text:
The Nexus - when does its ability resolve?
I'm confused about the base from the Science Fiction Double Feature expansion.

The Nexus (19; 3, 3, 2): The winner replaces this base with a base of his or her choice from the base discard pile, if possible.

I'm unclear about the timing of the replacement. Does this ability resolve before or after the base scores?
If it's before, what is the point of printing victory points on the card? Its value would always be dictated by the base that replaces it.
If it's after, why isn't this ability worded similar to The Mothership and other bases in the base set, something like "After this base scores, the winner replaces this base with..."?
I play it as after, though the change in wording caused me to doubt my interpretation.
Also, what happens if there are no bases in the base discard pile, does the base get replaced from the base draw pile as usual?

I'm unclear about the timing of the replacement. Does this ability resolve before or after the base scores?

The ability doesn't cause the base to replaced. It simply changes how it is replaced.
Bases are replaced at the end of the base scoring process. A base is normally discarded and replaced by one from the face-down base pile. Nexus is instead replaced by one from the discard pile if possible.
This happens after points are assigned.

If it's after, why isn't this ability worded similar to The Mothership and other bases in the base set

Space on the card? Better wording?

Also, what happens if there are no bases in the base discard pile, does the base get replaced from the base draw pile as usual?

Yes. If Nexus isn't capable of changing what normally happens, then it doesn't.


text:
Buying houses and selling hotels in a housing shortage
Here's a hypothetical situation:
There are 12 houses left in the bank.  Alice states she wishes to buy 6 of them for her red property group for $900.  Bob owns the light blues with 3 hotels, and states that he wants to sell his hotels down to 4 houses each to get $75 cash.
What happens?  These actions would require 18 houses and there are only 12 in the bank, so the rules state there is an auction for those houses, but how does it work?

Does this answer your question: Housing shortage in Monopoly? Or are you asking about some sort of conflict between two players both wanting to use the house pool at the same time?

possible duplicate of What happens when you need to tear-down a hotel but no houses are in the bank in Monopoly?

This seems to be a different (although related) question. This one has to do especially with timing of purchases and the meaning of an auction if you are getting the houses through selling, not buying.

There is something about this scenario that seems unusual.  Instinctively, I would say that Alice should have priority because Bob has to first sell his hotels before buying the houses. She should get her 6 houses and then Bob can downgrade his hotels to acquire the remaining.
A poster on this Board Game Geeks thread refers to The Monopoly Companion's description of a tournament rule (created after the 1983 U.S. Championships) that enforces this restriction.

While a Building Shortage exists, players desiring to buy the houses
  remaining in the bank have priority over those wishing to break down
  hotels.

I recommend that thread because they go into other examples that are pretty interesting.
I believe that Bob triggers the building shortage rules once he states his intention and Alice responds.  However, if Bob were to simply state that he is selling his hotels, then it may delay the building shortage and allow for a procedure more similar to the one mentioned by @ghoppe.

An interesting ruling.  Means you pretty much NEVER want to buy hotels on the light blues or dark purples -- build up to 4 houses and stay there.

@ChrisDodd - in general, 3 houses is the optimum

@warren: only if you have other things to invest your cash in.  Otherwise, a 4th house will at worst cost you $25 if you're forced to sell it.  Buying hotels may end up costing you $375 and leaving you unable to get back to the 3 house level, even if you only need $1

The rules for Deluxe Monopoly state:

If there are a limited number of houses and hotels available and two or more players wish to buy more than the Bank has, the houses or hotels must be sold at auction to the highest bidder.

Here's how I understand the situation:

Alice wants 6 houses.
Bob wants 18 houses.
Bank has 12 houses.

Logically, here's what should happen:

Bob sells all his hotels, collects $375 (or auction occurs before the hotels are broken down, if Bob has sufficient funds to bid and wants to save money by just selling one house on each property…)
Alice wants 6 houses, Bob wants them all 12 (presumably) so 6 houses are put up for bid.
Bank has 6 houses left. If she lost the first auction, Alice still wants 6 houses. So does Bob. So those 6 houses should also be put up for bid. If Alice won the first auction Bob can buy the remaining 6 houses at standard prices and put 2 each on his light blue properties.

Perhaps Alice has bid Bob up enough that she can buy the six in the second auction, or perhaps Bob has a warchest big enough to buy all 12. Most likely Alice will bid enough to make Bob's sale of his hotels a net-loss if he bids. (It would likely be a bargain for her, considering Bob's properties are light blue!) But I think that's the way it should go down.

selling his 3 hotels (just to go to 4 houses each, as required per http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/q/925/180) eliminates the houses from the bank (since there are only 12)

@warren According to that linked answer's interpretation of the rules (which I agree with), if there are not enough houses available all hotels on one color-group may be sold at once. Do you suggest that someone who wants to break down three hotels into 12 houses should get priority over someone who wants to buy the houses? Alternatively I suppose the auction for the houses could occur first if Bob has sufficient funds…

based on the order given in this question, sounds like the purchase demand was made prior to the sell offer - which would, if we were operating in the world of millisecond-trading, mean that the buyer-only gets preference over the seller-buyer

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Discard pile and shuffling question
Say I have a hand like follows: Estate, Upgrade, Upgrade, Estate, Copper. 1 card in Draw pile.
I play Upgrade (+1 card, +1 action) -> Draw the last card from my Draw pile -> Trash Estate from my hand and gain a Silver card. This silver card goes into discard. So far so good.
Now, I play my second Upgrade. Since there's no card in my Draw pile, I need to shuffle my Discard pile. Do I shuffle my silver card that I just gained or does do I leave it in the "discard-of-the-current-turn" pile.
The general question is, if I need to shuffle my discard, do I shuffle all cards that I gained during the current turn? I know that I do not shuffle cards that I have set aside.

I feel like I have seen this question here before... but was unable to find it via searching.

I went through all questions that are tagged "dominion" and couldn't find it.

Yeah, I am not blaming you for anything. I just could have sworn I saw this question here. Maybe it was on another site...

You include the card you just gained when re-shuffling.  There is only one discard pile.
Cards that are set aside or revealed do not get re-shuffled until they are placed in the the discard pile as specified by the specific card.
Quotes from the rulebook:

"Gain” – when a player gains a card, he takes the gained card (usually from
  the Supply) and puts it onto his Discard pile (unless the card says to put
  it elsewhere). The player does not get to use the card when he gains it.

A player places cards he Buys or otherwise acquires during the
  game on his Discard pile unless he is specifically directed to place
  them elsewhere.

This is correct. Another odd end-case is Island or Native Village: You can end up setting aside a card you just gained.

I actually used this in several games - to draw all of my deck, and then gain a card and immediately put it into play by drawing one more card.

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


text:
What happens to cards exiled face-down at the end of a game?
I know that face-down spells and permanents must be revealed to my opponent at the end of a game, generally to prove that it was legal to play them face down. Likewise if such an object changes zones, but that's not relevant to my question.

708.9. [...] If a player leaves the game, all face-down permanents, face-down components of merged permanents, and face-down spells owned by that player must be revealed to all players. At the end of each game, all face-down permanents, face-down components of merged permanents, and face-down spells must be revealed to all players.

I find no such rule for face-down cards which are neither permanents nor spells, such as those exiled by Bomat Courier. Those cards stay exiled face-down even if the Courier changes zones (unless put into hand by its ability, of course), and my understanding is that even at the end of the game I don't have to show these cards to my opponent: I just put them back into my deck, still face-down, so I can shuffle up for game 2. In this way I can avoid giving my opponent free information about what cards are in my deck.
But what about cards exiled face-down by a player other than their owner? Suppose I cast Siphon Insight targeting my opponent, and I exile a card that is somehow very revealing about the kind of deck my opponent is playing - Indomitable Creativity, for example. My opponent concedes soon after, having failed to draw enough lands during the game to do anything impactful. Of course, I have to give the exiled card back to my opponent so they can put it back into their deck for game 2. But do I have to let them look at it? It would be nice if they went into game 2 thinking they still had the element of surprise over me, when in fact they don't.
I don't see any rule saying I have to show them this card, but it's hard to believe that I could refuse. How could I? Insert it into their deck myself, face-down, and give it a couple shuffles before they can get ready for game 2? I feel like if this were the actual rule, I would have heard about it before.
As far as I can tell, the Comprehensive Rules don't address multi-game matches: that's the domain of the MTR. But I can't find anything about this in the MTR either. Is there a definitive rule on this, or is it just common sense that I have to let my opponent see their own cards or what?

Incidentally, 702.143f dictates that foretold cards specifically must be turned face up at end of game, but does not include any other type of face-down card in exile

Yes, your opponent may look at their own cards after each game of a match.
From the Tournament Rules:

2.3 Pregame Procedures

If sideboarding is allowed, players may remove cards from their decks and add cards from their sideboards.

Players shuffle their decks. Steps 1 and 2 may be repeated.

Players present their decks to their opponents for additional shuffling.The sideboard (if any) is also presented at this time.

You may shuffle your opponent's deck, but only after they have sideboarded (which necessarily includes looking at the cards) and their own shuffle. Between the end of one game and the pregame procedure of the next game, players are free to look at their own cards in any way they choose. There is no provision for shuffling the deck as part of the postgame procedure, so there is no way to prevent your opponent from gaining that information.

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


text:
In "Take [action]. When you do, [effect]", is the action a cost or an instruction?
I've been trying to understand Wick's Patrol's triggered effect.

When Wick's Patrol enters, mill three cards. When you do, target creature an opponent controls gets -X/-X until end of turn, where X is the greatest mana value among cards in your graveyard.

