn and one hand should only take about 15 minutes or less.  Other trick taking games like Oh Hell are similar in time and difficulty to learn (excepting Bridge of course.) The advantage of Spades or Hearts over Oh Hell, for example, is that you can write down the score real fast and then get together later for another hand.  So there's some continuity there.  Hearts is also pretty flexible to more or less than 4 players, so that's a plus.
If you really want to cut down on time, a game like Euchre or Briscola, which use a reduced size deck, can play even faster.  Both are trick taking games.  Euchre is for 4 players in partnership, traditionally.  I've played versions of Briscola for 2 up through 5 players.  All are pretty good fun and fast.
And as mentioned in another answer, President and it's eastern cousins Big Two/Three and Beat the Landlord are also quite a bit of quick fun.
If trick taking and climbing games aren't your style, there's also Rummy, which is dead easy to play but lots of fun.  It does tend to take a little longer though, I find.

President
This also goes by the less PC, but much more commonly used name of @$$hole, but I thought I'd put the G-rated version in large bold letters. Wikipedia doesn't have much to say on the rules because it's so closely related to Dai Hin Min, so the its page is mostly devoted to special rules used to make it into a drinking game.
I can vouch for its fun without the alcohol, and I think it meets the criteria of easy to learn, requires only a standard deck of cards, is very fast with lots of player interaction, and rewards skill but is still dependent on luck to win consistently.
As a quick summary of play, all cards are dealt out and play proceeds around the circle. Players try to get rid of their cards as fast as possible, with the restriction that you have to play matched-ranked cards of a higher rank and quantity than were played previously. Often 2s are a special stack-clearing trump that gives whoever played them the ability to start over.
One attribute of the game you might like is that after a given round, players are ranked according to their finish in the previous round, which is something you could remember after your 15-minutes were up and then carry into the next session. This will help to string your short breaks together and make them seem like part of a larger game, and would also provide bragging rights for the person on top when the bell rings.
(Although typically everyone is ranked, in practice remembering only the President and the a-hole is sufficient, as they trade cards to the President's benefit before each round.) Only remembering top and bottom will also allow new players to enter and leave the game without disrupting (i.e. having to worry about) the middle of the pecking order. Any n00b can enter at the bottom and have to work their way up.

There's a commercial variation on this game published by Wizards of the Coast called The Great Dalmuti.  The gimmick is that there are 12 ranked cards (1-12) and the same number of cards in the deck as the rank; so twelve 12s, eleven 11s, and so on. So rank 1 beats any single card, but a person with a bunch of 3s could still win because no one would have an equal length set.

The Great Dalmuti is one of my favorite party games - friends still talk about epic games held at parties years ago. The fun is that you can play to "win" (i.e. become the great dalmuti) but you can also play to just rank a bit higher than last tine and/or to rank higher than your friend/boyfriend/husband/wife/partner (playing with a bunch of couples emphasizes this element). The President version of the game can be played with multiple decks to accomodate very large groups.

BANG!
A pretty quick-to-play game for 4 or more players that has gunfights, hidden information, and a western motif.

And can it be tought and played under 15 minutes?

Your first game or two may be over that time, but it can be played in under that time once the rules are known.

This can definitely be taught and played in 15-20 minutes if the person doing the teaching is any good at it.

Not sure how I pulled a pair of downvotes on this.  Someone care to shed some light?

Try something like Set. Rather specific, but I like it.
UPD Removed luck-dependent Uno, sorry for that.

@Downvoter, could you please explain what's wrong with the answer?

I'm not one of the down-voters, but I'd suggest it was because you've recommended Uno, which was specifically named in the Q as unsuitable.

@Stuart Pegg, thank you. That makes things a bit clearer, my fault.

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


text:
How does the addition of the Potion treasure from Dominion: Alchemy change the game?
These questions give a good explanation of the general changes each of the Dominion expansions add to the game.
But in this question I really want to zoom in the focus, particularly on how the potion card affects the game in Dominion: Alchemy. 10 of the 12 cards require a potion to buy, but there may be varying amounts of them in a given kingdom set. Without having actually played Alchemy I'm having trouble wrapping my head around how it will change things.

How do you evaluate how many potions and how to balance it with your other treasures?
How much complexity does the dual-economy of income add?
How does the potion treasure otherwise affect your strategy when cards from Alchemy are in the kingdom set?

Generally, if you're going to be buying cards with a potion in the cost, you will buy a potion right away on a 3/4 split. If you wait, then you won't have the potion shuffled into your deck early enough to get the potion-cost cards into your deck quickly.
Deciding whether to buy the potion-cost cards or not really depends on the setup. There are some situations in which a single card with a potion cost is worth purchasing (e.g., Golem in setups with poor +action, Vineyard in action-heavy setups). In other cases, it's better to ignore the potion-cost cards--if there's a Possession and Embargo on the board, lots of players will choose to embargo the Possession instead of dealing with that card.
Finally, whether to get multiple potions also depends on the setup. Setups with +buy and cheap potion cards like Vineyard or Transmute make it less painful if you draw multiple potions in one hand. If you have cards that are fueled by potions, like Alchemists, it may be worthwhile to have an extra potion in your deck.
Although it seems really complicated initially, and the strategy can end up pretty involved, my experience was that it was rather straightforward to actually play with Alchemy once I had a good grasp of the base game. I certainly made lots of bad strategic choices initially, but I was not really confused by the dual economy.
If you've played with Black Market, it's a similar kind of calculation to playing with potions: you need to have that card in your hand in order to get access to other cards (potion cost cards or the BM deck), and you decide how many to purchase based on your needs at the time and your current deck composition.

Great answer! I totally agree that one, sometimes two Potions are plenty.


text:
Strategies and kingdom cards for a strong opening in Dominion?
Dominion is a game of widely varying strategies and paths toward victory. But the most important part of any winning strategy is a strong opening.

How can I tell if a kingdom card is a good opening card?
What are some of the best cards to buy in your first 4-6 turns?
What are some good tactics for getting to your later game strategy as soon as possible?

