text:
What is the name of this solitaire style card game?
place 4 cards faced-down in one column , repeat for three, on fourth  card all facing up. the next card  place up. The card place up  say is 5 heart, then the next card for the 4 facing- card or  from deck can be any heart(same suuit) .  Another row is formed when another 5 is found , then more cards be added provided they exist in first row and match the suit? repeat until all the rows form  all the cards that belong to same suit and value is in prior row.

This sounds like the solitaire game Osmosis (according to the article, it is also known as "Treasure Trove").


text:
Can Descent: Journey in the Dark be played by non-English speakers?
I'm Italian and I'm really interested in buying Descent: Journey in the Dark, but I don't know if it's better to buy the Italian or the English edition. I know some non-Italian speakers and I would like to have a game that can be played by all. I think my English is good enough to play a board game, but is that a risk?  I'm worried about how much an average non-native English speaker (i.e. any other player) is able to understand the game during real gameplay. So, my question is: how much heavily is this game dependent on the language?

I don't think anybody can give you a better answer than yourself. You're already aware the game's language dependent, and only you know how good your English is. You may go to the publisher's site, download the English rules and see how much you understand. Text of almost all components is also available in the internet, you can check if you understand it.

@tsuma534 Yes, but I'm not worried about how much I am able to understand the game, but how much an average not-native english speaker (i.e. the other players) is during a real gameplay. So, my question is: how much  heavily is this game dependent on the language?

In my opinion an average English speaker should be perfectly fine as long as one person at the table is better than average just in case.

I've fixed a few grammar errors and removed the second question about where to buy. Questions should really only have one question, not two, and "where to buy" is a recommendation question, which are off-topic for this site.

Different parts of the game need different levels of English understanding
The significant core components of the game use icons or numbers for their operations, which should be fairly easy to understand regardless of your native language. Things like how many hit-points you have, how far you can move, the results of the dice, or how many monsters to put on the board for the number of players should all be easy to understand.
Where your group might need to work together will be three things:

Learning the basic mechanics of the game. Being able to read the number of shield icons that come up when rolling 1 black and 1 grey defense dice for a skill check is easy, but reading the rules for "how to do a skill check" might not be perfectly clear to a non-native English reader.
Understanding the Hero/Class/Item abilities. These use numbering, icons, and the same consistent phrases where ever they can, but there will be a few things that might take some discussion in your native language with other readers to make certain you all have the same understanding of how it should work.
Understanding the Overlord's abilities. Again, these use numbering, icons, and consistent phrases wherever possible, but the Overlord cards and instructions are more complex than the Hero/Class/Item abilities. This will also probably require some discussion with your other players to make sure everyone has the same understanding of how those abilities will work during the game.

The additional discussion needed for these more complex parts can be a very good thing for everyone involved. It can help bring the group together by learning something together, and it can increase and reinforce everyone's understanding of English. And believe me, even native English readers still have to have these discussions to make sure we all understand it the same way!
The advantage you might have from buying a version of the game in your native language would be that all of this translation has been done for you (and hopefully, correctly). But I believe the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) available on their website, the vast majority of the Community Forums, and also the Descent Second Edition wiki are all going to be referencing English-language versions, so it might be easier to understand their references if you use the same context (same language).

There are two significant challenges to playing Descent in a language that you aren't fluent in.

Text ability on cards (characters, upgrades, monsters, overlord cards, condition cards, etc).  Fantasy Flight Games (the authors of Descent) use very precise wording.  Often particular pieces of linguistic nuance contain information about rules or timing that you can't miss.  For example, Leoric of the Book's ability: "Each monster within 3 spaces of you receives -1 damage on each attack roll (to a minimum of 1)".  Reading this in a language that I is not my first language, I would likely be quite confused as to whether or not this ability affects monsters at range 3 of me (it does) and might misunderstand that the parenthetic is actually an additional constraint on this ability and not just a clarification (it doesn't ever reduce an attack to 0 damage).
The rulebook and adventure book take nuanced text to the next level.  Even reading the rulebook in my native language, I still missed that monsters could only attack once per turn my first game.  There is a lot of information that players need to have in these books.

All of that said, Descent is actually a good game for this because as long as the overlord knows all the rules, players can ask the overlord questions (including about precise translations).  This is because the overlord has total information already, so there is no hidden information that is given away by the question (other than players' plans/intentions).
My recommendation would be to get the game in the primary language of the player you intend to be the overlord (most likely you), and print out the PDF's of the rulebook and adventure book in the other language (these are at least available in English on the Fantasy Flight website).

Does Descent have any secret information? If it does, that may be another barrier since you can't ask someone to interpret a phrase without telling them what is going on.

@Thunderforge The only secret information about Descent is the overlord's hand of cards.  This is what I mean by "the overlord has total information already"

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can Dracula choose not to move and engage the a hunter on purpose?
In Fury of Dracula 3rd Edition, Dracula's move turn comes up when he is in a city with a hunter, can Dracula choose not to move and engage the hunter in combat at dawn on purpose?

Dracula has to play something during his movement step. Current location is on the trail and playing any other location card will move Dracula to that location, and we don't want that, so our options are limited to power cards. Let's look at them:
Wolf form requires you to place a location card, so that won't work.
Misdirect specifically forbids using it on Dracula's current location.
I didn't find anything that prevents the other 3 power cards (Feed, Dark Call, Hide) from being used when Dracula is revealed, so this is your answer.
Dracula can stay at the same revealed location to fight again by playing Feed, Dark Call or Hide power card.

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


text:
In Checkers/Draughts, can a King jump multiple pieces and end up where it started?
title pretty much explains it, is the move depicted in the paint drawing I made legal?
I don't really see why it shouldn't be as it should theoretically follow all the conventional rules of checkers but I haven't really read anything specific about this situation and it's really hard to test it using online checker engines.
(English/American checker rules)

Welcome to Board Games Stack Exchange! Great first question, especially with the image!

@Thunderforge Ha! Thanks, I always try to draw something if it helps in understanding the question, I'm not very good with words.

Nothing disallows this sequence of jumps. Pieces do not need to end on a different space to which they started the turn, kings are allowed to move and capture in any direction of play, and multiple jumps may be made if they are additional captures.
Further, if these were the only pieces on the board, or if no other pieces could have been captured off the square instead of continuing around the square: this move is not just legal, but mandatory.
If at any point there was an option to capture off the square, for example by continuing past the bottom corner to capture again in a straight line, the player moving the king may choose which capture to make, but they must make one of them.

Thanks for the clear and detailed answer, as I said in the question I suspected this was the case but now I got the confirmation I needed.
Thanks again!

It may be worth mentioning that even though jumped-over pieces are not removed until all jumps are complete, a piece which has been jumped over may not be jumped over again, even if it is still on the board.

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


text:
I lost my boomdagger enhanced by "…of doom". If I get it back, is it still enhanced?
I had to discard for 100g due to income tax being played. I discarded/sold my boomdagger which was enhanced by "…of doom".
Now would I get the dagger back with or without "…of doom"?

I don't have a rules citation for you, but I've always played - in this game and every similar case I can think of - that cards that enter a pile (like the discard pile) are no longer attached or otherwise related to each other. I think this is standard if for no other reason than it would be annoying to keep track of relationships between cards in a pile. So if you have a way of retrieving your dagger from the discard pile, prior attachments would not come back with it.