If my library has 3 or more cards, it's very easy to resolve. Mill 3 of them, then choose a target for the reflexive triggered ability. But what if I have only 2 cards? Or none?
The rules for mill1 say that if you're instructed to mill more cards than you can, you mill as many as you can. So my first answer was, you were told to mill 3, so you mill as many as you can, and whatever number you milled, you've followed the "mill 3" instruction and get to shrink a creature. In this interpretation, the "when you do" can only fail to go off if there's some effect making it illegal for you to mill cards, and doesn't make the -X/-X conditional on the number of cards milled.
But another knowledgable player pointed me to rule 118.12:

118.12 Some spells, activated abilities, and triggered abilities read, “[Do something]. If [a player] [does, doesn’t, or can’t], [effect].” Or “[A player] may [do something]. If [that player] [does, doesn’t, or can’t], [effect].” The action [do something] is a cost, paid when the spell or ability resolves. The “If [a player] [does, doesn’t, or can’t]” clause checks whether the player chose to pay an optional cost or started to pay a mandatory cost, regardless of what events actually occurred.

That player's claim is that the "Mill 3" of this ability is a cost, despite being worded as if it were an unconditional instruction. And since you can't choose to pay that cost (701.13b again), you can't benefit from the related effect.
If the ability were worded "Mill 3 cards. If you do, ..." I would agree, because that is the specific wording that 118.12 uses. But the ability actually uses "When you do" wording from 603.122, which says nothing about costs, just that you follow the given instructions, and the delayed trigger checks whether you followed them.
If milling 3 is a cost, as in 118.12, then you can't pay it and can't do anything. But I don't see what rule allows me to understand the milling as a cost: it looks like an instruction. Of course, I would welcome an answer explaining why this is the case.
But if milling is not a cost, then it seems to me you should mill as much as you can up to the limit of 3, whether that number is 3 or fewer. Then do you get the reflexive trigger afterwards if you only milled 2? If you milled none at all? On the one hand you did follow the "Mill 3 cards" instruction, but you followed it by milling a smaller number of cards. And as 701.13b says, you can't mill more cards than are in your library, so it seems a bit silly to argue that you did so.

1 701.13b A player can’t mill a number of cards greater than the number of cards in their library. If given the choice to do so, they can’t choose to take that action. If instructed to do so, they mill as many as possible. Similarly, the player can’t pay a cost that includes milling a number of cards greater than the number of cards in their library.
2 603.12 A resolving spell or ability may allow or instruct a player to take an action and create a triggered ability that triggers “when [a player] [does or doesn’t]” take that action or “when [something happens] this way.” These reflexive triggered abilities follow the rules for delayed triggered abilities (see rule 603.7), except that they’re checked immediately after being created and trigger based on whether the trigger event or events occurred earlier during the resolution of the spell or ability that created them.

I'd argue that you can always pay the cost "mill 3" regardless of how many cards are in your library. Not touching on if it is a cost or not though (because I don't know).

You can only pay a cost of "mill 3" if you have at least 3 cards in your library. Rule 118.3 requires that you have all of the resources needed for a cost in order to pay it, and cards in your library are the resources required to pay a cost of "mill N". This is confirmed by a ruling on the card Rot Farm Skeleton: the card has an ability with a cost that includes "Mill 4 cards", and the ruling says "If you have three or fewer cards in your library, you can’t activate Rot Farm Skeleton’s last ability."

The instruction preceding a reflexive triggered ability is not a cost, but the ability does not trigger unless the instruction is completed in full.
Rule 118.12 lists a specific set of text patterns in which the resolving spell or ability asks a player to pay a cost and then creates an effect if the cost is or is not paid. In addition, no other rule specifies that the beginning of the reflexive ability text counts as a cost. Every other kind of cost is specifically stated somewhere in the rules, so we can conclude that the instructions at the beginning of a reflexive ability are not a cost.
However, if you cannot mill 3 cards, you still follow the instruction as much as possible and mill whatever cards are in your library, but the reflexive triggered ability does not trigger because its trigger condition has not been met. The card The Royal Scions has an ability with a reflexive trigger that can similarly fail to meet its conditions:

Draw four cards. When you do, The Royal Scions deals damage to any target equal to the number of cards in your hand.

That card has a ruling that says

If you draw fewer than four cards while resolving the last ability of The Royal Scions, its reflexive triggered ability doesn't trigger.

I don't see anything saying that 118 enumerates how costs can be represented, and 118.1 simply says, "A cost is an action or payment necessary to take another action." Here, milling 3 is an action that is necessary to take another action. I see little daylight between the "if you do" wording of 118.12 and "when you do" wording of Wick's Patrol, other than the timing of how effects resolve on the stack - the way in which the effect depends on fulfilling the preceding instruction is identical.

The fundamental difference is that the "if you do" wording is specified in rule 118.12 and the "when you do" wording is not. It's also not listed in 603.12, the other reasonable place you'd expect to find it. I have edited the part about rule 118 enumerating cost definitions, because it was not correct.

Since the milling isn't a cost, I should still mill the last 2 cards of my library, right? I just don't get the -X/-X?

Yes, that is my conclusion too. I made an edit to state that directly in the answer.

This would be better if it explained a salient difference in how the cards would work if they said "if you do" instead of "when you do".

I think that's largely covered by the rules quoted in the question, and it's not really directly related to the answer to the question.

It's both a cost and an instruction, but it doesn't really matter.
If "mill 3" is a cost, you can't pay it by 701.13b and can't benefit from the effect.
If it's an instruction, you didn't fulfill the trigger events by 603.12, and can't benefit from the effect. Either way, if you only have 2 cards in your deck, you mill 2 and don't get the effect - the distinction seems almost academic.
The reality is that the question presents a false dichotomy, suggesting the text must be either a cost or an instruction, but costs themselves can be instructions - "sacrifice a creature" could appear as a cost or an effect, but is an "instruction" either way. The rules for costs suggest that costs are indeed expressed through instructions (emphasis mine):

118.1 A cost is an action or payment necessary to take another action or to stop another action from taking place. To pay a cost, a player
carries out the instructions specified by the spell, ability, or
effect that contains that cost.

A card may tell you to do something, which is an instruction (MtG has no specific definition of "instruction" as far as I know, so we must use a colloquial definition). If that something is required to take or prevent another action, it is also a cost (as specified by the game's definition of a cost).
As an aside, the only real difference between the "when you do" phrasing found on the card and the "if you do" phrasing explicitly mentioned in 118.12 is the timing of the effect and whether you can respond to it - "when" creates a new trigger which can be responded to, while "if" continues the resolution of the previous trigger and cannot be responded to. In either case, though, the prior action is necessary to take the following action specified in the conditional instruction, which by definition makes it a cost according to 118.1.

The "mill 3" of Wick's Patrol is a cost. If you have less than 3 cards remaining in the library, the instruction does not count as completed and you don't get Wick's Patrol's trigger, but you still have to mill as many as you can.
I agree there seems to be no rule that directly says reflexive triggered abilities are to be treated as per 118.12, that the [action] is always a cost. However, Mill specifically and 609.3 in general agree that if you have less than 3 cards remaining, you cannot "mill 3" and thus did not take the action required for the reflexive triggered ability, though you still have to mill as many as you can:

609.3. If an effect attempts to do something impossible, it does only as much as possible.

701.13b A player can’t mill a number of cards greater than the number of cards in their library. If given the choice to do so, they can’t choose to take that action. If instructed to do so, they mill as many as possible. Similarly, the player can’t pay a cost that includes milling a number of cards greater than the number of cards in their library.

The same argument should hold for any other partially completable instructions, such as the hypothetical "Sacrifice two creatures. If you do, [instruction]". If you have only one creature, you would have to sacrifice it, but you wouldn't get to do the instruction.
In the end, there is no practical difference between "[do something]. If you do" and "[do something]. When you do" as far as [do something] is concerned. They are both a cost in that if you didn't do it, you don't get the following effect. I would argue on those grounds that in both cases "do something" is a cost, but partial completions, where possible, do not count as having done the thing.

What about the last sentence in 118.12? "The 'If [a player] [does, doesn’t, or can’t]' clause checks whether the player chose to pay an optional cost or started to pay a mandatory cost, regardless of what events actually occurred." If I milled 2, did I not "start to pay a mandatory cost"?

No, I think that must mean something else. This is not about partial payments, these are not allowed: 601.2h The player pays the total cost. First, they pay all costs that don’t involve random elements or moving objects from the library to a public zone, in any order. Then they pay all remaining costs in any order. Partial payments are not allowed. Unpayable costs can’t be paid.

I believe that rule is talking about a situation like paying a sacrifice cost when Rest in Peace is out. Even though you don't end up sacrificing the creature (because sacrifice means put it in the graveyard), it still counts as having paid the sacrifice cost.

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


text:
Running an introductory bridge lesson
I've introduced bridge to a small group of coworkers at a few jobs now, and I still don't really know the right way to do it. I'm hoping to get some feedback/suggestions on my approach, so I'll just describe it here; feel free to suggest improvements in whatever part(s) you like.
I usually just do minibridge for at least the first lesson, because the initial investment to figure out bidding is too high and un-fun, and I'm pretty set on that plan. But what hands do we play, what do I try to teach? In the past I've used shuffled hands, and that seems to go okay, but it's easy to get bogged down in higher-level stuff they're not really ready to get yet.
I'm considering pre-making a couple hands from the Bridge Master level 1 series, like "You're in 6NT, and you need to knock out an ace before you cash your other eleven tricks" or "In 3NT, you need to overtake KQ with AJT9 to untangle your nine winners" to introduce some basic concepts, and then random hands after that. But that makes things pretty boring for the defenders, and I don't know if those deals are too high-level or too low-level anyway: maybe I just start with "Cash your nine tricks in a 4333 mirror". I'm also considering a defense-oriented hand, where it's like "Remember how we talked about knocking out aces? Declarer is trying to do that, and you can see from dummy that he will succeed unless your partner has HA, so try leading a heart."
Another thing I'm not sure of: if I do go with prepared lesson deals, do I explain the key point before the deal, or do I just let them play the hand, and then do a post-mortem where we talk about what happened, what could have happened instead, etc?
After the first lesson, I usually describe the skills relevant to bidding/defending/declaring, and ask the students which branch they're interested in investigating more deeply for the next lesson. I'm fairly happy with that approach, but if you dislike it feel free to pipe up.
My goal is to give a feel within the first couple hours for vaguely what playing bridge is about, so that interested folks can come back and others can get on with their lives; I definitely don't plan for students to survive at a duplicate club anytime soon, so I don't mind glossing over things like bidding, leads, or basic carding until students show interest in something related.