This question discusses evaluating kingdom sets in general., and this discusses general tactics. This is sort of a combination of both, focusing on openings. :D

Good cards to buy early:

Chapel: this is close to a must-buy if it is on the board.
Sea Hag: another almost must-buy so that you don't fall behind on curses. It's less valuable in a multiplayer game (because if everyone else is firing it, the curses will run out quickly, and then it just takes up space in your deck).
Ambassador: functionally trashing your deck while bloating your opponent with bad cards. Ambassador/Silver/Ambassador can be a devastating opening.
Militia: especially in 3+ player games, this is brutal. Less effective if a Library is on the board.
Moneylender: trashing + accelerating you to 5/6 coin cards. But, it can potentially clog your deck in the mid/endgame.
Envoy / Smithy: these cards accelerate the entire game. Big Money buys 4 provinces in 17 turns, on average. Purchasing one of these cards lowers that to 14.5 turns.
Cutpurse: also deadly in multiplayer games, but still great for slowing your opponent early. Less valuable as an attack late in the game, but it's still worth a Silver if you have actions to burn.
Trading Post: if you open 5/2, this is a great card because it trashes your junk into silvers, which also allows you to save your initial buys for non-treasure cards.
Mining Village: trash early for a 5/6 coin hand.
Baron: useful early for an easy 4 coin. Can clog a deck later in the game, but its ability to give you an extra Estate and an extra buy can sometimes tip the balance in a close game.
Loan: useful for trashing coppers without costing an action and can also be used to cycle your deck, getting new cards shuffled in faster.
Quarry: useful if there are expensive actions in the set (King's Court, Forge, Peddler, and game-changing 6 cost cards like Goons).
Pawn: there are many times where the +buy or +coin will be useful; in the worst case scenario, it's a self-replacing card (+1 card/+1 action). Because it only costs 2, you probably want to buy it earlier instead of wasting a 7 coin hand on it.

It bugs me a bit that you're not mentioning any Prosperity cards here.  While less useful at first, Watchtower is considerably better than Smithy for $1 less in the mid-late game.  Likewise, Council Room and Library both cost exactly $1 more than Smithy, but are considerably more useful.

I haven't seen any simulation data comparing Watchtower to Smithy/Envoy, so I can't speak to that. Council Room and Library are indeed both powerful, but a) they are 5 cost cards that I wouldn't likely buy with a 5/2 split, so I see them as more mid-game cards than starting cards, and b) they depend on the board more than many of the listed cards. The comment about Prosperity cards in general seems fair, though; I'll edit to add a few of those cards in.

That's interesting data on Big Money and Envoy/Smithy! Mind linking to the source?

@warbaker Simulation results are here.

The reason I mentioned Watchtower earlier is that it actually has three uses:  1. It's an action you can play to draw cards until you have 6 cards in hand. 2. It's a reaction card that can be used to trash cards that other players give you.  3. If you don't play it as an action card on your turn, you can use its Reaction ability to put cards you gain/buy on top of your deck.

The process I currently follow is:

Scan for broken combos
Scan for power cards (most of the list from philosophyguy's answer
Look for a quick path to anything found in step 1 or 2 using your starting split
Look for blocking strategies if step 3 failed or you are seated poorly
If none of the above provide a good path to victory, fall to your default strategy (be it Big Money or other traditional buys)

As you get better at the game the combos you recognize in step 1 will increase and the number of cards you can juggle increases. A two-card combo is relatively easy to spot; three or four-card combos are a bit trickier.
There is probably room between steps 4 and 5 to look for solid combos that can enhance your preferred play style but are not game winners in themselves. Hoard + Salvager is a good example.

Trash your cards!
Get a trashing card, and max out its trashing capacity every time, even if you think, "Oh, but I might need that copper later".

Thrash your opponents' decks.
If there is a Curse-dealing card, be the first to get it, and get as many Curses in other people's decks as possible. This hurts them, and protects you.

Can you merge your three answers into one?

Why would I do that?

Because one good answer with three suggestions is more likely to get you up-votes than three answers with one suggestion each.

I disagree. People are more likely to bump a good answer, not an omnibus. Besides, ultimately I'd rather have people vote on the individual ideas than on "my answer". Contributing valuable content is the way to get votes, and content, not reputation, is the point of a site like this.

Various combos
Big Money combined with a card-drawing strategy will usually beat out a plain Big Money, and of course there are tons of great combos or specific cards that can boost your ability to get to your mid-game very quickly. However, this answer is very supply-dependent, and what you really need to do is take a minute at the beginning of the game to decide what cards will play well with others.

There are also some similar answers on early game strategy: Transitioning to Dominion late-game and Evaluating a Dominion Kingdom set.

This should probably be a comment, as you are just linking to other questions. One of which was already linked to by the author.


text:
How to reduce total screw-overs in Ticket to Ride so there's always a potential path toward victory?
My family and I have very much enjoyed playing the original Ticket to Ride, but I've noticed one issue that keeps coming up. It is very easy to be cheated out certain critical routes that could easily cost you 30+ points if they stopped you from completing a big destination card. In the American map every city has a least 3 ways out of it, but losing a critical route, even one that's only one train long in the case of Portland, can force you to use alternatives that are over 9 trains long, IF they are even available.
I understand part of the strategy of the game is making sure you get the critical routes you need, but its gotten to the point where people want to quit if someone takes the last route out of a major city they needed as they now have almost no chance of winning. A good strategist will try to avoid this at all costs, but it seems unfair that if you get a tiny turn of bad luck at a critical point you're basically doomed to compete between last or second to last place.
I've found in most other games, like Settlers, Citadels, Dominion, etc., even if you get a streak of bad luck you can usually find some path that will lead you to victory...if you can find it. This doesn't seem to be as true with TTR. When I was in this situation I started to focus on blocking everyone else and getting as many points as possible through 6 car routes, but I was only able to squeak out 100 points for 4th place, only beating the least experienced player.

Have I just not played the game enough? Is there always a path to victory in TTR that will out-weigh whatever bad luck you've been hit with, be it bad train cards, terrible destination combos, or loosing critical routes? What can I do to reduce these total screw-overs to make the game slightly less cut-throat and luck based if I'm playing with new gamers? This is currently one of the few things holding TTR back from being one of my top choices as an intro game.
Here's some of my ideas:

You can create a duplicate route between any two cities that can only be claimed with the same number of locomotives. This would help if you lost that critical one-train route, but would still make you pay for not claiming it earlier.
You can always create new routes by using twice as many cards of the required color. This still makes claiming long routes normally important, but lets you snag that other one you needed in proportion to how difficult it was to take from you.
add trading to the game. I know TTR was not designed with trading in mind and doesn't have the most conducive environment toward it, but it would make for a very different game and allow more ways to catch up. I'll probably start a different question for how specifically to add trading to the game and keep it as playable and well-balanced as possible.