No. When you discarded your boomdagger, "…of doom" was independently discarded because it was no longer attached to the boomdagger. Getting your boomdagger back does nothing to change that.

Spoken like an MtG player :)  Unfortunately I think there's no rule that "independently discards" unattached things in Munchkin - instead attachments have the text "This card goes with the item if it is lost, stolen, or discarded". So my interpretation is ultimately the same as yours, but the question is quite reasonable - after all, "goes with" does mean remains attached in the "stolen" case.

I meant to look at the exact rule wording, but then I got pulled away. Figured I'd look later an adjust, but forgot. As the rule wording is different than expected, I'll delete when I get to a computer.


text:
How do you score a word that has multiple bonuses?
How do you score a word that begins on a triple word space, ends on a double word space and uses all seven of your tiles?

Are you asking whether it's possible, how to establish a situation to enable it, are you looking for examples, or something entirely different?

You score zero, because it's apparently impossible in the rules and therefore cheating if you've done it regardless.

My best score ever was tzarinas over two triple word score squares. That rocked. Put that in your pipe and smoke it! Triple and double words count, so you multiply those. Bingoes only count once. I'm suspicious that your scenario could actually happen.

Note that this is something that is impossible to pull off in a standard game as the only row/column that has both a triple word and a double word is the one with the starting space and you need 8 tiles to get from the double word space to the triple word space.
According to the Scrabble rules you would take the value of the word and multiply by by 6, and then add 50 points. (The rules don't explicitly state this due to it being impossible, but they do account for 2 doubles or 2 triples so there is no reason to think that a triple and a double would work differently)

It depends on which letters were already on the board, and which ones you added.
When you place a word in Scrabble, it must attach to existing words (except for the very first play of the game). When you add to an existing word, you score any letters that were already on the board again, but you do not score any triple or double word or letter points for the spaces underneath already-existing letters; only for spaces that you just covered up for the first time.
If you mean a situation where your own letters were used to cover up both the triple and double word spaces, then this is impossible. The only places on the board where a double and triple word score exist on the same row or column use the center space; and if you were going there as your first move, you cannot reach a triple word score with only 7 letters.
Either way, you would add 50 points to the normal word score for having used all 7 of your letters.

Ignoring the board configuration, scoring works in the following way:

For each word created or extended by the placed tiles:

Double/triple letter multipliers under newly placed tiles are applied to the tiles.
The score [including multipliers from (1)] for the letters in the word are added together.
For each double/triple word multiplier under a newly placed tile in the word, the score from (2) is doubled/tripled.
We'll call the resulting number the word score.

The word scores for each new/extended word are added together.
Finally, if all 7 tiles were used, you add 50 points.

In other words, the important point is that letter multipliers are applied first, word multipliers are applied next, and the tile bonus is applied last.

Let's have an example. Look at the following situation. The board looks like this:

The light/dark blue squares are double/triple letter.
The beige/red squares are double/triple word.
Let's say you play the following word:

You'd score two words: "grenades" and "stickers". You didn't modify "aisle", so you don't score it.
Let's do "stickers" first. Ignore the double letter and double word spaces, since they've already been used up. Only tiles placed this turn activate bonus spaces.

There are no letter multipliers.
Add the letters together: 14.
Apply the triple word multiplier from the S: 42.
The word score is 42.

Now "grenades". All of the bonus tiles are new, so we apply them.

Apply the double letter modifier to the N, making it worth 2 instead of 1.
Add the letters together: 11
Apply both triple word multipliers from the G and S: 99.
The word score is 99.

To finish up:

Add the word scores together: 141.
Add the bonus 50 for using all 7 tiles.

The turn score is 191.
If you were playing on a board that made it possible to apply double and triple word bonuses to the same play, you just multiply the word for each one. The order doesn't matter; it'll be x3 and x2, so x6 either way around.


text:
Color Plastic Sheeps As Game Pawns
For years I've been trying to remember what game was this I played as a kid mid-1980's.
It had a huge board and within the board there was a road. The board tiles were drawn stone-like. There were also cards involved but I can't remember any mechanics.
What I remember the most are the player pawns, that were made of hard, shiny plastic in vivid colours and had the shape of sheep. Given that it was played in a Christian environment, I think it was some sort of Christian-focused game, but I'm not 100% sure if that was the purpose of the game.
The sheep pawns were rather simplistic and had only two legs and the body looked like rings together.
Thing is that I would love to have them but people don't seem to remember that game.
It's not any farming game, nothing with the word "sheep" in the title and it's not a pre-scholar game. I was the only kid among a group of young adults.


text:
If a "The Phantom Knights" trap monster's effects are negated, is it turned back into a trap or no?
"The Phantom Knights" is an archetype that contains a number of Trap cards. They all have an effect that turns them into a Monster with an added effect that says they are not treated as Traps. For instance, The Phantom Knights of Dark Gauntlets.

Send 1 "Phantom Knights" Spell/Trap Card from your Deck to the Graveyard. When an opponent's monster declares a direct attack while you control no cards and this card is in your Graveyard: Special Summon this card in Defense Position as an Effect Monster (Warrior-Type/DARK/Level 4/ATK 300/DEF 600), but banish it when it leaves the field. (This card is NOT treated as a Trap Card.) If Summoned this way, this card gains 300 DEF for each "Phantom Knights" Spell/Trap Card in your Graveyard.

If their effects are negated, do they count as a Monster with negated effects or a Trap card?

Add a card description??

I rolled back the edit to this question as it took out information that was relevant to the question.

I've cleaned up your post and added a card description from one of the cards in that archetype. However, I'm not very familiar with this archetype, so if I misunderstood your question, please feel free to change what I've written.

Depend on the exact Text but most Phantom Knight Monster has the condition: "(This card is NOT treated as a Trap Card.)"
If the trap has this text, it will not return to be trap if the effect is negate, since it is not an effect but a condition. It is also uneffect by every card that is applied to Trap Cards (MST, Royal Decree, etc) and keeps being a Monster if it change to face-down position.
Without the condition, the answer from simples_mathematics appeal
For Ruling look at the wikia:
http://yugioh.wikia.com/wiki/Card_Rulings:The_Phantom_Knights_of_Shadow_Veil
Also note, that OCG-Ruling don't official apply in tcg tournaments, where the judge has the last word, but still should be used as navigation points


text:
How to defeat an active Digglet Pokemon when oppenent has an additional on bench
The Digglet from XY - Evolutions protects itself as long as it's on the bench. How is it possible to defeat the active Diglett if there's also a second one on the bench, causing each to protect itself?

I don't recognize that pokemon (and thus can't find the card). Can you find an image of the card online, or post the text of the card so we have something to reference. The closest I can find is Digglet, and there are many versions of the one so we would need to know which one you are talking about.

Also if you could talk about why this combination seems so difficult to beat that would be helpful.

From what I know, every pokemon in the TCG has several different cards. You would need to specify which one are you mentioning.

@diego  please review the image added

Diglett card from XY - Evolutions expansion has an interesting ability:

Ability: Submerge
  As long as this Pokémon is on your Bench, prevent all damage done to this Pokémon by attacks (both yours and your opponent's).

The phrase this Pokémon is special in Pokémon TCG - it refers to this one and only particular Pokémon, not any other, not even other Pokémon of the same species.
Thus it's quite simple to defeat two Digletts, because the active one can be damaged without problems. Just knock out the first one during one turn, then the second one during later turn.