My friends and I have taught a bunch of different people how to play bridge, and we've developed a system over the years. It basically boils down to: go slowly. Don't overwhelm them with information.
The first time that I play with them, I tell them nothing more than the rules. No conventions, no HCPs, no nothing. Just the literal rules as required.
We play a few hands, perhaps even a full evening of cards like this, as you see fit, and based on how well they take it. Basically, just ask them to pay attention. Did they do well? What worked? What didn't?
Next time, or perhaps later that session, we introduce HCPs. Nothing more than that, and noting that there are 40 HCPs in a deck, so if they think that they and their partner have more than half, then they probably have the stronger hand and should be bidding a bit more.
I can't remember what we would add next (I think 5 car majors? open with 12--14pts? 8 cards is a fit? Conventions like that. Basic ones.)
As I said, start basic. Let them get a feel for the game before even thinking of overwhelming them.
To respond to one of your ideas, I think staged hands would be weird, personally. However, we never tried it, so I don't know how it would work. Still, it seems like staging a hand forces them to be aware of too many things all at once. Let them figure out finesses after they have been playing a while, not the first time you sit down with them.

I should note that we are not experts, we generally were playing a pretty low-level friendly game.

Great answer. I have long believed that this is the right way to teach bridge, basically following the historical tradition of the game's development that made it so popular in the early and middle decades of the 20t century.

I think you and I basically agree on the approach. I decided to go with two prepared lesson hands with no trumps and no bidding, and then two random hands afterward, with a minibridge "auction" (which is simple and deterministic) and the option of a trump suit. It went pretty well; I'd suggest you try a prepared hand next time. The idea is to avoid introducing too much, by making the lesson hand very simple, much simpler than a random deal would have been.

Fair enough. As I said, we had never tried the prepared hand approach. Glad it went well!

I made some "adjustments" to minibridge to make the contract based on the number of trumps and points preventing underbidding.
It does mean you will get some unmakeable contracts but that means the defending side has a change. Play of the cards isn't only about declarer play it is also about defending and the fact that on some hands the defence will win out not just due to poor declarer play but their own good defence might encourage them.
You can use the following system:

If you have 25 points or more you have to play in game.
You also have to play in 4 of a major if the number of trumps multiplied by the number of points is more than 200.
5 of a minor when the number of trumps multiplied by the number of cards in the suit is more than 220 and you don't want to play in 3NT.

In part-scores you can enforce a kind of "total tricks" contract or 1NT or 2NT.
Duplicate mini-bridge would work well if you are teaching a group. In particular you want to "keep" the hands to talk through them afterwards. Show them double dummy and see if the players agree with the plays they made and if not, why they disagree other than knowing what partner has.
For example 3rd-hand and 2nd-hand play, finesses, etc.

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


text:
Does Hedron Link Device remove the original faction from constructs?
When Hedron Link Device is in play, if I also play Avatar Golem, is the original faction of a construct (e.g. Void, Enlightened, Lifebound) still applicable, or is it now removed?
(This is in comparison to MTG rules, which normally stipulate "... in addition to its other types" for effects like this.)

The original faction is still applicable. Note the exact wording of Hedron Link Device. "You may treat all Constructs as Mechana Constructs." Both the "May" and the "Treat" here mean that the original faction is still applicable. First off, it is "May", so you can just choose to not count it as Mechana at the moment if it will make your Golem better. Second, it is "treat as", which is not the same as "becomes."
In comparison to MTG rules, some cards have the ability "You may cast creature cards as though they had flash." Note that this does NOT give your creature cards flash. It just lets you cast them like they did.


text:
What factors should be considered before doubling pawns?
I know the basic strength of double pawns is that it may open up a rank for a rook, and that the weakness is that the pawns can no longer defend one another.  Other than an obvious material advantage, what are the long-term strategic factors to consider when you're faced with the decision of doubling your pawns?  I know that specific openings accept doubled pawns, but beyond memorizing openings, what should influence my decision?  For example, are doubled pawns more acceptable in the center than near the edge of the board?

Jeremy Silman, author of many books on chess strategy (as well as my favorite endgame book) always pushes not thinking in terms of static strengths - having a bishop over a knight - vs. weaknesses - having doubled pawns - but rather in terms of imbalances.  After all, in a closed position, a knight will do better than a bishop, and you mentioned yourself one way doubled pawns can actually be an advantage.
So, the questions you should really be asking yourself are, What are the imbalances in the position?  What new imbalances will this capture create?
For doubled-pawns, the common imbalances are:

Material.  Since you must capture to get doubled pawns, you'll be gaining (or recapturing) material.
Space.  As you mentioned, moving the pawn out of the way opens a file/diagonal for your pieces.
Central (key square) control.  When capturing towards the center, you'll now have an extra pawn to attack the center - or, when capturing away from the center, you lose some of that control.  Note that if the capturing pawn is a central pawn, you may gain more central control, due to the open file/diagonal.
Also, later in the game other squares may become important to control.  You should take these into consideration as well.
Pawn Structure.  Doubling your pawns tends to weaken your pawn structure, especially if they are isolated.  Doubled-isolated pawns are easy targets for your opponents, so expect to lose at least one of those pawns later.

Lastly, and most importantly, it's rarely a matter of a single move, meaning other imbalances will come into play as well.
If I move here, there's a possibility he'll move here, leading to a series of moves in which my pawns will be doubled and he'll gain the double-bishops, but I'll have the initiative.
In every line of play, existing and potential, you will always need to compare the imbalances that favor you to the imbalances that favor your opponent, and ask yourself:  "Do the imbalances in the position favor me over my opponent?  How do I make the existing imbalances favor me even more?  Can I create even more favorable imbalances for myself in this position?"  Learning how to answer these questions is one of the most important skills in getting better at chess.


text:
How compatible are the two versions of Netrunner?
I have a stash of the original Netrunner game. If I were to play a game against someone with the Android:Netrunner game, what changes/adjustments would we need to make?

At the least, the Android player would have to not use his main character from his deck, as it would give him a special ability that the classic player doesn't have. The other rules themselves are compatible, but I don't know if they changed the subcategories of cards, so that the runner would have the ability to break a type of ice that the corp doesn't have, for example. And they likely could be unbalanced against each other.

You need at least one six sided die, as a lot of netrunner cards require one. The wikipedia page of A:NR lists some of the differences between ON and A:NR.

The powerlevel of cards has changed, quite a lot of cards from the original netrunner have been increased in cost or decreased in effect.
The main difference is that the new netrunner has factions and identities. When building a deck you are allowed as many neutral and your faction cards as you like, but you can only include up to 15 (normally) of other faction cards. Each identity has a influence allotment, minimum deck size and some ability. You are also only allowed 3 of a given card in your deck at most, in contrast to the original netrunner which had no limits.
Some key words have changed, Wall is now barrier. Black Ice is now Illicit, and gives a BadPublicity when rezzed. Icebreakers have types Fracter instead of Worm/Noisy and Decoder instead of nothing for Code-gate breakers. Icebreakers which can break any ice is now called AI, and a new Icetype of Trap exists, which currently no breakers can break, other than AI and special icebreakers matching Destroyer or AP keywords on the trap. These Trap ice self-destruct as part of their effect.
Base link cards have been removed from the game, now each runner identity has a base link on it (either 0 or 1). Traces are now open bid, with the corp bidding first. Trace(n) now means the trace starts from level n, and the corp can pay xC to boost this value by x. Then the runner takes their link (from base link + any from cards in play) and bids yC. If the values are equal the trace has failed, if the corp's values is higher than the runner's then the trace was successful.
Bad publicity is no longer a win condition, instead the runner gains 1C for each bad publicity the corp has at the start of each run. If these credits are not spent during the run, they are lost.
Virus counters are now placed on the virus, instead of being given to the corp. This means destroying the program will also remove the effects. Virus purging now requires 3 clicks to be spent, rather than forfeited. This means you cannot purge viruses easily without it taking your whole turn.
Agendas are now forfeited as a whole, rather than forfeiting agenda points.
Stealth has changed, there are no Noisy icebreakers any more. Instead stealth icebreakers get special benefits from spending credits from stealth cards.
Regions no longer have to be rezzed immediately when installed, but you are still not allowed more than 1 region per server at any time, rezzed or unrezed.
Because of these changes the cards aren't really that compatible balance-wise, but a lot of cards are the same so you could check to see what changes have been made and adjust accordingly. You could play a game with them easily enough, but it might not be very balanced!
Example of changes, increased cost, change in virus mechanics:

The icebreakers are generally less powerful at breaking big ice in Android Netrunner, so the very useful Pile Driver has no real equivalent in Android Netrunner.
 compared to  and

Looking at the two example cards, isn't the only real difference that it now costs a credit/bit? (Going from 0 to 1). That's relatively minor.