What are typical final scores in your games?

@Ryan I haven't kept careful track, but usually the lowest is in the 80s and the highest is in between 100-120ish. I'll be sure to record them next time if this issue comes up. :)

No need. I expected a lower number actually - thinking that you were all focusing too much on trying to screw each other. Those seem high enough to suggest that there isn't much of a problem! How many route cards do you typically keep? Maybe you are keeping so many that having to go 4 trains out of the way kills your strategy? I play a lot of two player and tend to almost never get screwed...I leave myself options, and usually end up having a lot of flexibility with my last 2 or three turns (extend my longest, get a 5 or 6 route of grey, or attempt a block).

Part of being good at strategy games involves dealing with bad luck.  Everybody has the same opportunity to get screwed over in TtR.  It's all in how you deal with it.  Here are some things you can do to mitigate the effects of the other players:

Claim your critical routes first.  I often build outward from the middle of a ticket, not from end to end.
Avoid high value tickets with lots of players.  The big ones are worth 20 points for a good reason.  It's all about risk vs. reward.
Consider that there are other ways to score points besides completing tickets.

If the people in your group are getting so frustrated that they want to quit, then by all means, play something else!  You don't have to use Ticket to Ride as your gateway game just because everyone else has.

After a few games everybody started liking it again once they wised up to the strategy, so its resumed its place as an awesome gateway game in my collection. If there was no learning curve, the game would be pretty boring anyway. :D

In my opinion, there shouldn't "always be a potential path towards victory".  I've never found it a big problem to get my routes finished - though obstacles and impediments are often flung in my way!  There are a few things you should be doing to ensure that you always have the best chance of success, though:
(1) Obviously, don't overcommit.  Know how far 45 trains can actually get you.  Also, when calculating how many trains a route is going to take you, don't count up the optimum route.  Leave yourself plenty of wiggle room if a colour you were banking on doesn't become available... or worse, if another player starts building routes that you were planning on being the backbone of your strategy.
(2) Don't start building too soon!  My wife often does this, starts methodically building her cross-country route from point A, slowly and steadily towards point B.  This only succeeds in giving me plenty of warning where we are likely to come into conflict in the middle.  As such, I usually have plenty of time to save up for and grab those routes, she gets mightily teed off, and I get to sleep on the couch YET AGAIN.  But really, if she didn't telegraph her plans, I wouldn't find it so easy to thwart them!
Obviously, you can't fall too far behind the other players' builds, you don't want them to run out of trains way ahead of you.  But extra information is often a lot more valuable than being first out of the starting gate.
(3) Conversely, if a route really is essential to your plans, don't hesitate, grab it straight away.  This is particularly important in variants like Nordic Countries, where there are several key one-train routes linking the left and right halves of the board.  It's no accident that you get dealt some train cards BEFORE you have to choose which routes to take on; quite often I will only keep a route that relies on getting from one side of the board to the other if I have the right colour to snap up the link in my first turn.  Don't take risks on the really important stuff.
In general, I think you may be overvaluing routes.  Huge cross-country routes are worth a lot of points because they are hard to pull off without a hitch!  One of the players in my group has what I think is a possibly better, and certainly funnier strategy: she takes a few short, simple routes at the start of the game, that can't possibly give her any trouble.  She builds those and as many random obstructive long routes as she can, bringing the game to a speedy conclusion.  Very funny when this results in people getting -50 instead of +50 points, because all their destination tickets were too ambitious in the light of this playing style...
I know we've said "Ticket to Ride is a well-balanced game, don't mess with it", in response to your questions before, and you haven't really appreciated it, but I really do believe it.  There's more going on delicate-game-balance-wise than I think you appreciate, and I think you should try to learn to love it for a bit longer before you tamper with it!

I need to try this "funnier strategy". :)

Just use the Train Station rules from TTR:E.

After re-reading your question, I realized that I didn't actually answer it!  I just responded to the general sentiment of feeling screwed over.  So here's a separate answer that responds to your game balance proposals:

You can create a duplicate route
  between any two cities that can only
  be claimed with the same number of
  locomotives. This would help if you
  lost that critical one-train route,
  but would still make you pay for not
  claiming it earlier.

If you add a new turn action to create a blank route (that you would then presumably claim on your next turn), you're telegraphing to the other players that you need it.  If it's short (1-2 trains), I'd claim it immediately just to mess with you.  Maybe your group is different from mine, but I'd really be afraid of this rule leaving you feeling worse about your gameplay experience.

You can always create new routes by
  using twice as many cards of the
  required color. This still makes
  claiming long routes normally
  important, but lets you snag that
  other one you needed in proportion to
  how difficult it was to take from you.

That last bit implies the route was yours to begin with.  The competition for limited space is the essence of Ticket to Ride.  Remember, the goal is to score more points than the next guy, not just to complete tickets.  I honestly feel like this rule would leave you with a completely different game.

add trading to the game. I know TTR
  was not designed with trading in mind
  and doesn't have the most conducive
  environment toward it, but it would
  make for a very different game and
  allow more ways to catch up. I'll
  probably start a different question
  for how specifically to add trading to
  the game and keep it as playable and
  well-balanced as possible.

I like this idea, but you'd have to be careful with it.  It could help someone catch up just as easily as it could put the leader way out in front.  I can't imagine the game designers didn't think about it.  They probably left it out for a good reason.  But, I say try it out and let us know how it goes.
Overall, I'd like to echo @thesun's sentiments.  Ticket to Ride is a good game.  If you constantly feel the need to modify it, then maybe you should try to find something else.  Railroad Tycoon comes to mind.  It's a much more complicated game, but you have a little more freedom about where to place your routes.  "Screwosity" does happen, but I've never found it to be a productive use of your turn.