Nice work, finding the essence of the question and coming up with a good answer!


text:
How can I houserule Arkham Horror to include having one player character attacking another player character?
Sometimes I just feel like throwing a bit of anarchy into whatever game I am playing. What are the rules for one player character attacking another player character? How does the battle play out?

This seems pretty difficult to answer without some idea of what you have in mind. Is the goal of the game still for everyone to win? Do you want it to still be winnable reasonably frequently? Do you specifically want player vs player anarchy, not just more unplanned stuff going wrong of the sort that there's already tons of in Arkham Horror?

I've read just about everything published from ol' HP. It's not out of the realm. It also seems kind of fun. The people I play with are fond of closing gates while player characters are on the plains. I'm not seeing any real difference as losing sanity or stamina just lands you in either the hospital or sanitarium. Closing the portal on someone puts them in time out. The game plays a lot like a Gothic version of Clue. :)

There are no rules for players attacking other players, not to say you can't devise your own to make the game even harder to win cooperatively than it already is.  I would imagine you might want to draw those lines at the outset, have it discovered in secret, or have it revealed to all by chance mid-game.  Arkham Horror is pretty complex in itself so you'd want to think about several cases like how your character would assist the dark side, but it would be interesting narratively.
Have fun with it, but the answer to your question remains that there are no official rules for attacking one another. (It would be fun to play the antagonist and move a few monsters or choose between 2 mythos cards to inflict upon them, though, to spice up the flow of the narrative.)

In fact there is a possibility to play against other players.
In Dunwich Horror expansion there is a mission card Joining the winning team.
You have to sacrifice allies in some locations. If you manage to do this - you win the game, and others loose.

If you like to introduce some variant in your game, you can try the Arkham Horor League.

Welcome to Board Games Stack Exchange! I wasn't the one who downvoted your answer, but I'm guessing it was downvoted because it doesn't really answer the original question and is more commentary. The Arkham Horror League is indeed an interesting variant, but it's not about PVP combat like the person was looking for. Still, hopefully you can answer some other questions on this site, or ask your own!


text:
Identify a 70's board game involving finding objects a house using cards

I have this 70's game and it is missing parts. Can anyone help me identify this game so I can complete this? I think it is European (maybe Swiss), but I don't have any indication of its name written on the board or cards. It consists of finding objects in the house using the cards. Some of the parts of the house in the picture are missing.

I've cleaned up this question a little bit so that the grammar is improved. If I misunderstood your question, please feel free to undo my changes.

This is a Ravensburger children's game, called Spielhaus in German, and Race to the Roof in English. The art is different though, it looks like yours is a Janosch version.


text:
Looking for rules for board game called "Music Game"
I bought a game at a thrift store called simply "Music Game" and unfortunately it needs the rules.
The game says copyright Petina, 1989. It's a board game with piano keys around the edges and several piles of question cards of different colors in the middle to draw.
Without the rules I don't know when to draw cards and which pile to draw from. It seems to be a great way to teach music concepts, if only I had the rules.

Yes! That is the game! Googling brought up no results for me, so thanks very much!

Asked on boardgamegeek for the rules, I see another person has it, so maybe something will turn up. Thanks much!

There is a boardgame geek entry, as diego already mentioned. But that lacks any link to the rules. But luckily Amazon has a page for it. On the page there are several pictures, including (part of) the rules.
And according to them, it is a rare vintage game. So I hope you are able to play it now.

Yes, that is the game! Unfortunately the pictures are not of the rules, but rather only the description of the game on the bottom of the box. I'll maybe ask on the Amazon page for the rules and see if there is any response. Thanks much!

@reidun You could also try asking on BoardGameGeek


text:
What editions of Acquire have durable pieces?
I am interested in buying the board game Acquire.  It's available through Amazon, but the reviews state the edition they have for sale is cheap and clumsy compared to previous editions.  Evidently the game has been out for more than 50 years.
For anyone who might know, is there a version of this game that comes with more durable play pieces (wood, etc)?

That said, there's a nice history writeup of Acquire which can be found at http://www.megacquisitions.com/index.php/62-71 which will probably help.

I paid $150 for the "good" edition of Acquire, the 1999 one.

The latest edition of Aquire by no means feels cheap. It's actually pretty sturdy. The flags are a bit small, but it's every bit Acquire. Save the cash unless you want an edition for anything other than enjoying the game.

I think this would be a fine question if you specified what your criteria were - presumably you want durable components, e.g. cards printed on sturdy card stock?

Note: the version on Amazon with the reviews you describe looks like it's the 2008 edition, but there's also a newer 2016 edition that has no reviews on Amazon.

Well, this Q has been unanswered for too long... so I posted an answer. Sorry if it comes too late.

I agree with @Cascabel's comment: apparently you read a review for the 2008 version (which is made completely from sturdy cardboard).
If you haven't done so already, check out all the different versions at boardgamegeek and see which versions you can get your hands on.
Here's a summary of the major versions I know and/or would consider:

2016: Haven't tried it, apparently has plastic pieces, could be the easiest way to get a durable version (tiles in the picture seem very similar to the 1999 version; which is the reason it made it to my list). Do note that the board is smaller in this version (10x10 instead of 9x12) and has 24 stock cards per corporation (instead of 25) so gameplay may be slightly different.
2008: Made of sturdy cardboard, I don't consider it to be "cheap" but I do find it inconvenient that tiles don't stay in place because the board is not slotted.
1999: The one I own and my all-around favorite. Tiles and board made of plastic. Board is larger than the 89/76 version but not clumsily so (unlike the 95 version).
1995: Owned it for some time, made of cardboard, I seem to recall that the board is considerably larger than other versions and folded in 4 parts. Wouldn't recommend it.
1989/1976: I've seen and played with these two versions but can't remember a significant difference between them. Tiles and board are made of plastic but they're a bit smaller than the 1999 version. I'd get this if I was trying to get a collectible item.

I have the 1962 edition of the 3M Bookshelt game. Black wooden tiles, coloured wood hotel chain tiles with a fleur-de-lys engraved on each. It doesn't get more durable than that and they're a joy to use in play. If you play a lot, it is, IMHO, worth the investment...


text:
How does vertical movement work in 40k eighth edition
How does vertical movement work in 8th edition? In previous editions moving up a floor in a building was 3", but I can't seem to find any rules in the new edition describing if you just measure the vertical distance.

In 8th you just measure the actual distance you move. It likely will be worth discussing with your opponent before the game how you want to treat different pieces of terrain. Things like if you're going to have to use ladders/stairs or if you both want to just assume any unit can move the 2-4" vertically. Also whether you want to measure diagonal or "L" that is... measure to below where you go up, then directly up. Depending on the terrain you have, it might be easiest to just say going up/down a floor is 3" of movement and not worry about it too much, the main thing is to get on the same page at the start of the game.


text:
Is circle a "completed" road in Kids of Carcassonne?
In Kids of Carcassonne game basic rule is to complete road. In rules it is written (translating from my localized version - Slovak/Czech):

Road is completed in moment when both ends end in house or elsewhere in country. Road is closed also with crossroads, or city (place surrounded with walls).

Circular road does not fit this definition. So should it be considered "completed" or not?

If cicle does not count as "completed" road it could be used against opponents, that is why I am primarily asking.