@AllenGould Well, the original netrunner gives the corp virus counters, which persist even if the program is trashed. Android netrunner puts the virus counters on the program itself, and so trashing the program also ends the effect. There is also the extra cost. A lot of cards from original netrunner have been slightly recosted, others are straight reprints.

In the new Netrunner, traces are used more heavily, and the tracing system has changed significantly (before, there were secret bids, whereas in Android Netrunner the runner knows exactly how much he needs to bid to defeat the trace).
In the new Netrunner, most of the Corp's events that punish runners that ran or scored an agenda or trashed a card on their last turn have counterplay, usually a trace that can be beaten by having enough money available or silver bullets like Film Critic or Salsette Slums that avoid the steal/trash trigger conditions. In the original Netrunner, Trojan Horse was a card that just gave a tag to someone that stole an agenda. In contrast, in today's Netrunner, the most commonly used equivalent is SEA Source (a beatable trace). In the new Netrunner, a hard-to-contest tag card would combine pretty brutally with cards like Closed Accounts (did you steal an agenda last turn? If so, take a tag and lose all of your credits).

Also, Runner punish cards have gotten vastly more powerful (particularly on HQ), threatening you beyond multiple accesses. Getting hit with a Diversion of Funds (or previously an Account Siphon) is economically devastating early on -- the Corp loses up to 5 credits and the Runner gains that many. I would estimate that my win rate is probably something like 20-30% in games where one of these landed. In the original Netrunner, the equivalent Credit Subversion was a joke "the Corp loses 3".
Not included: in the new Netrunner, Temujin Contract saw an incredible amount of play until it was banned, allowing a runner to pick a (usually unguarded) server and score 4 credits the first 5 times they ran on it. Played early, the economics of this card generally look like "take 6 actions, net 16 credits, and maybe some accesses and Desperado credits as well", which was so much more effective than almost anything else you could be doing in the first few turns that you'd just feel silly not using it.

I know I'm late in answering this, but in original neterunner, loss of clicks persist through subsequent turns.
i.e. If you cause an an opponent to lose six clicks, two or three of those would carry over to your opponent's next turn.


text:
Is his nobs/knobs separate from a flush in cribbage?
I've been hunting everywhere for this and am leaning toward the answer being yes but can't find it explicitly stated anywhere: is his nobs (or knobs) separate from a flush in cribbage? For example, would a hand of of all hearts (1,2,3,J) and a starter card of a 4 of hearts... would you award 5 points for the flush and a point for knobs? Or just 5 points for the flush since the matching suit of the jack and starter card are already counted in the flush?
I'm new to the game and thus perhaps my lack of playing with more experienced players and having this situation actually come up has not occurred. I still can't find it online. Rule sites will list a flush and knobs but not state what to do when both occur.
Thanks!

The flush/starter card special rule you may be thinking of is that a flush in the crib must include the starter.  So four hearts in the crib with a club starter is not a flush.

Nobs is counted separately. It will always be one extra point if it is in your hand or in the crib. Likewise, nibs (if a jack is cut for the dealer) is always two points, and the dealer still gets to count the jack for a flush if the suit matches.
Rules of Cribbage.

Awesome -- that was my hunch, but thanks for confirming! I'd upvote you but don't even have the points to do so :)

For the record:  The proposed hand of A23J of hearts, with 4 of hearts as starter, would score a total of 14 - A4J is 15 for 2, 23J is 15 for 2 more, the A234 run is 4, A234J flush is 5, and the knob is 1.

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


text:
Does the Event Card have to be drawn first when encountering a Town space in A Touch of Evil?
Last night we had one player move to the Doctor's Office Town space with one wound left. He wanted to use the special ability of the Doctor's Office prior to drawing an event card so that he could heal himself before encountering something from the event deck that could potentially cause damage to his character and possibly kill him off. At the time, we ruled that he would have to take the event card first since it is the first thing listed on the text for the space. As it turns out, he ended up drawing a "Duel of Honor" card. While he did survive the encounter (barely), he very well could have been killed. Should we have allowed him to heal his character first instead?

Generally, I would say that since the drawing of the event card is mandatory and the heal action is optional, the drawing of the event card happens first. However, the rules do say:

The town of Shadowbrook is divided
  into a number of spaces.  Each of these
  spaces allows the Hero to draw an Event
  card when Encountering the space as well
  as a special ability that can be used when
  Encountering the space.

and

Every other named space
  has game text printed on the board.  To
  Encounter any of these spaces, follow the
  game text listed there.  You will notice that
  most of the Town spaces also have one or
  more special abilities which may be used
  while Encountering the Space (for instance,
  at the Doctor’s Office you may Heal and
  /or Cure a Curse in addition to the Draw
  an Event game text).  These Town space
  special abilities are always optional.

That kind of sounds like the intent of the special abilities may be to help deal with the event cards drawn during the encounter. If that's the interpretation, I'd rule that you can heal first, but that might be a bit of a stretch. "Encountering the space" seems to mean the entire interaction with the space, not just the event card.
Since there isn't a definitive answer in anything I can find, I'd go with the rule-of-thumb that mandatory happens before optional.


text:
Does the Yellow Squad's Move + Activate card swap places with a space marine or move and then shift the formation?
The text for the Move + Activate action for the Yellow Squad reads,

Your Space Marines may move to any position in the formation (instead of just to adjacent positions).

I'm just not sure whether to shift the formation after moving the space marine or to swap positions with the space marine that already holds the target position.
When the rules explain the normal movement of space maring into adjacent positions, the text reads,

To move a Space Marine to an adjacent position, he simply picks up the Space Marine card, and switches its position with any adjacent Space Marine.

Based on that text in the rule book, I've been making the assumption that swapping positions is also what was intended for the Yellow Squad. Is that correct?

According to Page 28 of the Official Rules:

If a Space Marine is ever able to move to a non-adjacent position
  (with a card or ability), he does not cause the formation to shift. He
  simply switches places with the Space Marine that occupied his new
  position.

Nice catch. Can't get much more explicit than that.

Your assumption makes sense to me.  The action lets you move to any rather than an adjacent position, but otherwise follows all of the usual rules for movement.  That's certainly how we play it.
(The only viable alternative rule to shuffle each marine moved pass one space down the formation, until the vacated space is filled, but that would cause a lot more movement of marines than the rules to this game usually intend.)


text:
Organizing a game night with non-gamers?
My wife and I want to organize a game night. Most of our friends like to play board games - they are familiar with games like Settlers of Catan and Ticket to Ride. However we are more adventurous. Besides making new friends, what are some ideas for how to organize a game night with friends who like games but who are not board game aficionados?

How many people are you talking about?  Multiple simultaneous games versus one game at a time for the entire group has different dynamics.  Also, will everybody be gaming, or are some people there just to be social (spouses/kids who tagged along, etc)?

Depending on the size of the group and the time allotted:

Get games where people do not loose, though people can win. E.g. everybody keeps playing until the end and the player with the highest score wins.Not a game where people get killed and then have to watch the rest play for another 4 hours. (Titan, I am looking at you).
Do not get uber long games. E.g. no Titan, no Doom, the board game, no eclipse (the game can be short, but NOT on the first time you play it).
Start with relative easy on-complex games to start with. E.g. Alhambra. Of if you play Catan make sure it is the basic version and not the game and the Cities and knights extension.
Get a few short games to fill time gaps. E.g. bohnanza or Der Schattendieb.
If you have 7 or 8 players consider running to games simultaneously. E.g. thurn-and-taxis (up to 4 players), basic catan for those who never played it before starting on a more complex game, powergrid etc etc.
Last but not least, consider a few non board games for variation. Machiavelli can be played with a large group.

On games nights I also like to pre-arrange food. Usually with some short games while people arrive and the cook (mostly me) cooks, then dinner, a clean table and some games. Add some non-greasy snacks.

One more note that I think is very important: make sure someone already knows the rules for the games. It is not fun to show up to a party and watch someone read a rule book!

True. This does not matter much for some games. But the first time we player Eclipse we spent over two hours unpacking and reading the rules. Someone who know and could explain would have helped a lot. Ditto similar complex games.

On the other side, many players will complain about having to read the rules before they attend the party... Many of my non-gamers friends won't read any pages of a rulebook but prefer to sit and listen to the rules... I usually try and know them by heart...

@AndyM, you don't want to require casual players to learn the rules offline (they won't go for it, and I don't blame them), but you want to optimize for effective teaching: somebody who knows how to teach should be prepared to do so, so should know the rules reasonably well.

I think an important thing when you are introducing new games to players, especially if the players are not used to these types of games, is to explain the dynamics that will be new to them when they play this game.
If they are familiar with Settlers of Catan, maybe try and explain some of the new mechanics of whatever new game you are playing in terms of similar situations that might come up in a game of Settler of Catan.
I play a lot of Werewolf (or Mafia as you may know it) and something I always do when new players join the group is explain the rules of the game, and then go one step further and explain some basic dynamics and interactions that will happen so that there is a sense of familiarity for the new people as the game unfolds. They will be more likely to notice things that I told them might happen, so they feel more comfortable and more knowledgeable about the game from the beginning. That has really been successful for the new players I've taught the game to.

Honestly, I think Catan is too long.  Ticket to Ride is fast, Dominion is fast, 7 Wonders is fast.

Also: Dominion is fast? In my experience it is not when dealing with new players, re-explaining actions, buys etc etc.


text:
"Investing" in other players in Monopoly
I once played a (somewhat crazy) game of Monopoly where there were too many players, so not enough properties to go around. I ended up with close to zero property but lots of cash. So I made an "investment" in another player. She had great properties (the dark greens) but very little cash; I gave her a couple thousand dollars to build with the agreement that I would get a certain percentage of all income from those properties (I believe it was a 50/50 split) and I would not need to pay if I landed on one of the properties in question. Is this a legal deal? We considered it a form of trading -- I gave her money and in return I would get money in the future.