Keep your map crowded with plenty of players.
The likelihood of a player being eliminated from competition ("doomed to compete between last or second to last place") depends on the combination of which map you're using (USA, Switzerland expansion, Europe, etc.) and how many players you're playing. If you have a lot of players for the map you're using (e.g., 4–5 players on the USA map), then it's likely that everyone is going to have major losses from routes they can't feasibly complete.
On the other hand, if you have few players on the map you're using (e.g., 2 players on the USA map), it might be better to switch to a map intended for fewer players (e.g., use the Switzerland map instead for 2 players).
Keep destination tickets and their completion status secret.
Part of the benefit of keeping destination tickets (and their completion status) secret is that you can't be sure you're "out of the game" because you don't know how many incomplete tickets others have. If you're having destination tickets public to aid in teaching the game, resist the temptation to do it for a whole game.
Note that this doesn't help as much when your map isn't very crowded.
Update: Note that the rules state, "Destination Tickets are kept secret from other players until the Game’s final scoring." It's there because it truly affects gameplay.

If one likes the base TTR game, but finds it too cutthroat, the best answer is to play one of the other base versions: either Nordic Countries (TTRNC) or Europe (TTRE).
The USA map is all base runs, and not a lot of double track. This makes getting there a large part of the battle.
The Europe and Nordic maps both have many more routes to get places, and have more double routes as well. This allows for easier rerouting and makes successful blocking harder. The Swiss map likewise has lots of alternate routings, and is just an expansion set; it's essentially TTRE rules, tho'.
The Europe version also adds stations. A station allows "borrowing" an opponent's route (city placed in to next city) when tickets are scored; it can only be used for a single run, but it can be used for all tickets which use that particular run of track. This drastically reduces the cutthroat nature, as even a totally blocked chunk of track may be borrowed. It is not 100%, however... each player is limited to 3 stations, and no city may have more than one station total, so it's still possible to block.
Another option is the Dice expansion. This removes the train cards from play, replacing them with dice. It's far more possible to get around the map that way, but the effect is minor compared to the above.
Why not also Märklin? It is vastly different a play experience. the passenger routing mechanic is slow, involves ≤1cm diameter counters, in ordered stacks, on the board, and increases the need to block.


text:
How can I recognize games I should avoid buying if I only play with non-hardcore gamers?
I started with this question about good games for new players and got plenty of good answers. But now I want to look at things from the other end and figure which games I should definitely avoid.
I was thinking about buying Power Grid, Puerto Rico, and Arkham Horror to play with my family because they have tons of good reviews and are widespread. But when I asked if they would be a good choice at our local game store I was told to steer away from them due to complexity, and it seems there aren't many reviews on the complexity of games and friendliness to new people.
I love board games to death, and when I see a 40 page manual I think 'bring it on!' and have no trouble sitting there for a half hour learning to play the game.  Many of my friends aren't as hardcore, and they start to get bored if we don't get started in 15 minutes.
What are some good ways to recognize if a game is probably not suitable for non board game enthusiasts? The outside of the box is usually unhelpful, and it can be difficult to figure this out before actually buying the game. Sadly I don't live very near a board-game store, so I can't try all of them out. If you list a game, please include why it doesn't meet the criteria, how this can be recognized, and its implications for the game.

@Crazy -- is there any particular reason you insist on spelling games lower-case and hyphenated?  The game is called Power Grid, not power-grid.  It's very difficult to see what games you have listed in your questions for reasons that have been stated before.

A suggestion: this question is in danger of becoming 'name every complicated game', which is bad.  I recommend everyone makes their answer strictly according to "what other games deceptively conceal their inner complexity"...  Yes, Twilight Imperium is for the hardcore only, but it's obviously so and doesn't hide its incredible complexity.  It's not an answer to this.  (@Crazy: I recommend you rephrase the question to emphasise this, otherwise you'll just get a grab bag of really-complex games, whereas you want an 'avoid list' of complex games which look simple enough to teach quickly.)

what other games deceptively conceal their inner complexity, making them more unfriendly to beginners I don't understand this. Isn't this a good thing? i.e. they are complex but appear simple, so people will actually start playing and learn them on the way...? Why would you consider that "unfriendly"? I guess I'm missing something.

@Little there's no reason, I just never knew it inconvenienced so many people. I'll try to do better in the future. :)

@Tynam @Lo'ris I've edited the question, see if I did any better. :D

Diplomacy IMHO it is very easy to pick up - so easy that I almost posted it to your other thread...
After all, the main round of play in Diplomacy relies on human skills of interaction and negotiation - rather than any special board game strategy knowledge. The rules are very simple at a base level and have little 'special' extensions or gotchas. It also has no dice and a relatively limited set of pieces.
I would agree with avoiding Axis & AlliesThe 30mins+ it takes to set up would switch most people off, even before you get into the convoluted turn process and thick rule book.

@Lo'oris I agree 'games deceptively conceal their inner complexity' is a whole other question in itself.

I think your FLGS made a big mistake. I've taught many people Agricola and Puerto Rico as their first modern games with great success. In fact, PR was my first modern boardgame purchase - I bought it and Ingenious at the same time, having never played PR before and having played Ingenious in a store demo.

@Crazy: I like the new edit; seems clearer to me.  @Lo'oris: I think either form of the Q makes the problem clear: it's OK for the game to seem simple and have depth emerge in play (e.g. Ingenious), but this group simply won't play if it takes more than 15 mins to teach the rules.  So Crazy needs to avoid even simple games if the rules are complex to teach.  (This seems a clear distinction.  Consider, e.g., Space Alert: actually complex, but basics easily taught in a 15-minute-chunk and then play, and lets you gradually build up to full detail.)

Much better now!

Instead of going on to list one game after another I'll try to find some common points to help you out. I'd say there are three main factors in what might put off less hard-core gamers:

Upfront intimidation (should resolve during first game)
Continuous complexity (remains an issue indefinitely)
"Obscure effects" (should resolve after one or two games)

"Puerto Rico" is a good example of "Upfront intimidation". If you take the time to read the rulebook upfront that's gonna be a huge time investment. For many casual players that might be intimidating having to remember all of it. Having "Lots of bits and pieces" also falls into this category. For some that's a turn on for other's not so much.
"Agricola" is much faster to explain upfront but much more complex during gameplay. Handling all those bits and pieces, making sound decisions and trying to form some semblance of a strategy challenged me big time even after several solo games. There are so many different aspects to keep track of, that it requires a lot of concentration.
"El Grande" would be a good example for what I classified as "obscure effects" (to your choices). The game does not have much of upfront reading nor too many continuous choices. The problem is that it usually takes a few turns before your choices have their effect on your score. Some players don't really mind playing along and waiting to see what they get but others will find it frustrating. Especially in the beginning. This is something you can only find out through reviews or first hand experience.
Boiling it down to a few signs to watch out for: Avoid games that...

have lots of material. (The more abstract the material the worse it is)
take close to or more than 90 minutes. (Anything above that is either complex or boring)

Axis & Allies
The 30mins+ Axis & Allies takes to set up the hundreds of peices would switch most people off - even before you get into the convoluted turn process and thick rule book.