A road is also closed when it forms a complete loop.
  If a part of a closed road has a color that no
  player is using, nothing is played on that part.

http://riograndegames.com/uploads/Game/Game_313_gameRules.pdf
This is from the rules for Die Kinder von Carcassone. As this is German for "The Kids of Carcassone", I assume it is the same game.

Thank you, loop part is not part of my rules (Slovak, Czech localization). Only second sentence is there.

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


text:
Do punches and vulnerabilities have a type when using Animal Man?
Do Punches/Vulnerabilities have a type when using Animal Man (when using 3 or more card types, +2 power)?

Welcome to Board & Card Games Stack Exchange! Be sure to check out our tour if you haven't already. It looks like you are asking two questions, but this site works by asking one at a time. I've edited the question to focus on just one. If you'd like the other question answered, feel free to ask it as a separate question.

Yes, their type is "Starter"
First off, the full text for Animal Man is as follows:

+2 Power and choose a card type. Reveal the top card of your deck. If it has that card type, draw it.

The key phrase here is "card type". Page 2 of the rulebook talks about types of cards and shows that the text in the colored bar below the picture is the card type.

As we can see, both Punch and Vulnerability have a card type of "Starter". This is corroborated by the explicit listing of the card types at the bottom of the page:

The different card types that you can play are: Starter, Villain, Location, Hero, Super Power, and Equipment. Weakness cards have no card type.

Forgot to add this to question: Can Kicks be added to the Line Up? (the villain whose attack say to add a card with cost 1 or more from hand to lineup)

@Javier See my comment below the question. On this site, each question needs to be its own thread. I'd be happy to help answer that if it's asked as a separate question. Also, don't forget to accept this answer (click the check box) if it answers your question.


text:
Can I build a settlement at an intersection two roads away from one settlement and one road away from another?
Say I have a settlement two roads away from an intersection, but have another settlement only one road away from the same intersection and no other settlements near me. Can I build a settlement at the intersection?

Welcome to Board Games Stack Exchange! I took a few moments to improve your question for grammar and clarity. Feel free to undo it or edit it further if I misinterpreted your question.

No, it is not possible
As best I can tell, this is the situation you are describing:

The 5th Edition rules say this about settlements:

Take special note of the “Distance Rule”: you may only build a settlement at an intersection if all 3 of the adjacent intersections are vacant (i.e., none are occupied by any settlements or cities—even yours).

In this situation, the intersection to the left is not vacant because it contains one of your settlements. Therefore, it is not permitted to build a settlement at this intersection.
Some players rephrase this rule as "a settlement must be at least two roads away from every other settlement". If that makes more sense to you, feel free to think that way.


text:
Can you add a wild card to a completed book?
In Hand and Foot, after completing a melded book, can you add a wild card to it?  For example, once you have completed a book, but have a wild card left in your hand, can you add the wild card to a previously completed book, in order to go into your Foot or to go out?

According to Pagat.com:

A meld cannot contain more than seven cards, and a partnership is not allowed to have two incomplete melds of the same rank, but if you complete a pile, you can then start another meld of the same rank.

So not only can you not add a wild card, you cannot add any card. You'll need to attach it to another meld in progress, or make a new one.


text:
Master of Cruelties Spiteful Returned Combo
If I enchanted Master of Cruelties with Spiteful Returned, would this create a potential one–hit combo?
If your opponent doesn't block it, then the Master of Cruelties would drop your opponent to 1, and then the Spiteful Return as an enchantment would deal 2 damage.

This would not work how you want it to. Because of the timing for the different triggers in this scenario.
There are 5 parts of the combat phase:

Beginning of Combat
Declare Attackers
Declare Blockers
Combat Damage
End of Combat

The trigger from Spiteful Returned triggers is "Whenever Spiteful Returned or enchanted creature attacks", this means that it will trigger during the Declare Attackers step. While the Master's trigger is "Whenever Master of Cruelties attacks a player and isn't blocked", this means that it will trigger during the Declare Blockers step long after the trigger from the Returned has been put on the stack and resolved.

508.3a An ability that reads “Whenever [a creature] attacks, . . .” triggers if that creature is declared as an attacker. Similarly, “Whenever [a creature] attacks [a player or planeswalker], . . .” triggers if that creature is declared as an attacker attacking that player or planeswalker. Such abilities won’t trigger if a creature is put onto the battlefield attacking.
508.3d An ability that reads “Whenever [a creature] attacks and isn’t blocked, . . .” triggers during the declare blockers step, not the declare attackers step.

No, I don't believe it would.
Spiteful Return says that your opponent loses 2 life when the enchanted creature attacks, but Master of Cruelties says that it reduces your opponent's life to one when it attacks and isn't blocked.
As such, I'm pretty sure that when you declare the enchanted Master as an attacker, the Spiteful effect would trigger, then blockers would have to be declared. If they then don't block, then Master's effect will trigger, reducing their life to one regardless of the Spiteful's life loss.
There's even a ruling on the card that backs this up on the Gatherer page for Master -

An ability that triggers when something “attacks and isn’t blocked” triggers in the declare blockers step after blockers are declared if (1) that creature is attacking and (2) no creatures are declared to block it. It will trigger even if that creature was put onto the battlefield attacking rather than having been declared as an attacker in the declare attackers step.


text:
Do Fireplaces and Cooking Hearths count as a Bake Bread Action Space?
Does the Fireplaces and Cooking Hearths count as a Bake Bread Action space? Can I put a worker on those cards to bake bread or can I only bake bread using the respective action space on the main board?

During the Work Phase your family members perform Actions that are selected from those currently available on the board.
Stage 1 has the Sow and/or Bake Bread Action which will show up sometime during the first four rounds (Other bake actions are also available depending on how many players there are). To use the Bake Bread part of this action you must have an Improvement that bakes the Bread like the Fireplace, Cooking Hearth or an Oven.
These Improvements are not Action Spaces themselves, they are just the tools you will use to make your Actions more efficient. You will put your worker on the Action space that bakes bread, then use an improvement to determine the outcome of the baking action. You may use every baking improvement you have as many times as it allows per Bake Bread action.
Note that the fireplaces and hearths can convert multiple grain while the ovens are limited to 1 or 2. The Clay Oven and Stone Oven, and some others like the Baker's Oven, allow you to Bake Bread immediately when they are purchased. Some Improvements, like the Windmill, allow you to convert grain to (more than one) food at any time without using a Bake action.


text:
Can Alolan Pokémon evolve to non-Alolan or vice versa?
If I have a regular Ninetales in my hand and an Alolan Vulpix on my bench, can I evolve the Alolan Vulpix into the regular Ninetales?

Alolan and non-Alolan forms are not interchangeable because they have different "names"
The 2017 Pokemon Trading Card Game Rules in the section What does and doesn't count for a Pokémon's name? makes it clear that the Alolan and non-Alolan versions are not the same Pokémon.

An owner or form name in a Pokémon’s name is part of the Pokémon’s name:

Meowth, Alolan Meowth, and Rocket’s Meowth have different names

There are other rules for what counts as the same or a different name, but for our purposes, "Alolan X" is not the same name as "X".
The "evolves from" name must exactly match the name of the pre-evolutionary Pokémon
From the same section:

When evolving, the “evolves from” Pokémon name must match the Pokémon being evolved. So Graveler can evolve from Geodude, or
  Geodude LV. 12, but not Brock’s Geodude.