I'm curious, how did the other players react to your deal?

They made other kinds of deals... they weren't happy about players "teaming up" essentially (and considering the nature of Monopoly that's understandable) but they got over it and we had a great time.

That is a really interesting idea - although could result in a bit of a slow ending if it pays off. As you both eliminate players and share the properties (how do you determine who gets what as some may be more beneficial to one or the other?) those original properties won't be able to end the game quicker.

Try playing Imperial 2030 where investing in other states/companies is part of standard play.

You should check out Chinatown.  It's a game about making deals like this.

From the Official Monopoly Rules by Hasbro (my emphasis):

MISCELLANEOUS:
  Money can be loaned to a player only by the Bank
  and then only by mortgaging property. No player may borrow from or
  lend money to another player

Any exchange of money for future considerations is a form of loan, so by the official monopoly rules your actions are illegal. One is always allowed to invent a new game based on an existing one, through the use of common agreement on house rules, but one cannot then meaningfully call it by the name Monopoly.

OK, what if the "investment" also included an exchange of property, e.g. the investor gives cash (intended for use to build on a monopoly) and in return gets a single property (probably one not worth very much), so that it's the sale of property, in addition to the future returns.

The only financial instrument recognized under the rules is the Mortgage, and it's only valid payee is the Bank. Your game may be fun to play, and well defined, but it is not Monopoly.

@Jason: the future returns would also have to be given in the form of buying some property for more than it's worth, and both players are completely free to ignore that this deal exists if they want, of course.

While you are technically allowed to make such a deal, due to the fact that trading allows you to give another player money; there is nothing in the rules that would enforce your opponent to keep her end of the deal. If you later landed on the property in question, she would be fully within her rights within the rules to ask you to pay, and you would have to pay according to the rules. Similarly, if she makes money from someone else on that property, there is no rule that requires her to give you part of that money.
So as long as you fully trust her to do what she says in the future, you would be allowed within the rules to do  this.

This is part of the reason why board games have a limited set of tokens that goes along with the number of players on the box - the mechanics of many games break down when the number of players gets too high, and monopoly is no exception.
As you are already house-ruling to allow more players than intended into the game, it would be possible for you to house rule things like shared ownership in property (each player collects a portion of rent when anyone outside the group, and may own their partners a share of rent if they land on it) or other group strategies, but these would be house rules and would be against the rules of monopoly as written.
As written, the only ways for players to interact are:

Collection of rents.
Trading of properties for other properties and/or cash.
Game held auctions when unowned properties are landed on but not bought by that player.

Any other kind of interaction between players is expressly forbidden by the game, which does not allow any kind of loans, and giving something now, in this case money, for something in the future is the definition of a loan.
The only kind of loan allowed by the strict rules of monopoly is a mortgage, a loan from the bank during which the mortgaged property collects no rent.
When talking about house rules, anything is legal, as long as it's agreed to by the players beforehand, when talking about printed rules, what you did is very much illegal in monopoly.


text:
What kind of paper should one use to print custom cards?
I am interested in printing custom cards for Ticket to Ride. I have some experience with printing (I used to run a magazine), so I would to print the cards with a regular printer or with a Kinko's. This is a bit more DIY than going with a custom printer who specializes in playing cards and games. What kind of paper stock should I use to print custom cards?

I'd like to add, that if you are missing some cards in regular TTR (North America) and want to replace them, you can just buy 1910 expansion and enjoy larger train cards as well as more variety of destination tickets.

at least 110# card, probably not above 200# card. 110# is thicker than my playing cards, as an FYI. I've used it for quite shuffleable cards for playtest games.
Once you get past 200# stock, you're into stuff too stiff for comfortable shuffling.
A high rag content is good, as well, as it's more resilient than pure wood-pulp stocks. High clay content is bad, for the same reason, and because it results in longer drying times, higher chance of backs being marked, and in my experience, higher chance of laser printing wearing off.
Note that if you're doing print and play for long term use, it's better to use some form of ink printing rather than laser/photocopier, due to face wear. (Remembering that inks soak in, while laser toner is actually a surface deposit, and thus wears off.)
Remember: for small runs, odds are that the copy shop will simply photocopy (usually using a laser copier) the material. If you can afford offset for the run, it's probably the most durable.
For playable home use, 110# white cotton bond no-clay card is fine, especially if using an inkjet.


text:
Can I counter a creature by invalidating the target of its “comes into play” effect?
For example, consider Akoum Boulderfoot. It says:

When Akoum Boulderfoot enters the battlefield, it deals 1 damage to target creature or player.

At what point does the player have to decide on the target? Specifically, is the following sequence of events correct?

Player announces the casting of Akoum Boulderfoot and declares my 1/1 creature the target
I cast Unsummon on my 1/1
Akoum Boulderfoot resolves, but its target is invalid, so the spell fizzles.

Or is the following sequence correct?

Player announces the casting of Akoum Boulderfoot
I cast Unsummon on my 1/1
Akoum Boulderfoot resolves, enters the battlefield, and then the player chooses a valid target

Easy answer is the second scenario you propose. Akoum Boulderfoot's ability is a triggered ability, with the trigger for the ability being 'Akoum Boulderfoot has entered the battlefield'. Targets for spells and abilities are chosen when the spell or ability is put onto the stack. Triggered abilities do not go on the stack until the trigger for the ability is true. Permanents are not actually on the battlefield until the spell resolves.
Answer to your primary question though is no, you can't counter a creature by invalidating the target of its 'come into play effect', due to the come into play effect not going on the stack until the creature has fully resolved.

Your last comment is a bit inaccurate. If instead the card read "When you cast Akoum Boulderfoot, it deals 1 damage to target creature or player.", Akoum Boulderfoot would still not be countered if the target of its ability became invalid. The reason why not is simply that the creature spell and the card's ability are different things. A spell or ability can't be countered due to some other object lacking a valid target.

@Bret The question and this answer have absolutely nothing to do with "when you cast" effects. The topic is "enter the battlefield" effects, which I think Waterseas accurately covers.

@Rainbolt, Of course. I was just pointing out (as you do in your answer) that the issue is not the timing of the effects but the fact that the creature spell and the activated ability are different objects. Waterseas' answer appears to say "the creature spell won't get countered because it has already resolved by the time the ability goes off", when the real answer is "the creature spell won't get countered because abilities of things that are countered don't also cause their source to be countered".

@Bret Well, there's more than one way to approach the question, and one of them does involve timing. By the time an ETB ability has triggered, the source of it must have resolved already, and therefore cannot possibly be countered. Waterseas took this approach, he arrived at a definitive answer of "No.", and his logic is not flawed.

@Bret and Rainbolt To be honest, I did consider that my wording could lead to that conclusion. If you have a better way to word it, please feel free to propose an edit. Tis what that feature is there for after all.

Just because you cause a creature's triggered ability to fail, that doesn't mean the creature spell is countered. Once a creature is on the battlefield it is no longer a spell and can't be countered. Here's the sequence of events.

Opponent casts Akoum Boulderfoot.
Opponent passes priority.
You pass priority.
Bouderfoot resolves, enters battlefield. (Note: It can't be countered now. But its triggered ability may still be thwarted.)
"Comes into play" triggered ability is placed on stack. Opponent choses target of triggered ability.
Opponent passes priority.
You cast unsummon on the 1/1.
You pass priority.
Unsummon Resolves.
Triggered ability of the Boulderfoot tries to resolve and fizzles when it checks for a valid target.

One more point of confusion: the first step of your first scenario is a common shortcut in casual games, although it isn't ideal play (because you're giving away information before you need to.) I see people announcing triggered ability targets as they cast quite often. If the opponent doesn't accept the shortcut and wishes to counter the creature spell before the trigger is added the stack, they can say so.

Confused what you claim I'm missing. I do in fact specify that the creature can't be countered by invalidating the target.

I concur with Waterseas. Your answer is more detailed, but he didn’t miss anything important.

@Waterseas Obviously he thinks that "You can still save your creature with Unsummon." was a very important detail that you missed. Personally, I think it's not very important, and I'm not sure why he needed to call you out for missing it. I tend to write my own answers as if the others might cease to exist at any moment.

@ghoppe I'm not bothered or anything, more bothered that they haven't responded.

@Waterseas I was confused by what the question was asking at first, and I think that coloured my response. I thought the question was really trying to ask "can I counter a creature ability." Of course a creature's comes into play trigger only happens after the creature has resolved so it's too late to counter it then. I'm going to edit and also add another note.

@Waterseas Also, I'm not monitoring responses to my answers 24/7. I'm sorry that I bothered you because I took nearly 24 hours to respond. ;-) Your criticism of my answer was valid.

@ghoppe No reason to apologize, definitely don't expect you to be doing so.

If an enters the battlefield ability is countered by game rules, the source of that ability doesn't suddenly get countered as well.
The target of an enters the battlefield ability is always chosen when the creature enters (your second scenario). In general, you cannot choose targets for an ability that hasn't triggered yet.


text:
What is the broader acceptance of resignation?
Games that have developed a strong professional circuit generally consider resignation a courteous behavior. Some consider not resigning discourteous. This question is about the rest of board gaming: When (if ever) is resigning acceptable?

Many people I've played with have a "See it through to the bitter end" mentality. Especially for some of the longer games, like Advanced Civilization, Pax Britannica, and Supremacy. Then again, in those, the game is multi-player, and one player dropping out will drastically alter the flow of play; further, all three have victory conditions that can change the apparent leader to a loser in even the last turn.
I see nothing wrong with offering a resignation, but I also often see it as discourteous to simply walk away.
My usual experience with resignations in long games is one of two situations:

Player has to leave for work. Generally, if this was known before hand, no big deal.
Player is frustrated, losing, and a jerk; player scatters pieces and/or flips board.