(Mentioned above, but worth adding here for easier voting / commenting)

Agricola
My first and only game of Agricola involved about 30 minutes of setup and explanation before we got going.  It took a few turns to get the hang of it, and I think that's got to be on the short side of average.  I have two things going for me:

I'm probably more of a "hard-core" gamer than it sounds like your friends are.
I've played several games of Twilight Imperium, so I'm used to the core mechanic of choosing an action that no one else can do that round.

I think this review sums it up nicely.  Agricola is not a game your friends will be used to.  For starters, there's no direct interaction between players.  And the sheer volume of choices is likely to put unprepared players into a daze.  So if you're thinking about buying it specifically to play with that one group of friends, I'd recommend you stay away.  I'm not sure they'll like it enough to keep playing until they figure it out.

I think Agricola is much more newbie-friendly than, say, Puerto Rico.  Yes, the rules are pretty involved, and explaining sowing, ovens, fences, harvests, etc etc before the game has caused many a beginner's eyes to glaze over and fill with panic simultaneously.  BUT!  In the end Agricola is about building a farm.  Most people "get" sowing grain in a ploughed field or putting sheep in an enclosure.  Whereas what does a "hacienda" or a "factory" do, if you don't already know?  Plus Agricola has fun cartoony pictures.  I think it's newbie-difficult, but not newbie-unfriendly!

I would say that Agricola (if started with family version) is quite easily teached to newbies (from experience - can start in 15 min), mainly because the rules can be explained as the game progresses. Basically the big rules are - try to build the nicest farm by sending a worker to a free action space each turn - and that is it. AFterwards just explain shortly each action spot and new card as they open. You dont have to delwe in deep strategies in first few sessions, then it will be quite satisfying to even non-gamers.

Civilization (or Advanced Civilization).   It takes at least 30 min just to explain the framework of the rules.  Then more time to explain all the details of the different advanced and calamities if you want to explain those upfront.  (I usually leave those until later). And it can take many hours to play a complete game.
The Advanced version actually is easier for non-hardcore gamers, because the changed rules make it easier to play a shortened version of the game.  But even then, it has a very high time-cost of new players.

I find it very easy to teach Adv. Civ.  As long as folks are OK with the playing time, it is pretty easy to learn as you go.  You start out with one token.  It will be 4 turns until they even have a city.  At least a couple turns beyond that before trading begins, and so on.  The game builds on itself pretty well.

one other piece of advice I give them is to tell 'em that whoever gets involved in a conflict in the first 5 turns will lose.  Both of them.  They need to reach some sort of an agreement for the powers that have close borders.  Of course, what you and I know is that on turn 5 (if not before) they will create cities thereby shrinking their population and putting off war a couple more turns ;)  Right about then the first Volcano should hit and your first war will start!

Pat's right; Civ is very complex but lends well to teach-as-you-go.  Don't let a new player select Crete, though.  Ship management takes more understanding.

A few days ago I tried Adv.Civ. with a group who never played it. It went like a charm. The only annoying part was dividing the trade cards before playing, but if you do that in advance, even the setup will be fast!

On the whole, I would say that dice games lend themselves more to non hardcore gamers than card games. The idea is to move pieces around the board, either in a "race" with others, parchesi or backgammon, or achieving objectives along the way; Monopoly, Easy Money, Life.
Among card games, those using the "standard" 52-card deck are better for non hardcore gamers; gin rummy, spades, bridge, poker.
Games using "specialized" cards peculiar to the game are harder, especially if they require a long set up time. Agricola, Puerto Rico, etc. I'd even put Axis and Allies (with its specialized cards) in that category, even though it's technically a dice game.


text:
What changes to the game will the "On The Brink" Pandemic expansion offer me?
I'm trying to decide if I should get the pandemic expansion on the brink. Here's the obvious advantages I can see:

lets you play with 5 people
adds some variety with new cards
options to make the game harder

Is there anything else I should know before buying on the brink? Does it add enough to pandemic that its worth getting even instead of an entirely new game? Does it really make the game last about 15 minutes longer? Does it give the opportunity to stretch the game to 6 or 7 people without breaking?

To answer all your questions, but not in order:
Other things you should know:  Also adds some rather nice storage trays for the viruses, and some smaller pawns (including for the original base roles) which fit on the board better.  All of this stuff will just fit in the original box, but only if you're good at packing (the virus trays could actually do to be about 10% smaller).
The new roles add significant variation to the base game even without using any of the other new mechanics in the set.  (There's also a reprinted Operations Expert card with revised wording, which I recommend also using for the base game.)  It becomes tempting to add house rules for how you select powers; there's one new power that's related to (but a major variation on) each of the original roles, and some completely unrelated new roles on top.  This means that purely random draw can, if you're unlucky, produce some very odd or tricky mixes.  (Some groups, of course, prefer it that way.)
The expansion makes the game last longer only if you're using the new disease variants.  The bioterrorist option in particular takes longer, as it adds a hunt-the-hidden-player mechanic (a little bit like Fury of Dracula).  Mutating diseases add a little more complexity and hence a few minutes more playtime.  (They also make it harder, so they can dramatically shorten the playtime...)
Most of the variations on disease - and hence a lot of the set content - make the game more difficult. So if you regularly find Pandemic challenging, consider carefully: you might have trouble using some of the material without making it too challenging.
The question you linked addresses 6-7 players better than I can here. Short form: it works, but not at all well unless you add house rules to cope with the massive difficulty increase.  (Personally, I'd always rather play something else with 6 or 7; Pandemic really wasn't designed for it.)
Summary:
(Personal opinion: I found it to be fun, but expensive for the amount of content.)
Does it add enough that it's worth getting instead of an entirely new game?  Depends how much you play Pandemic.  If you play intermittently or are still finding the base game surprising you, probably not; use the revised Ops Expert wording and get another small game instead.  If you play Pandemic regularly and feel like you've seen all the base game has to offer, it's definitely worth getting.  If you regularly beat the pants off Pandemic and want some more challenging options, grab it.