The "evolves from" Pokémon is referring to the Pokémon in the upper left corner of an evolutionary Pokémon.
Alolan Pokémon follow these same rules
Consider Alolan Persian:

Alolan Persian's card says in the upper left corner "Evolves from Alolan Meowth". Since "Meowth" is treated as a different name, you cannot evolve a Meowth into an Alolan Persian. This is reiterated in Appendix K of the rules:

Note that “Alolan” is part of the Pokémon’s name—this means that Alolan Persian can only evolve from Alolan Meowth, not from Meowth. Also, you can have up to 4 Persian and up to 4 Alolan Persian in your deck if you wish.

There are some circumstances where a non-Alolan Pokémon can evolve into an Alolan Pokémon, such as Alolan Raichu.

In this case, the upper left corner of the card explicitly says "Evolves from Pikachu", thus a regular Pikachu will work (but not something like Surfing Pikachu, as fitting as that might be).
In your particular case, Ninetales' card says that it evolves from "Vulpix". Since "Alolan Vulpix" is considered to be a different name, it cannot evolve into Ninetales. Similarly, an Alolan Ninetales' card would say that it evolves from "Alolan Vulpix", so "Vulpix" cannot evolve into it.


text:
Can you play Big Two with multiple decks for more than 4 players?
We have 5-7 players, which is too much for one normal game and not enough for two. We could just deal less cards per player, but it would reduce the strategy involved. Are there any variants for using multiple decks?
Alternatively, are there any obvious problems with just dealing out 65-91 cards from two combined decks? We're  not concerned with the increased game length due to having more players. I'd imagine cards playing the same value would tie and therefore wouldn't be allowed after each other (i.e. you can't play a 5 of clubs on a 5 of clubs). This might also open up new poker hands (e.g. 5 of a kind)

Yes you can play big 2 with more than one deck.  I would recommend two decks for 6-8 players, three decks with 9+.  (5 player is tougher, two decks is too many, one is maybe not enough, but I would err on the side on playing one deck for five players, unless you want a particularly wild game).
Higher level hands such as 5 of a kind should be allowed.
Regarding tied cards, there are several different rules variants of how to play the game.  Some allow it, some disallow it, and some play that playing a duplicate card causes the next player in line to be 'skipped' and lose their opportunity to play.  Experiment and figure out which way your group prefers.


text:
What is the real name of Misha's Bidding Game?
My friend went to a math camp and brought back a card game called Misha's Bidding Game that is super addicting. I can't find the real name of the game on google though, so I'm guessing it's obscure.

Everyone gets 5 cards, and all that matters is if they are red or
black.
Each player arranges them in a stack face down and they go in a
circle bidding how many red cards they can flip over from any deck
(bids must be strictly increasing).
Anyone can challenge a bid at any time, and the challenged player
must flip over from the tops of anybody's stack that number of red
cards (you can pick and choose the tops of anybody's deck, even
flipping multiple ones off the same deck).
If you successfully flip over the bidded number of red cards, the
challenger loses a card, otherwise you lose a card.
If you lose all 5 you're out.
After a challenge, the bidding is reset.

After you've had at least one card flipped or you lose a card, you get to reshuffle your stack

This is very similar to Skull. Skull has a fixed ratio of 3 red (roses) to 1 black (skull) and you only have to be correct twice to win.

Thank you! Yes, the mechanics of this game are very similar, I will be sure to remember skull, although I will say I will probably prefer my friend's version. Cheers

This is a variant of liar's dice, played with cards and using only the numbers ${0,1}$ instead of dice with ${1,2,3,4,5,6}$.
On Wikipedia, the article with that name gives more detail.

I immediately had to think of a dice game called Perudo which according to Wikipedia goes by many names: Dudo, Cacho, Pico, Perudo, Cachito, Dadinho, Pirate's Dice and is a variant of liar's dice. No idea about the card game though.


text:
Does the Medic remove all cubes of cured diseases from the cities he travels through?
Does the Medic remove all cubes of cured diseases from the cities he travels through? Let's say he:

drives to one city (3 cured cubes)
drives to another city (2 cured cubes)
drives to another city (1 cured cube)
drives to another city (1 cured cube)

does he remove all 7 cubes on the way or just at the last city?

Related: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/3280/clarification-of-a-pandemic-rule-involving-the-medic and http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/27927/medic-at-a-city-with-cured-disease/27929#27929

If you feel your question has been adequately answered (it seems so to me), then you might want to accept the given answer.

All of the cubes. This is not an action.

The Medic may remove all the cubes of a single color (instead of 1)
  when performing the Treat Disease action. Also, if the Medic at any
  time finds herself in a city that contains cubes of a disease that
  has been cured, she may immediately remove all of those cubes.  This
  unique ability is in effect during all players’ turns and does not
  cost any actions to perform.

Emphasis mine.

This answers the question but its worth pointing out that "at any time" also includes when its not the medic turn.  So if the dispatcher moves the medic then the cubes are removed also.

@MildlyPerilous: I considered mentioning the double-medic tactic, but chose to leave it as a hint.


text:
Is there a maximum amount of energy that can be attached to one Pokémon?
I bought the Mewtwo EX tin and he has an ability called "Shatter Shot".

This attack does 30 damage multiplied by the amount of "psychic" energy you have on this Pokémon.

I have a bunch of Psychic type energy. Is there a maximum amount of energy you can have on one Pokémon?

Crazy guess, 59 energy cards.

There is no limit.
Each turn you can only attach one energy to one of your Pokémon (either a benched or active Pokémon), and there is no rule limiting the total energy.
The downside of lots of energy on one Pokémon is that if your Mewtwo gets knocked out, all attached energy is put into the discard pile.

The maximum, is the amount you have available in your deck.


text:
Is there an extension that converts regular Pandemic to Pandemic Legacy: Season 1?
I own Pandemic. I want to buy Pandemic Legacy: Season 1. It's quite expensive though and it seems that the game board looks the same.
Is there an extension to the Pandemic game that reproduces Pandemic Legacy: Season 1? Or do I really have to buy the new version entirely?

It is expensive because it is out of print, so you're paying secondary market prices.  I would expect a reprint to occur at some time and drop the price.

I see. I bought it on amazon yesterday.

There is no expansion to convert Pandemic into Pandemic Legacy.
Firstly, the board is not the same anyway. It has a month track that doesn't exist on the non-Legacy board, as well as printed places for stickers that alter the board. Many other components are also different.
Secondly, even if there was an expansion/conversion kit, it would be nearly as expensive as the full Pandemic Legacy due to the large number of added components (sticker sheets, secret booklets, secret decks, secret boxes), and due to needing to replace some standard components with Legacy versions (some cards, the board, the occupation cards).
Thirdly, considering that you have to permanently alter your board and cards in order to play a Legacy game, you would just have to replace your copy of Pandemic after using it in a Legacy game anyway, resulting in no savings even if an expansion was offered.
No, the price of Pandemic Legacy is the only available way to play Pandemic Legacy.

Thanks for the detailed answer! I've just bought it on Amazon.


text:
Board game fun for 3 year old AND parent
I like playing board game with my 3 year old son. But it can be boring sometimes for me. Is there a game that is designed to be playable by a 3 year old, but also interesting for the adults playing it? Maybe different rules for the players?

See this period as an investment. Yes those kid games can be boring, but they make the kid interested in games and in a few years you will have a willing game player in the house.