On the other hand, while no one I've played with saw offering to resign as inherently discourteous, neither was it discourteous to ask the attempting to resign player to play it out in multi-player games.

I offer a resignation, and on occasion, my opponent will state a preference to continue playing, at which point I'll continue to play my best.

Might also be worth noting that some long games (Civ and Advanced Civ in particular) have specific rules for "short games", and playing a short game could significantly alter a player's strategy. Accordingly, I'd consider it courteous that, if the group knows they don't have sufficient time really for a full game, they should all agree ahead of time on how long they're going to try to play (even if that goal gets further scotched by misjudging the time). It ticks me to call a Civ game early when people "have to leave" and then have it suggested to just count scores to determine a winner.

I would say that resignation is perfectly acceptable as long as
1) It was preceded by a good-faith effort to play optimally.
2) All parties who are affected by the resignation agree on its timeliness.
The only times I feel a resignation is discourteous is when it negatively impacts people who were depending on your continued presence;  for example, if Japan were to unilaterally resign from a game of Axis & Allies despite the objection of Germany.

I agree, and I prefer resignation over other things people do, like playing suboptimally (or ridiculously) on purpose.  For example, purposely ending a multiplayer game of Dominion that you're losing (even though it doesn't help you) because you're bored is much ruder than resigning gracefully (which is usually possibly in Dominion will little effect on the remaining players).

Great answer; I wish I could pick two. I chose the other because it mentioned a few more cases.

You can always upvote all that have good advice.

It depends on the type of game:

In a game between two players, I would encourage resigning.
In a game between more players, it depends on the game:

If the game has rules for resigning, or players can agree on a set of rules, resigning should be allowed.
However, if resigning would spoil the game for any of the other players, all players should be encouraged to play out the entire game.

Option 1 is easy: when you're playing chess, there is more honor (and a sign that you atleast understand the game of your opponent) in seeing when you are lost, then in playing on and hoping the other person will make a mistake. When I see I'm lost and I'm sure the other person knows he's won, I will usually resign. Unless when I want to learn from the other player, in which case I'll say "I know you've won, but I want to strengthen my endgame for a bit by watching how you do it" or something like that.
Option 2: for example in Monopoly, a resigning player could just donate his property to the bank, if the other players agree.
But there might be cases where the other players don't agree, for instance when the quitting player will probably be hitting one player's hotels the next turn - the other player may feel his odds of winning decrease when the player goes.
One small tip: if you do insist the game is played to the bitter end, take away the bitter. Grab something to drink and/or to munch on, make jokes, have a conversation. Thank the player for continuing to play, apologize that he still has to play but explain that this allows the other players to end the game as it is supposed to be played.

One thing to keep in mind is resigning isn't a means to avoid losing, but a recognition that you have lost - you just haven't finished going through the motions.
In a two-player game, this should be fairly simple - you resign, opponent wins, you start another game.
In a team scenario (like Axis & Allies), the entire team should resign as a group - if a single player just packs up and leaves, the other team members should be allowed to fill in the blank spot. (Assuming they wish to continue the game).
In a multiplayer scenario, it really depends on how the interactivity works. Dominion can easily manage a disappearing player, but Settlers can't. Generally, I'd err on the side of allowing someone to bow out, especially if he knows he can't win, but the ultimate winner is still unknown. If it's fairly obvious that someone is going to win (or if it really doesn't matter who wins), I'd rather sweep and reset than force someone to suffer through the remainder of the game.

That's funny, I was going to use A&A as a perfect example of a game where I would consider it very rude not to resign, although I was thinking about the Axis or Allied players retiring together as a group--I agree that one member of an alliance resigning unilaterally would be in very bad taste.
The criterion I use is that a player should resign when it's obvious that the victor is obvious but that achieving the stated victory conditions will take a long time. A&A is the quintessential example because of how hard it is to captured the "island" of Japan, Great Britian, and North America.

In this context, A&A is a poor example, in part because it's a 2 team game, and in part because A&A has 2 different victory conditions... Economic, and capture the capitals. Having LOST my capital, playing japan, the German player and we still hit an economic victory when he took Moscow, and I rolled up on india. It's just two varied for a good example for this.

I don't follow your logic at all. The question is about courtesy in resignation. I've played more than a few games where it was obviously over. As an egregious example, as the allies I had Japan down to nothing but the capital and some of the random South Pacific islands. It was OVER. Yet the other person demanded we play out the four or five more turns required for me to build factories, then ships, then to pound away at the huge stack of INF. Very rude; we never played again. Not giving up if you lost a capital but could still win economically isn't rude: that makes perfect sense.

A&A has so much luck factor, that even an optimal position can be lost in a couple turns, multiple routes to victory, shared victory, and no true player elimination (if your allies retake your homeland, you get it back). I've seen a player who had a 20infantry:1armor advantage lose a battle on several occasions... simply by luck of the dice. And further, a player dropping out means more work for some other player, since the 5 core nations are all played regardless of how many players. It is the perfect example of a game where resignation is a rudeness.

Obviously one player can't drop out. It would be one entire side resigning. And yes luck can play a large role in games, but if that's a risk then the resignation is occurring too early. The allies don't have economic victory so they could have every territory on the board except Japan and the game wouldn't technically be over. There is no chance of dice saving that situation or one even remotely close to it. If all three of the allies are left, Germany is eliminated, and Japan is being steadily pushed back: it's over. Given 84 IPC victory for the Axis, the Allies probably should never quit.

Another thought that occurred to me last night: in a game where extreme luck can turn the tide but where both players think the game is out of hand, resigning is probably the most sportsmanlike thing to do. What are the possible outcomes. The game plays out as expected: hours spent rolling to find out the player who was dominating won. Something really strange happens: and the player who deserved to lose uses dice to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. That's a hollow win in my book only a poor sport would be proud to have. Better to resign and admit you were outplayed.

Being upset over losing in a high luck game is the epitome of bad sportmanship.

In a two player game, the time to resign is when it is certain (or almost certain) that the weaker party will lose, given the playing abilities of both parties. That could be a disparity of as little as two pawns in chess (at the master level), or a piece, major or minor, for weaker players.
There are some multiplayer games like Diplomacy, where a single player can "declare civil disorder" without substantially affecting the chances of other players. On the other hand, if you are part of a pre-set "team" (Axis and Allies), it's better to resign, if at all, as a team.

In board games played online that have score values resigning may be considered rude.
For example, if you forfeit in Scrabble Online, you prevent your opponent from scoring, thus ending their opportunity for a high score value (which is tracked and viewable by opponents).

I don't think that's an issue with resignation as much as with expected behavior in an environment where statistics other than wins and losses are tracked. (This may be much more of a factor in online games - and thus more of a gaming.SE response - but I'll look at only that which could be applicable to board games too.) There are, or should be, distinctions between being in a Scrabble league, where there is most likely a code of behavior governing play, and simply playing random opponents. Is a lost high-score opportunity any worse than a high score gained when the opponent stopped trying?


text:
Can outbreak chains loop?
Is it possible for outbreak chains to loop - would it be possible for a city to experience an outbreak twice in the same round as a result of a chain?

If chains were possible, they would always be infinite, meaning they would instantly cause you to lose the game.

No.  The rules state "Note that each city may only outbreak once in each chain reaction."


text:
Do Monster Surges Count as a Prevented Gate Opening for the Purpose of Increasing the Deep One Rising Track?
Does a token get added to the Deep One Rising Track for a Monster Surge?
Rule in question:
"There are two primary ways for the Deep Ones rising track to advance.  Each time a Gate is prevented from opening, such as by an elder sign token, or an investigator ability, add one uprising token to the Deep One Rising track"

Apparently the official ruling is that a monster surge is not a gate opening, it is an effect that occurs instead; and it does not cause a Deep One token to be added.
This page on the Arkham Horror wiki also suggests that adding a Deep One token is an event that occurs at a different time than a monster surge, and offers some additional explanation of the difference!

A deep one rising token is added when a gate is prevented from opening. A monster surge occurs when a gate opens on a location that has a gate already. So really, the second gate isn't prevented from opening, as it's the opening that causes the monster surge.
Gate are (at the moment at least) really only prevented from opening by seals on the board or Kate Winthrop's ability.


text:
Is the Elder God Health affected by the number of board expansions in play?
We have been playing that the number of board expansions does not effect the successes required to defeat the elder god, as it does not seem in the spirit of the rule.  The rules seem to back this up but do not explicitly state it.
Successes Required to Defeat the Elder God:
When the Elder God wakes the number of successes is set to the number of Players(I take this to mean agents if some players are playing more then 1) times the number of spaces elder gods doom track.
Combining Multiple Expansions:
"The rules are unchanged when using more than one expansion city, except that the number of players should be counted as being one less for each expansion board in play beyond the first. So, if six players are playing a game using both Dunwich and Innsmouth (for a total of two expansion cities), they are counted as having one less player, for a total of five players. This modified number of players is used for such things as the monster limit and the maximum number of gates that can be open at once, and it reduces the level of difficulty for the players since they have so much more ground to cover"

I'm of the same mindset. The final battle's difficulty shouldn't change based on how many boards there were to run around on; the battle isn't any harder because there was more space to run around on, things to get done, etc. There's just as many opportunities to gain weapons and spells, why should the fight be any harder? There was a thread on this topic on the Fantasy Flight messages boards some time ago, but I can't seem to find it.
Edit: Here we go! From the Kevin Wilson answers thread on the forum.