A quick "bonus" from the revised game: It adds many new Roles, and upgrades one of them (the green one - I don't remember its name off the top of my head, but it lets you build operation centers wherever you are without spending a card).  That added a lot of value to the game for me.

The Ops manager upgrade is official errata/update for the base game even if you don't have On the Brink; they added it in the FAQ and suggest it should always be played that way.  (They're right; it's a huge improvement.)  Basically it adds an extra travel ability, which keeps the role useful after the labs are built.

Thanks for that info, Tynam.  Like you said: Without that upgrade, the Ops Manager is kind of blah.

@Tynam: I can't find that FAQ anywhere.

Neither can I.  Apparently my memory was wrong; I thought I remembered seeing that somewhere!  I've revised my answer to match.


text:
How can I play Dominion with 5+ players without expansions?
I am going to get a Dominion expansion (probably intrigue based on its popularity) but in the meantime I'm curious about what I can do with just the basic set. I know it was designed for 2-4, but I don't see any real solid reason why it can't go to at least 5. I'm perfectly fine with adding any sort of house rules.
The game ends when the provinces or gone or 3 stock piles are exhausted. I figure you could counteract running out of kingdom card piles by possibly adding a few more kingdom cards. To combat the number of provinces we could just add some regular playing cards at the bottom, since they won't go through shuffling too much. My games are pretty relaxed and fun oriented, so some little hacks like that would be fine if they let more people join in.
Does anyone with experience with playing Dominion with 5+ players, with or without expansions? Any other strategies to making it possible for an extra player or two to join in? How will the game change with more people and is there anything I should keep in mind to make things run smoothly?

To play with more than 4 players, the rules for Intrigue (link - page 7) give the following guidelines:
Provinces = players x 3
Curses = (players - 1) x 10
Exhaust 4 Kingdom piles (instead of 3) to end the game. Province pile still ends the game on its own.
Of course you'll need 3 more Estates per player at the beginning of the game, but for the Coppers you'll just have fewer in the supply.
All other rules are the same as in a 3- or 4-player game.
Keep in mind that more players can make a game feel slower, and can make some cards (especially attack cards) more powerful than in a smaller game. Also, Intrigue is the only "expansion" that comes with the common (Copper, Silver, Gold, Estate, Duchy, Province, Curse) cards, but once you have it you can use those to boost your supply. Until then I recommend using a few unused Kingdom cards to fill in the blanks. Between the Base set, Seaside and Alchemy I found I had at least fifteen blank cards, which my wife lovingly inscribed with appropriate verbiage to reduce our need for unused Kingdom cards.
EDIT: For awhile now Rio Grande Games has had a set of just the Base Cards for sale.

Interestingly, edition 2 of Intrigue just says "Victory piles start with 8 cards for 2 players, 12 cards for 3-6 players. That includes Duke, Harem, Mill, and Nobles.' which is all is says on the subject of 5-6 players.

The primary mechanism when playing with 5 or 6 players using an expansion is just that you get 3 more Provinces per additional person playing (15 with 5, 18 with 6).  Putting a dummy card in (I recommend a kingdom card you're not using if you can remember - that way the card backs don't give away any info) will probably do most of what you need.
The other rule is that you have to exhaust FOUR kingdom piles with 5 or 6 players.  You can do that whether you've got the expansion or not.
All in all, you don't need an expansion to play with 6 players.  You just need 6 additional Provinces, and to play until 4 piles are gone.
Edit: aslum points out that you also need 3 more Estates per extra player, and that technically you need more Curses as well.  The Curses and Estates will only matter, however, if you have Kingdom cards in play that promote buying or otherwise gaining from those piles.

The best house rule I've played with for large numbers of players is the simultaneous turns rule.  Here, more than one player (up to all players) take their turns simultaneously.  If any play has an attack card, he announces it, waits for all others players to be ready.  (they can do as much or as little of their turns as they'd like, without knowing the attack card). Then the attack is resolved, and play continues of people have buys or actions left.  It's fun and allows dominion to scale quite well.

This doesn't work if any player has cards that give them multiple actions plus cards that give them more cards.

Sure it does.  Why not?  Players all go simultaneously.  They only synchronize for attacks.  the way the game primarily changes is that players can 'get to the right state' to receive an attack, so some attacks are less powerful (like ones that draw from an opponents draw pile, when he might not have one left because everything's in the discard pile).

@Neal: Because you don't know if you'll draw any attacks.  If I play a Village, then a Smithy, I'll draw three additional cards while still having an action left.  I can't guarantee the cards I draw won't include an attack, despite not starting the turn with one.

What does this have to do with the fact that the OP doesn't own an expansion?

@lilserf: I think we're debating the variation.  @Powerlord: I think you're missing something here.  If you draw an attack, then want to use it, you call 'attack', wait for everyone to be 'ready' then execute the attack.  If someone didn't use all their actions or draws they then continue after the attack, so there can be multiple attacks per turn from the same or different people.

@Neal: If that attack card is Militia, Ghost Ship, or Goons, it would change the entire way their hand would have been played.

And another technicality: if you play an Action (like Tribute) or Attack (like Thief) that causes another player to reveal cards from his deck, but all his cards are in his discard pile...he would simply have to shuffle. It doesn't affect his ability to draw, unless 100% of his cards are in his hand or in play.

@Andrew: Actually, Dominion rules say that cards played are not put into the discard pile until the turn ends.  This prevents playing cards twice.

@Neal while that's true, you specifically said "he might not have one left because everything's in the discard pile", and there are many cards that would result in your discard pile filling up during your turn.

@Andrew: Touche, I meant everything was played.

Anyhow people, just try it, it's tons of fun, everyone reshuffling, playing, going all at once.  It's mayhem, but unlike normal dominion doesn't drag at all.

I want to thumbs up this answer for the unique ideas involved.... but I don't think it provides a good answer to the question.

Thinking about how Posession would work with this variant makes my brain hurt...

@Powerlord: I think the "change the way their hand would have been played" thing just adds an extra layer of strategy (and/or luck): when someone else calls "attack", you have a couple seconds to resolve stuff and attempt to get to a point that you expect will have the least bad effect on you--but of course (unless there's only one attack on the board), you don't yet know which attack will occur.