I definitely agree with that, and happily do it. I thought if there's a way to make it better for me, it'd be great though.


text:
If a fighter can't land during combat, can they land on carriers moved to them during the non-combat move phase?
If I move my fighters into combat and they can't make it back to sea, can I use my non-combat move phase to move my carriers to make it possible for them to land?
I am playing Axis and Allies 1940, 2nd Edition.

Yes, you can use your non-combat move phase to have a carrier move to a position so that those planes that were moved in the combat move phase can land. Fighters land in the non-combat move phase of the turn.
When you move fighters in the combat move phase, you can only move them to squares where you can show that it is possible (even if it doesn't end up happening, see below) that they have some way for them to land in the non-combat phase.
Note that providing a landing for your fighters is not optional, it is mandatory. However, it is only required to show it is possible, and not carry out the movement. If the fighters are destroyed, you no longer need to provide a somewhere for them to land, and the carrier can move elsewhere in the non-combat movement phase.


text:
How can a casino offer 99%+ RTP plus 1% cash back?
So I am checking out a legal, regulated casino and they have video poker with over 99% RTP (return to player) games. And then I also noticed they have a deal where by loading funds using a credit card you get 1% cash back on it.  If you loaded the funds using their credit card method and say for example played a video poker game with 99.54% RTP wouldn't that make for a total 100.54% RTP and you could actually make money playing video poker ? Am I missing something ?

You are doing the math correctly.

Start out with $100.
Get 1% cash back, so essentially you have $101.
Now, 99.54% RTP, gets you 0.9954 * 101 = $100.54

So, on average every $100 you play, you would make 54 cents.  (It's far more likely that RTP is closer to 99%, in which case, the result is $99.99, but let's say it's really 99.54%)  According to an article from WizardOfOdds.com, this is not unheard of.
On the face of it, this sounds like a money making machine.  But you have to keep in mind...

How long does it take to "play" $100?  If it takes an hour, you're "making" 54 cents an hour.  This doesn't seem like a particularly profitable means of making money.  Even if it takes 5 minutes, you still are only making $6.5/hour.
How much are you spending to make this money?  You may get free drinks, but probably you'll be purchasing food at some point.  How much is that going to cost you?
Are you good enough to actually achieve that kind of return on the game?  The makers of the game can easily make it so complicated that no humans can actually play well enough to achieve that kind of payout level.  There is a game mentioned on the Wikipedia article for Video Poker that has a payout of 100.1.  But with the caveat that no one can play it well enough to achieve that....
Do you have enough capital on hand to "ensure" you make money.  Consider the following 99% game.  (It's not video poker, but the point is to illustrate the idea.)  You win $1,000,000 with probability 1.99e-6, or you lose $1 with probability (1 - 1.99e-6).  How many times on average do you need to bet in order to win?  You need to bet on average $500,000 in order to win once.  So, in that game you have to have $500K cash on hand "on average" to win.  This is an extreme case, but even for more "reasonable" games, the numbers are still in the favor of the house.  You will go broke, before you hit the big money.
Some cashback bonuses have conditions.  For example, some casinos only offer cashback when you lose a bet.

You have misrepresented the "capital on hand" issue with extremely unbalanced (ie lottery-style) games. Though individual players with low capitalization are each expected to lose, the casino's odds are always averaged over all players.

@PieterGeerkens I disagree.  I used that style game merely because it was easy to compute.  With effort (more than I was willing to put in) I can create a game that "looks" more like video poker, but has capitalization requirements of any arbitrary value and an RTP of 99%+.

I would add to this answer that some cashback bonuses have conditions. For example, some casinos offer cashback only when you lose a bet (as opposed to every single time). I would also add a reference to this article from WizardOfOdds.com, that explains how player advantage (as opposed to house advantage) is not unheard of with video poker. Good answer either way. I think you brought up two very good points: the cost of food/drink, and player skill.

@Rainbolt add away!  :)  Excellent references and points.

Assuming that you're not playing the $1 you get as cash back (at least not immediately), shouldn't the formula for the expected return actually be $100 * 0.9954 + $1? Of course, that still works out to (exactly) $100.54, so in practice the difference is negligible.

@IlmariKaronen you are correct, but as you also point out, to 5 significant figures there is no difference....


text:
Catan : how to play with extension 5-6 players when we are less than 5?
I bought the game with the 5-6 player extensions :
If I want to play at 3 or 4 players, do I have to remove additional elements of the game ? or is it common to play at 3 or 4 players for a game designed for 5-6 players ?

The 5-6 player extentions contains tiles, number fiches and additional playing pieces so there is enough to play with more players.
It contains scenario's for 5 and 6 players.
You can play with 3 or 4 players on a 5 or 6 player board, but then the game becomes too easy. The board is just to big (contains too much resources) to have a challenging game. And yes, you can increase the number of VP needed, but keep in mind the game pieces max out at 13 VP, there are a few cards with extra VP and there is 4 points to collect with the longest road and the largest army. But keep in mind that if you need all these, the game is tied if two players buy a +1 VP card.
Of course, you can use pieces of the extention in the 3-4 games. But then you leave some other pieces out.

Thx a lot for your answer so it means the i have to keep the notice of the extension to know which pieces i should put aside ... Or buy another set for 3-4 players :p ;) ;)


text:
Optimal Dominion strategy with only the Mine action card
Consider a Dominion game where the only cards are Copper, Silver, Gold, Estate, Duchy, Province and Mine, i.e. the only action card is Mine.
Is there an obvious optimal strategy/strategies in this simplified game?

I suppose that a question this specific is unlikely to help others in future, as this is not a situation that comes up naturally during a game.

How is this primarily opinion-based? It's a specific question about strategy in a specific scenario in a specific game. Good answers would provide a good strategy and explain why it's good (even if it's not provably optimal). tsuma534's right that it's a bit of an artificial situation, but that doesn't make it opinion-based.

I agree that it's not opinion-based, but I'm not sure what a good answer could look like. It seems like a trivial solution; unless his real question is "how many Mines should you buy"? There's very little room to improve or change up a strategy.

@GendoIkari Yes, how many Mines you should buy (and when) is part of the question. It's asking about the whole strategy, not just what to do with a Mine in your hand.

@tsuma534 I think the answers do actually look useful to future readers. It's an artificial situation, but it's also a pretty good initial stab at how you should approach Mine even if there are other cards available, and in general, how you should approach terminal action cards.

Using the Dominiate Online Simulator I simulated a few Mine and money strategies in two player games against Big Money. The best strategy I could find was to play Big Money, but buy a Mine in preference to Silver if there is enough money. The simulator upgrades Silvers to Gold rather than Coppers to Silvers if there's a choice (the Dominion Strategy Guide agrees with this decision here).
I tested varying the number of Mines to aim for and simulated 1000 games against Big Money.  Here are the results:
1 Mine:  59.1% wins
2 Mines: 56.3% wins
3 Mines: 53.1% wins
4 Mines: 49.7% wins

After the first Mine, additional Mines hinder your deck, as you start to draw two terminal actions in some hands. This is backed up by Matt Sargent's investigation where he tried to find the optimal number of various different single cards in 'Single Action plus Big Money' decks.
If you want to try simulating this yourself, here's the strategy I was using:
{
    name: 'One Mine and Money'
    author: 'tttppp'
    requires: ['Mine']
    gainPriority: (state, my) -> [
        "Province" if my.getTotalMoney() > 18
        "Duchy" if state.gainsToEndGame() <= 4
        "Estate" if state.gainsToEndGame() <= 2
        "Gold"
        "Duchy" if state.gainsToEndGame() <= 6
        "Mine" if my.countInDeck("Mine") < 1
        "Silver"
    ]
}

Beat me to it by a few minutes.