[KH] 10. While using Kingsport and Dunwich together you count the # of Investigators as one less for monster limit, outskirts, etc. due to there being so much ground to cover. I take it this does not apply to the number of successes needed to remove a doom token in the final battle? (06/13/08)
  Correct. Otherwise the final fight would be a lot easier than intended.
-Kevin Wilson
  Fantasy Flight Games


text:
What materials work best for painting the Marvel United figures?
What materials work best for painting the Marvel United figures? I have experience painting plastic (Warhammer) and resin models.

Like most CMON minis the Marvel United figures are made of a semi-flexible PVC.
While washing the figures is not strictly needed they may have left over mold release agent on them, which can make it difficult for paint to adhere to the surface. Therefore to ensure the best results you can use warm water and a mild soap to clean them, making sure to allow them to dry completely before painting.
Acrylic paints will adhere to CMON's PVC well enough that if un-thinned paint is used no primer is required.
If paint is thinned for layering or airbrushing it's essential to allow each layer to dry before moving onto the next one.
If thinned paints, washes or inks are to be used priming is required, but some primers work better than others, Vallejo Auxiliary or Hobby Paint, Army Painter Color Primer, Krylon Dual Paint + Primer, Duplicolor Sandable, or Rust-oleam Painter’s Touch Ultra Cover 2x all work well.
Citadel's Base paints should work, but their sprays can stay tacky on PVC.
After painting a clear coat should be applied to help protect the painted surface and prevent the paint from chipping or fading over time.


text:
What other games can I play with the zombies from Zombies?
What other games can I play with the zombies from Zombies?
It seems like a waste to have so many of the little guys and not use them to maximum effect.
What other rulesets or alternate games are people playing with their zombies?

What can't you do with a giant pile of zombies?  If you do the table-top RPG thing regularly, the zombies make great generic bad guys.  Some friends of mine created a variant of Frag called Frag Zombies that used plenty of the zombie figures during the game.  Pretty much any board game that uses miniatures is a potential use case for the zombies.  Imagine playing a zombie in Monopoly.  You could build a Zombie army in Risk.  How about using the glow-in-the-dark zombies in a game of Last Night on Earth?  The possibilities are endless.


text:
Can the active player choose the order of simultaneous effects?
I am the runner.
I have a Femme Fatale that targets a Data Raven and make a run on a server that is protected by that Data Raven.
When I encouter the Data Raven, both cards trigger (When you encounter that ice.../When the Runner encounters Data Raven...).
Can I choose in which order the effects apply (so I can choose to take the tag from Data Raven, then bypass it with Femme Fatale)?
Or is the order of effects fixed (first the effects of runner cards, then the effects of corporation cards, since it's the runner's turn)?

The order is fixed. First the active player (the one who's turn it is) chooses the order for their own simultaneous effects (if any) then the other player chooses the order for theirs.
So no, you cannot take the tag and then bypass, you must bypass first, or not bypass and take the tag.

can you point me to the right section in the rules?

Its in the section about simultaneous conditional effects, somewhat towards the back of the rule book IIRC.

Simultaneous Effects, page 22.


text:
Oversight AI Woodcutter behind a Chum
I am the runner and on a run I encounter a Chum, but I don't break its subroutine.
I encounter the next piece of ICE which happens to be a Woodcutter (rezzed with an Oversight AI) without advancement counters and thus no subroutines. I pass it.
Have I broken all subroutines on the Woodcutter?

If yes, I don't get three netdamage from Chum and the Woodcutter is trashed alongside the Oversight AI.
If no, I get the three netdamage from Chum and Woodcutter is not trashed.

I heard that you don't take the damage, and that Woodcutter is not trashed. But why should it be like that?

At one point there was a rules ruling via e-mail that it wouldn't be trashed to OverSight AI, and separately that Chum wouldn't do the damage. In the latest FAQ It has been clarified that this didn't make sense, and so for consistency "all" would apply to "0" and so all the subroutines are broken, and so chum does not do damage and oversight AI means the ice is trashed.

“All”
The word “all” includes the number zero.
  Example:
  The Corporation plays an OversightAI
  and rezzes a Woodcutter. The Runner encounters the Woodcutter while it has
  zero subroutines. The Runner is considered to have broken all the
  subroutines on the Woodcutter, and the ice is trashed.

(Previously, it was decided that since there were no subroutines the number broken was unknowable and so effects wouldn't trigger, but that gets rather confusing rather quickly with rules effectively throwing null pointer exceptions!)

+1 Good answer, detailing the original ruling and how it caused confusion, followed by the later FAQ rules clarification


text:
How to successfully store games on edge?
Last night it took me nearly 10 minutes to get a game from the bottom of my current stack of games and put everything back.
I'm convinced that stacking my board games on top of each other is no longer a reasonable solution, and is actually one thing preventing me from playing games as often as I'd like.  Ideally it should be as easy to get a game out and set up as it is to turn on the TV, and while I can't realize that situation yet, I would at least like to  get a little closer.
I'm planning on storing my boxed games on edge, with the internals separated in baggies, but this leads me to a few questions, which you will hopefully have a solution for:

Games in long thin boxes, such as monopoly and clue, tend to open if there's not enough pressure on the top and bottom, making removal difficult and/or tricky (incompatible with children) and causing them to spill their contents.  Rubber bands slip off, break, and interfere with removing boxes from the shelf.  Do I have any options here, or do I need to give up on storing games like I store books?
Limited space means I can't have a shelf for each size of game box. What are some good organization strategies or techniques so games are easy to find, and fit well next to each other despite widely varying dimensions?
What other organization strategies should I consider, or is there a way to use the stacking method while allowing games to be easy to remove and put away?

Related: Cupboard size for storing board games

I've also been trying to fit more board games in less space recently.  Some notes so far:

The modern medium-square-box style of game works fine on the side in a bookcase; e.g. pretty much anything by Fantasy Flight or Days of Wonder.  Catan and similar smaller boxes will work OK even on their end.
Old-style flat/thin boxes (Monopoly etc.) really don't side-stack well.  (But frankly, they're also often inferior to modern game designs, so I don't mind leaving them at the bottom of a pile.)   Other games pile really well sideways on top of a Monopoly box.  If you're strong: Monopoly and Clue can go at the bottom, be pulled out sideways, and then the one you didn't play be lifted up along with all games on top of it to slide your chosen game back in underneath.
A lot of older games have bigger boxes than they need.  If you don't care about resale value, your Monopoly and Clue sets will fit just fine in the Monopoly box.  (If you're not bothered at all by losing the boxes, consider just getting a bunch of clear plastic boxes which do stack and repacking all your games in them.  Add some sticky labels on the sides and you're done.)
In limited space, start by packing the biggest games in a corner first, then work outward.  This makes the larger games less accessible - but they're often also the longest, least-often-played.
If rubber bands aren't working for you, try a long strip of velcro fastener... usually comes in the form of a long fuzzy strip with velcro on the end.  It'll wrap around the box and seal to itself.
If you play any small pub card games (e.g. anything by Cheapass or Looney Labs), get a single case you can carry easily to fit them all in.

(I've got all my small card games and Icehouse pieces packed in a single old vanity case.  Not only compact, but easy to take to the pub.)

My hints on internal organisation of the games:

Plastic baggies are OK for games with few counters, but clumsy for many.  Any craft shop will carry subdivided plastic trays in various sizes, intended for storing beads and the like.  They work very well for storing counters.

(For example, my Galactica set has the boards underneath with a plastic box on top with all counters and pieces divided by type, and the decks of cards lying rubber-banded alongside.  All expansions fit neatly in the original box and we don't have to sort out the pieces before play, just take out the storage box and leave it by the board.)

Card decks rubber-band just fine.  (Leave a couple of spare rubber bands in the game box for those moments when they snap.)
Consider preferring games with good storage trays built in!  (Small World and Dominion spring to mind.)

Card decks develop a noticeable bowing after a few years; after 5+, many rubber bands will leave a mark upon the cards, and after several years, most are brittle and/or have glued themselves to the cards.  Ziplocks are a far better option than rubber bands.

@aramis: True, but not a problem for me.  The probability of a card deck in any game in my house going unused for enough years for the band to go brittle or stick to the cards is zero.  (Also, I use pretty high-quality rubber bands when called for.)  Broad bands, not stretched too tightly, don't cause enough bowing to be noticeable for our group - cards wear through use faster than that anyway.  For games which consist entirely of card decks, I use CCG card boxes.

@aramis I tend to use hair elastics instead (eg: http://www.ladyjayne.com.au/ajax.php?pid=255&height=300&width=500 ) - the fabric covering means that they're less likely to mark the cards, and the wrapped deck is more likely to fit back into its tray insert than ziplock bags.  Does have the bowing issue you mentioned, though.

@Margaret: I grew up in a hairdresser's, so how did I never think of this before?  Thanks, good idea.