Neal: Thanks for posting this; I wondered if this version would work the very first time I played Dominion, but haven't had a chance to try it yet.

This could would make cards that say discard to a certain number of cards broken and how does this work with cards like workshop where you are gaining cards during play or you have cards that make you opponents gain cards.  Slow playing seem powerful on some boards and timing is way too important.

We found that adding 2 additional kingdom card supplies per additional player over 4 also helps to balance the game out more. Use the standard rules for a 3 or 4 player except that you add additional kingdom cards. You will need 3 estates per player but we found that the blank cards provided in the sets can be used for extra estates.

What I do to play with five or more is double the supply and make it so six piles are gone instead of the normal three are gone. And double victory points cards like estates, duches and province cards.
The rules are still the same but at least everyone has fun. I play with at least 10 people at my local game shop. And I also have all the expansions plus an app on my phone with tells me which cards to play with. I run the app twice to give me twice as much cards to play with.

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


text:
Flexibility of number of players in Fluxx

I've played Fluxx in groups from 2
  through 10; Zombie Fluxx seems to work
  even better at the ends of that range.

from here
The boxes of all the Fluxx games say 2-6 players, but how well do the games play with 7+ players? I have Zombie Fluxx and the regular Fluxx, is there anything I can do to make the game play better with more people? Does anyone with experience of 7+ player Fluxx have any advice? I know combining different versions can often make it impossible to fulfil some goals, but I'm still curious.

In my group, Fluxx tends to end by accident, regardless of number of players.  Actively trying to win pretty much ensures that you won't.  Having lots of players (I think my largest was 10) doesn't seem to change that.  I've had large games end in 5 minutes and I've played in games where we got bored and quit.  I see what you mean by your question though.  Intuitively it seems like a large group would make it harder to win.  In practice, I think there are so many ways to win that the number of players doesn't really change the game.
The only group size where Fluxx isn't as much fun is 2.

I have played a few 10-player games of Fluxx and similar to Kristo's answer, the number of players doesn't seem to change the game much.  That said, one drawback is that it may take a LONG time for your turn to come around.

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


text:
How much would the cards from Dominion: Alchemy cost if you wanted to use them while not playing with potions?
I've been looking at the cards from Dominion: Alchemy and want to use some of them in my own games through proxying of the blank cards. However, I don't feel like delving into the whole potion thing, especially since it would be annoying to have to proxy at least 4 different cards (the potion and 3 kingdom cards to get the recommended amount of 3-5). So I figured I'd just give them costs in $ only and not potions. Another application of this might be playing with the alchemy cards if for some reason you didn't want to use potion as well.
However, I'm not exactly sure what costs to use. A potion is roughly equivalent to a silver, but that seems like an oversimplification. One of the interesting things about alchemy is that you have to buy the potions in order to access these cards and balance them with your other currency. This scarcity makes me lean more toward counting a potion to add +3$ to the cost.
Does this seem about right? If not, could someone perhaps provide a case by case basis for the 9 cards this would pertain to (since Alchemist in a potion-less game would be rather odd I'm not planning on including it)?

I agree with the other two answers, but I have a little more to add, so since you haven't accepted an answer I'll throw in my two cents.
The point of potions in the cost isn't to make things cost more, it's to make things cost different. (The re-shuffle delay is also a good point.) If you want a potion card, you need to invest in a potion that won't be useful for other things. By just increasing the cost, you lose this. In games with a few Alchemy cards available, the decision to buy potions or not usually depends on the variety of potion-costing cards available. While Alchemist can be a strategy in itself and a Familiar might be necessary early on, I probably won't buy a potion to get Vineyards unless there are other potion cards I want as well.
Because of this I agree strongly with @philosophyguy that, if you're proxying, just proxy the potions as well. However, if you really want another mechanic, I think adding 3 to the cost would not work well. For Familiar, 2 is more appropriate (equating it with Witch). However a University or Scrying Pool for 4 would be ridiculous in many card sets, they would need to be 5. But I think there needs to be some sort of other cost mechanic.
Perhaps require trashing a (non-copper) treasure card at the end of your buy phase. It could work reasonably well to make trashing a Silver part of the cost of the 2P and 3P cards, trashing a Gold required for Possession (and maybe Golem?), though I don't know how to extend this well to the 0P cards.
This solves the reshuffle problem adequately; you'll need to buy a Silver in your first 2 turns to get a potion card in the next two. Not being able to re-use the "potion" (can't trash a Silver more than once) is somewhat balanced by being able to use the Silver for other things first. I think it would be playable. It will still change the strategy however. With potions, you have to make a conscious choice in advance (buying a potion) to make the potion-cost cards accessible. With any other mechanic I can think of this is lost, and it is possible to buy a single potion-cost card on a whim.

One of the defining characteristics of Potions in Alchemy is that they force a reshuffle-delay.  That is, you have to first invest in the potion, then reshuffle and draw it before you're able to spend it on a card.
This is never going to be true of a cost that is just boosted to cost more coins, unfortunately.
I don't have any particular evidence to back this up but +$3 seems high, at least for some cards. Possession might warrant a $9 cost, I'm not sure, but some of the other weaker cards really don't feel like they'd work at +$3 to me.  I'll try to come up with my per-card opinions at some point.
Bummer about Alchemist, too - it's one of my favorite cards from Alchemy. Then again, I'm a fan of big honkin' action chains.

I was just looking at this as potential different way to play, not as the be-all-and-end-all of my Dominion: Alchemy experience. I'll probably end up buying it at some point, but I wanted to mess around with some of the cards first, and thought this might be a cool way to try. :D

Sure sure, I was just trying to point out that they will feel a little different than playing with Potions, which you of course already know.

" I'll try to come up with my per-card opinions at some point." Did you ever do this?

Honestly, I would just proxy a pair of potions. Potions are different from normal treasures in that each player often will only buy 1, whereas a typical game will have multiple purchases of Gold and Silver by each person. So, making the Potion proxies does not require as many cards as Kingdom card proxies.
If your goal is to just play through the cards to see what it's like, why not take a stack of Kingdom cards that aren't being used in a particular game and pretend those are Potions for the game? I would recommend having a reminder in large letters for everyone to see so they don't accidentally play their "Bureaucrat" as a Action rather than as the Potion it's representing, but that would be a simple way to try out some Alchemy cards.