Did you ever try gaining a single Mine over Gold (when you happen to hit $6 before ever having hit $5)? It looks like it hurts the strategy a bit in my tests, but your script is a little different.

@GendoIkari I didn't try Mine over Gold, but I did try Mine over the second Duchy entry. This made things slightly worse.  I had marginal improvements by changing the first Duchy entry line to "Duchy" if state.gainsToEndGame() <= 5, but I didn't think it was significant enough to justify the deviation from Big Money.  I tried varying a few other things too, but everything else made things worse.

One thing about mines is that when you draw them (if you can play them), they are effectively 1 copper. Yes that make your future draws better, but for that turn they are only a copper, so eventually a silver in place of a mine is better.

The best way to answer this type of question is using simulations. There are 2 Dominion simulators available: here and here.
Using Dominate, I ran some simulations of different options; here's what I found:
Buying 1 Mine is slightly better than buying 2 Mines. Very slightly; wins about 54% of the time.
Buying 1 Mine when you could afford Gold is slightly worse that buying 1 Mine only if you couldn't afford Gold. (Loses 55% of the time.)
Here's the script that I used in the simulator:
# 1 Mine
{
  name: 'SingleMine'
  author: 'Gendo'
  requires: ['Mine']
  gainPriority: (state, my) -> [
    "Province" if my.countInDeck("Gold") > 0
    "Duchy" if state.gainsToEndGame() <= 5
    "Estate" if state.gainsToEndGame() <= 2
    "Gold"
    "Mine" if my.countInDeck("Mine") < 1
    "Silver"
  ]
}

The Big Money part of it probably isn't completely optimized, but it was copied from other Big Money scripts. But I kept everything the same except the Mine gaining.

+1 I tried our strategies against each other, and they're so similar that I managed to hit 500 wins apiece from 1000 games!

The ideal state is probably that you draw one mine per turn.  Any extras are wasted, and any turns without a mine are less efficient than ones that had one.  What that means in terms of when you should buy another one would probably be best solved by a computer simulation where you try it different ways and see what gets you the best final score.

If your only action card is mine, there's not much you can do; just buy your first Mine as soon as possible to upgrade your treasures and maybe get at most a second one later on. But, otherwise, you have no other choice than just buying treasures, Gold or Silver. Still, this is not a situation you would normally encounter.


text:
How to prepare for a Mansions of Madness session efficiently?
I own the core game, and the Forgotten Alchemy and the Call of the Wild expansions. That means a lot of cards.
That also means that before every session, there is a lot of preparation. The worst part is sorting out the necessary Exploration cards. I love the game itself, but this preparation slowly drives me into madness... Well, this might have been the designer's intention in the first place.
Is there a way to organize everything in a way that results in less preparation time?

I'm with you - I've resorted to setting up prior to the main group arriving. Takes up to 30 minutes. I hate setting up in front of the other players, especially when we have new ones as they tend to want to ask questions which can distract during the set-up, resulting in potentially wrong setup and broken game that you don't realise till much later!

So far, I have found two ways to simplify the preparation:

Some exploration cards (and other elements) are only used in a single scenario. I separate all such scenario-specific components, and store each such scenario separated.
Storing the exploration card sorted alphabetically greatly decreases the search time.

This obviously requires longer pack up time as well to keep things sorted

Obviously. However, the net time gain is substantial.

You'd be pleased to find out that the second edition rules recommend we sort cards alphabetically =)


text:
Activation of character's effects (RE: DBG)
If you have enough decorations to activate lvl 1 and lvl 2 character's effects, can you activate BOTH effects or you must choose ONLY ONE of them?

From the ruleboook (source), page 10:

LEVEL UP!When a Character has received a certain amount (or more) of the indicated Decorations, that Character “levels up”, giving you access to more powerful effects to aid you in your escape. When a Character becomes Level 2, that Character has all of the abilities of Level 1 as well as Level 2.

So yes, when a charachter becomes level 2 they can use all abilities of level 1 and level 2.


text:
Is there a game similar to Bloodborne the Card Game with a lighter theme?
Yesterday I played Bloodborne the Card Game and loved it! The theme, however, is a little dark for my family (getting killed several times, collecting "blood echoes" which are blood colored chips, and an overall lack of bright colors). What games have similar mechanics and game length, but with a "lighter" theme?
"Bloodborne the Card Game" is a cooperative/competitive card game where you fight a series of monsters and collect victory points that can be lost when you die if you haven't cashed them. You start with five cards and gain only a few more cards before it's over that upgrade your character. It lasts 30-45 minutes, and is for 3-6 players.

Dungeon Raiders seems like much lighter game with similar concepts.
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/80771/dungeon-raiders

Cutthroat Caverns might scratch that same itch. Card based combat mixed with some take that.
Basically you fight monsters via cooperation but the player that deals the final blow gets the loot, so that is the competitive part.
Here is the BGG page:
https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/28259/cutthroat-caverns


text:
Nyet!: Bonus Card
Iello games published a trick-taking game called "Nyet!" The rule book can be found here.
The game includes a x2 bonus card in order to offset the imbalance of playing with an odd number of players (since each round is played as teams). On page 11 of the rulebook, it states, "This card allows the owner to double her points." Most of the times, this is advantageous. However, depending on the voting phase, tricks taken during the round are potentially worth negative points.
Is the player with the bonus card required to use it?
If so, does the bonus card increase the penalty for negative points or decrease the penalty?
It seems punitive to give the disadvantaged team the bonus card, and then require them to double the loss if the round is worth negative points.

IF Nyet! is a trick taking game why does it need an explicit trick taking game tag?

The tags page states "Using the right tags makes it easier for others to find and answer your question." It facilitates users that have experience with trick taking games to find the question and contribute their knowledge, even if they have not played this specific game.

The trick taking tag has a total of 20 questions in it including closed questions and is over 6 years old so I am not sure I would call it a useful tag. Wit

The use of the x2 bonus card is mandatory. The first player chooses the player on the smaller team that receives the card and should choose wisely!
This is from Board Game Geek

Where is that information coming from?

I saw it on boardgamegeek: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2029395/bonus-card-mandatory . To me, it doesn't seem right to be able to ignore the multiplier.

You should include that in your answer.


text:
What does Tarot card size mean
What does tarot card size mean?

If you're asking for dimensions, what I found is Mayday sleeves for french tarot cards listing size as 61x112mm

And FFG "tarot sized" sleeves are 70x120mm

Tarot is played with 78 cards and at the beginning of the game a player's hand is quite big (18 cards for a 4-player game ; 15 for a 5-player game and 24 for a 3-player game).
With an ordinary format (Poker or Bridge), it would be difficult to hold them, so Tarot cards are longer and narrower.
The measurements I found are 60mmx120mm.
More info (in French) on the wikipedia page


text:
In Hogwart's Battle, do villain cards negate rewards from defeating a villain?
The scenario we had was:

Dementor: reward is - gain 1 heart, remove 1 from location
Fenrik: heros can not gain hearts
Crouch: heros can not remove from location

So, if we defeat the Dementor first, is the reward essentially wasted, due to the other villains, or does the reward still apply since it is not a 'hero' triggering the effect?