Storing on side? Being an old-school wargamer, three things come immediately to mind:

Counter Trays
Ziplock Baggies
Box Bands

There used to be plastic vacuformed couter trays (with lids) available; probably still are. Other equivalents are small plano boxes, and sewing organizers, many of which will work, as well, for keeping bits organized.
Ziplocks, in assorted sizes. Jewelry sized (3x4"), snack sized, and sandwich sized give you lots of storage options with little overage and space waste. Stuff in ziplocks will slide within, but won't mix-n-mingle.
Box bands come in several types... one is just a large rubber band. Better quality are the genuine "Box Bands" which make an X shape. Also, one can make short sleeves from paper, transparency sheet, or light card; glue or tape these into a 3" wide sleeve, and it will keep the box from opening while on the shelf. Tyvek also has been used for sleeving boxes; it works great, and you might be able to get some scrap from a construction site that's more than large enough for banding boxes.
For the more esoteric stuff: if the bits won't survive sliding about, it may be time to adjust an insert. If the insert holds stuff nicely, but the lid doesn't hold stuff down into the insert, but you have the counter sprues, see if putting them under the insert holds it up enough. If not, buy some self-expanding insulation spray foam. Measure how much lift you need to secure the bits tray against the lit. Empty and remove the insert. fill the back of the insert to an even layer in stages; leave a bit of space. Using masking tape, raise the edge of the insert the needed amount, then fill to that level, and trim. Let dry thoroughly. Place back in box, load, lid, and test. Then, finally, make a box band to hold the lid on.
Some bits trays just badly suck... for those, replacement is the best option.If good with papercrafts, one can make card dividers, full height of the box less the rulebook's thickness. I've friends who've done this; me, I'm not a papercrafts-person. One can also buy sheets of sponge-foam. Cut to size, and using a really sharp knife, cut slots. If you want a smooth finish, cut every slot 1/16" thicker than desired, and then paint (while empty but assembled, and nowhere near the box!) with wall paints, latex &/or acrylic... this seals up the pores, and provides a plastic or latex shell; use several thin coats to avoid wicking deep. (I've done this for instrument case repairs, and for minis storage. The latex acrylic was an accidental discovery...)
Oh, and for reference, insul-foaming an insert makes it MUCH more rigid. It adds some weight, but it also means an insert that will last for YEARS.

If you are worried about the bits and pieces floating around inside the box, definitely go with plastic bags or a small craft organizer. Box inserts are designed for flat storage, and components can often float around insider the box if it is tipped.
Some games have more of a gap between the roof of the box and the top of the divider than others (see Castle Ravenloft/Wrath of Ashardalon). For these, you need to repack your components. It won't solve the issue of preventing some oddly shaped boxes from opening up on their sides, but at least the pieces won't get mixed up.

I was just coming to make this point. The box insert for A Game of Thrones insists upon being stored top-up. And for that game in particular - I like the box insert! I guess I could replace it with a baggie-per-house, but I just...haven't. Uh oh. Now I'm thinking about replacing the box insert with baggies and condensing that game and its two expansions into a single box...

I'm a big fan of tossing the insert and creating enough room to fit in expansions. I did this with both Small World and Last Night on Earth. At that point, the boxes do get fairly heavy. Unless you have perfectly equal sized boxes, you don't want to be stacking them at that point anyway or there will be some crushing.

It seems to me if your games are getting crushed or it's taking so long to get at the bottom ones, your stacks are too high.  I suggest dividing your shelving so that you have only about five games high, which keeps the weight down and makes removal, even via sliding, easy.  In college, I used milk crates for this purpose, stacked 8x6 so nearly 50 different cubbies for games.  (Now I use a custom built shelves).  If you have a little more dough to spend, you can get stuff at major retail outlet or office supply companies.
Things like this are great at storing games, just make sure they're deep enough.
Random Shelf from Target


text:
Suitable drafting rules for multi-set repacks?
For fun we picked up a booster box of multi-set repacks at our LGS (really cheap). Our intention was drafting, but we found that since they are multi-set the cards lack the synergies when drafting from a single block, plus the odds of getting to of the same card are close to zero.
I am new to drafting, so curious if there is a better format to play with multi-set repacks? Maybe just constructed (6 boosters to build a deck from)? Maybe a specific variation of drafting?

Drafting with multi packs or with packs from all different blocks works just fine you just need to aim for certain archtypes (control, aggro, ect) as opposed to specific strategies (such as human tribal) and you'll have more success. In my experience the only rule you really need to have outside of regular draft rules is to ban the unsets. Sealed also works well. Same advice (archtype over specific strategy) applies though you have a bit more leeway since you can see everything you have from the get go.

Also, take a look for tips on creating a Cube draft. They're very popular, and often contain dozens of sets worth of cards in them.


text:
Can Munchkin Quest be used for classic Munchkin?
I received "Munchkin Quest" as a gift. I had expected to get the classic "Munchkin"; I don't really know this variant but exchanging it is not an option.
I wish to play this with some of my not-so-board-game-aholic friends, and I imagine that the classic version is way easier, what with the tiles and creatures and markers taken out of the equation. I hope to "upgrade" them as time goes by, but better to start them on Level 1, right?
So, finally, my question: Can one play a round of classic Munchkin using a box of Munchkin Quest? Or, are there prohibitive differences?
Thanks...

Munchkin Quest is a far superior game to Munchkin anyways. And it really isn't difficult to teach people to play either game.

Short answer: No
Longer explanation:
They are totally different games. Munchkin is a card game. Munchkin Quest is a board game. They share:

A theme: Kill the monsters, take their stuff, stab your buddy - parodying power-gaming RPGers of a certain stripe
An artist: John Kovalic
A goal: Reach level 10 first
A Publisher: Steve Jackson Games
An official website: http://www.worldofmunchkin.com/

But the materials in MQ will not allow you to play Munchkin. And no amount of Munchkin sets will allow you to play MQ.

I would say no on the sheer fact that so many of the MQ cards play off of the tiles.  You'd have to sift through and take out all of those, and that's just not fun.

While the games seem similar, in that they share the same concept, goal, and certain mechanics, they are two DIFFERENT games, that function in COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ways.
tl,dr; No, you can't.

-1, because this answer doesn't contain any new info. Can you add any additional information to your answer that isn't covered already by Gomads answer? If so, I'll gladly give you the upvote.

Leave it, I have not played MQ, so I don't have precise examples. :/

@Zagstrug So why answer a question for a game that you have never played, which already has a valid and accepted answer with numerous upvotes, where you don't provide any real information at all?


text:
Agricola - Acreage minor improvement
The Acreage minor improvement in the K (complex) deck states that:

When you
  Sow, you can plant 2 grain fields on
  this card.
(This card does not count
  as a field when scoring.)

Does this mean that when I sow, this card can be treated as if I have 2 extra plowed regular fields and hence, I can put 6 grains on it (2 from my personal supply that I planted, 4 from the general supply)?
Also, what happens during the harvest period? Do I get to remove 2 grains from this card and put it in my personal supply?

Yes, you can plant two grains, and get four more from the general supply. At each harvest, you'll get two grains back, exactly as if the card was two fields.
Note that you don't have to sow two grain - you can choose to just sow one, if you like (as if it was a single field, i.e. get two more from the general supply).


text:
Agricola - After/Also rule
For an action space which states:

After A, also B

such as:

After Family Growth, also 1 minor Improvement

Does it mean that I must do both Family Growth and Minor Improvement?

No,
The first part is mandatory, the second optional.
The Rules for Family growth (page 5) state:

Players must have room for offspring in their home before they can
  use this action  – that is, they must have more rooms in their home than they have Family members. After taking Family growth, the player may choose to purchase a Minor Improvement

Note that in general, a player must be able to use an action to be allowed to place a worker on it. (page 3),

A Family member may never occupy an Action space without
  performing its action.

Therefore you cannot place a worker there just to block another player.

This is a general principle in Agricola, stated on p3 of the rules. You may not put a family member token on an action without taking that action. When the action says "do X", you must do X; when it says "do X or do Y", you must do either X or Y (but not both); however, when it says "after X, also Y", you must do X, but then you can choose to do Y but aren't required to. This principle probably made the action syntax simpler and more concise (for the purposes of printing on cards), but it also lead to a bit of incongruity in the syntax.

@ViktorHaag - Note: I'm pretty certain that you're allowed to put a token on any space, including a 'after/also' space, and simply not perform the first action (and not perform any action at all). For example if you wanted to prevent your opponent from taking that space.

@dwjohnston - updated my answer with the full rules quotes.

@PatLudwig Huh, TIL.


text:
Is it possible to have a tie in Munchkin?
One of my friends asked me this question recently, and I couldn't answer it, so I thought I'd pass it along:
Is it possible to have a tie in Munchkin (elf assisting in a victory to have two people land on level 10 simultaneously)?

Yes that is one way to achieve a tie. A SJG representative confirmed it (with a slight clarification with regard to being enthralled):

Q: I was playing the original Munchkin game as an elf who gains a level for each monster that they help kill. I was enthralled to fight by a bard. We were both level 9 and killed the three monsters. Since we both gained the three levels we were both level 10 at the same time. Who wins?
A: It's a Level gained by killing, so the Elf can, in fact, get the winning Level by helping.
Missed the Bard wrinkle, so here's the proper official answer: The Elf couldn't have been enthralled in the first place. Had he been enthralled, before the win was on the line for the Bard, he still could have won the game, but if suddenly the Bard had the chance to win the game as well, the enthralled Elf leaves the combat outright. The Bard can still get help, but has to do it based on his real personality, not some Svengali like ability. . .

I was playing Munchkin with my sister and parents, and everyone was level 9 and i let my sister help me against a level 16 king tut and we tied and just... yeah...

Another way to have a tie would be to have a Divine Intervention event grant a level to two or more 9th-level Clerics at once; Divine Intervention being a specific exception to the rule that you can only hit 10th level by killing.


text:
How does Mining Village's extra effect work in Dominion?
Mining Village has the option to trash it immediately and gain 2 coins. What exactly is meant by immediately? In other words, if I play a Mining Village what can I do before I must choose whether to trash it or not and gain 2 coins?
I'm interested in whether I can first draw another card (one of Mining Village's effects) and play it.

You draw the card, but may not play it prior to fully resolving Mining Village.
Always work from the top down on a card.  For Mining Village you do the following

+1 Card
+2 Actions
Optional - trash Mining Village for +2 coins.

Please note that +2 Actions does NOT mean "play two more cards."  It merely adds 2 actions that you can use once this card has been fully resolved.