Hear, hear. In most games I've played players buy only one potion each, and I don't think I've ever seen someone buy more than two.

I could see Curses working well there (in a game that doesn't use them normally) - no risk of someone forgetting then!

@warbaker: In Vineyards games you'll see folks buy more Potions in order to rush the Vineyards pile.

So many of the Alchemy cards don't make sense unless you have potions that giving them potionless costs seems like it completely misses the point. That said, I disagree that a pair of potions is enough -- when I go potion I almost always buy two.


text:
When should I add cards whose primary feature is drawing more cards to my MTG deck?
It seems like cards that are based around scrying and drawing additional cards would be a nice addition to any deck. But what decks do they really shine in and what decks can safely forgo them? It seems like scrying cards would be better for combo decks where you really need to draw a specific card, whereas drawing cards would be good in almost any deck that could afford them. Of course, they don't actually do anything to help you win on their own, so you would need to carefully consider how they affected your actual strategy.
What decks should and shouldn't have cards that give no benefit other than card drawing? How can I tell if a scrying card would be better than a drawing card and vice-versa? What decks are card-drawing cards best and worst in?
This goes with my similar question about life gain cards.

Cards in hand are options. Having more cards in hand gives you more options. Having the right cards in hand gives you better options.
Card filtering (of which scry cards are a subset) is good any time you want a specific card. Your intuition about combo decks is correct, but it doesn't stop there. Consider a control deck that uses a mixture of counterspells, spot removal, and board wipes, for instance: if your opponent's about to burn you out, you need a counter; if your opponent dropped a Titan or a planeswalker you'll want spot removal ASAP (and it has to be the right kind, too); if your opponent has two Dungrove Elders or an army of Spirit tokens beating you down you'll want that sweeper. Card filtering makes it easier to have all of those when you need them; this is especially valuable with very specific hosers you keep in your sideboard.
Card draw implicitly has all the same benefits as card filtering (since you're likewise digging faster through your deck) but also gives you card advantage. Card advantage almost always matters. Any time you're actually going to get to play most of your hand before the game ends, card advantage will make a difference; if you're playing against, say, a very fast red deck that just throws its resources away to try to kill you as quickly as possible, then the loss of tempo from casting a card-draw spell might not be worth the benefit of extra cards in hand.
There's a third class of cards it's worth thinking about in the same discussion: cards that search your whole deck, also known as "tutors". Card-filtering cards conceptually occupy a middle ground between pure card draw and tutors; they're appealing because many decks have several cards which can acceptably answer a problem, and being able to dig up an acceptable card cheaply and quickly is often regarded as more valuable than finding just the right card at too high a cost or a turn too late.
The main price of all these advantages is tempo. Any time you're spending a turn's mana on something that doesn't immediately affect the board state, you're potentially losing ground to your opponent(s). Hand-sculpting is all about giving up something now to get a better hand for next turn. The decks that use it best are either those that can devalue tempo (using control techniques) or those that are willing to throw everything away to improve their next turn. That said, any time a duel comes down to attrition of cards in hand, card draw can power you through a finish -- every deck wants card draw as long as it can afford to pay the price (which is why, in its day, Skullclamp was all over aggro decks).

When weighing the value of different get-more-cards cards, pay attention to spell types and casting costs. Reactive decks are much better off with Instant-speed card draw/filtering, because being able to play your hand-sculpting cards on your opponent's end step allows you to keep mana open for responses during your opponent's turn. You also want spells that fit nicely into your mana curve -- ideally, ones you can cast before you'd be casting whatever it is you'd usually dig for, so they're not slowing you down. It's reasonable to run a few big splashy high-cost card draw cards to help you lock up the late game (Consecrated Sphinx or Blue Sun's Zenith, for instance), but card filtering is generally best on little cards you can use early to find what you need.
The other thing you should be on the lookout for is hand-sculpting cards with convenient side-effects. Forbidden Alchemy, for instance, dumps three cards into your graveyard -- to some decks, that's like three extra cards in hand. Brainstorm is a powerhouse in any Legacy deck that plays blue, but also powers up cards that interact with the top card of your library, like Counterbalance or Delver of Secrets. Preordain not only allowed Pyromancer Ascension decks to search for cards to trigger their combo but also served as a worthwhile trigger itself. Tezzeret's Gambit is choice card draw for decks obsessed with +1/+1 counters, poison counters, or planeswalker loyalty counters.

You didn't include cantrips, which have an effect and let you draw

@DForck42 True! I'll try to figure out a way to work those in there. Although it's worth pointing out that many cantrips do still represent some loss in tempo, since they're usually priced significantly higher than the same effect without the card draw.

Cards with the sole purpose of generic card-drawing to increase card advantage work best in control decks. The strategy of control decks is to draw out the game, preventing and eliminating threats, and eventually, when the board is under control, play the win condition. In order to always have a response to a problem, a control deck must maintain a distinct card advantage through a combination of reusable/mass removals and efficient/repeatable card drawing.
Combo decks often feature card searching, which is similar to card drawing, except with graveyard manipulation and/or library searching to quickly find the cards necessary for the combo. Generic card drawing from the top of the deck is usually not what a combo deck needs, except of course if it's ALL the cards through an infinity combo.
Aggressive beatdown decks rarely rely on card drawing. Instead they use their available mana to bring highly efficient creature threats into play and aim to end the game as quickly as possible, turning card advantage into speed and killing power.

Combo decks usually rely on interactions between 2 or more cards to get something that is greater than the sum of its parts. Tutors are usually supperior to straight card draw when trying to pull off a combo, because they put the exact card you need, instead of drawing many cards to find that 1 of 4 in 50+ cards. That doesn't mean that you don't usually see card draw in combo decks. Combo decks will usually feature quick mana generation, card draw, and tutors.
As for which is better, Scry or card draw, it depends on the particular card and deck. In general though, drawing cards is better than Scrying the same amount of cards. Even if Ancestral Recall were a sorcery, everyone would play it over Preordain since Ancestral Recall actually draws 3 cards to your hand (net +2 cards), and Preordain only replaces itself and lets you filter 2 other cards to the bottom of your library.
All decks could likely benefit from card draw. You have to compare the individual costs and effects of the scrying card versus the card drawing card to know which is better. Deck type probably has little bearing on how effective card draw will be in them.