You will not gain the heart or remove the control.
Andrew Wolf, the game designer from USAopoly, cleared this up over on BGG:

...  if [a Villain] has an ability preventing the Heroes from doing something, they do not gain the reward from defeating another Villain.

damn, that is what we played,but was hoping we were wrong

@WayneWeibel Yeah. The later years get pretty brutal if you get a bad combination of villains.


text:
Revealing a card in Harry Potter Hogwart's Battle
A dark arts event and villain abilities will have a player "reveal the top card and if value is X discard and [something else bad happens]".  What happens with the card if the outcome is NOT discarding, ie. the value is less than X?
We have been playing that it goes into the player's hand.

From what I understand, it just goes back on the top of your deck and you'll just know at least one of the cards you get on your next turn.
From boardgamegeek

Musketeer84 wrote:
If you don't need to discard a card, would the card sit at the top of the deck or move into your hand for the start of next turn?
The standard interpretation of "reveal" in most deck games is that the card stays in its location, in this case on the top of your deck, unless an instruction says otherwise. The only purpose of a reveal is to make a hidden card public knowledge.

Thanks for this. But would still hope for an 'official' ruling.  In a way I think adding it to your hand plays better - you get a benefit if you survive, and if there are multiple 'reveals' (eg. event and pettigrew) then there is the chance the next reveal triggers the bad.

I can't find an 'official ruling' on this, but I believe the card goes back on top of your deck.
If the card ONLY said "Reveal the top card." then there would be no debate - you would just look at the top card and return it to the top of the deck. The portion of the rule after the 'and' is a separate instruction.
So think if it this way:
1) Look at and show everyone the top card of your deck and return it.
2) If the top card of your deck has a value of X discard it and [do something]


text:
Can books be counted as books even if some points were used to cover points left in the hand and foot?
Say that partners meld and made one clean book (A's-140 points and one dirty book of 8's-80 points=220). The other team went out.  The partners had cards remaining from their hand plus those in their foot=300 points.   The points left in their hand and foot equaled more than the points left on the board.
Can they count the books as books (one clean and one dirty=800 points) even though they had to use some of the points from the books to cover the points left in their hand and foot?

Welcome to Board Games Stack Exchange! I made a few edits to make it clearer what you were asking and made the title more explicit. Since we have tags for each game, it isn't necessary to state the name in the title. If I misinterpreted your meaning, feel free to make further edits. I don't play this game myself, but based on the answers to other questions about Hand and Foot, I'm sure you'll get a great answer before too long!

Yes. Your score at the end of a round is always
+ points made in books
+ points from cards played (including cards in completed books)
- points left in hand
You can count all 3 separately and then add them together if you want. You don't actually need to remove cards for the negatives, but most people find it easier to pair up cards for the second and third and cancel them out.


text:
Does everyone need a set in a LCG
If you have a private gaming group and want to get into LCG games.  Does every player need to buy a set to build his deck ?  Or does the group buy one set and possible expansions and build their decks from cards available ?

This question is tagged [warhammer-invasion], but your question sounds like it's about LCGs in general. Could you please clarify what it is you're asking? (FYI, asking about all LCGs is probably too broad, since the answer varies from LCG to LCG).

Well yeah I was looking at warhammer invasion in particular , I wanted a global LCG tag but there isn't one, I took the best I could choose.
I had hoped it would cover all LCG's it's harder if it does not apply to all though :(

Well, there are plenty of LCGs and it depends on how competitive you want to be. The new Arkham Horror LCG can support two decks in the core set, although those who want to support more players will need another. The Game of Thrones 2e LCG core set has only one copy of each card, so some gamers tell you that a single competitive player needs three sets. Doomtown Reloaded (an ECG, since LCG is copyrighted, but it's the same thing) can build four decks out of the core set, but most competitive gamers have two of their own. As you can see, there isn't a universal LCG answer.

I've removed the Warhammer Invasion tag, since there's nothing in the question specific to Warhammer Invasion. Unless you'd like to make this question specific to that game, which is also available.

Tl;dr: One set probably suffices for Limited play, but you probably need more than one to play Constructed unless you want to limit what people can build.
Most LCGs (and ECGs, which are the same thing), offer two broad categories of play: Constructed and Limited.
In Constructed play, you build decks from the cards available, usually with some restrictions like a maximum number of copies for each card. ECGs I'm familiar with come with at most enough cards for a single player to build an arbitrary Constructed deck (sometimes many fewer, e.g. in Epic Card Game you are allowed up to 3 copies of each card but the set comes with only 1 of each). So to play Constructed, you'll probably need multiple sets, or you'll need to (potentially severely) restrict what each player can build. For example with one copy of Warhammer: Invasion and two players, you could decide that one player will build an Order deck, one will build a Destruction deck, and no one will use more than half the copies of any neutral card; with four players you could just assign each player a race.
In Limited play, you build a deck immediately before playing, often using a random and/or competitive building process. For example, there's often:

Sealed - deal each person a random pile from the communal pool, then let them remove cards they don't want until they're down to minimum deck size.
Draft - deal each person cards from the communal pool, then each selects a card and passes the rest to another person. Keep selecting and passing until everyone has a deck (or more than a deck, and then cuts some out).

There are many variants of these, and the ECGs I'm familiar with all support some kind of Limited play using only one set. For example, in Epic Card Game you can draft with up to 4 people out of one set.

Thanks for this explaination.  I'll keep this in mind for our gaming group, unfourtunatly our plans to play warhammer invasion went out of the window, you can't find the core set anymore it's out of print and very hard to get your hands on :(

It would help to note which ECGs you are familiar with.

I'm primarily familiar with the two I mention in the answer (Epic and Invasion); also a bit with Android: Netrunner (which fits the mold if you count a fan-made draft format). So perhaps I'm making broader claims than my little evidence warrants, though the business model does seems quite sensible and common: one set shouldn't be useless, but once you're hooked they love to make you buy multiple for the full experience.

I'm a particular fan of sealed play , at least back in my magic days.  I wonder if I can create something for warhammer invasion since the rules only seem to support draft (which takes forever).  Managed to get all the expantions after all buying from five different stores in three different countries ...


text:
Balancing Creature battles in a new card game
First off, I don't know if this is the ideal site for this question. I am thinking of creating a card game and am currently trying to remove balancing issues concerning  creature battle system (looks like MTG's). After some intial failed draft ideas I started to employ a few mathematical functions to make sure everything is balanced. That is why I am unsure if this question is supposed to go here, since it looks rather much like a mathematical problem now. I will leave most of that away, but I could explain.
So what do I currently have and what is wrong:
In the game, there are 7 types of creatures. Creatures have an Attack, Defense and Health stat. When health hits 0 a creature dies. Every type describe a sort of base stats for every creature of that type. So type 1 could describe 4/4/4 and type 2 6/2/4 (with attack/defense/health notation that I will be using from now on). So every type has sort of unique creature stats.
 When creatures attack the attacked player can decide to block with one of his/her creature (again, like MTG. Both creatures deal damage to each other). To check if the system is balanced I make a table that has all seven type base stats horizontally as 'attackers' and all seven type base stats vertically as 'defenders'. Then I check every outcome and look if a certain type has more wins (wins being that the attacker survived and the defender died) than the others.
However all things I tried until now did not turn out to be balanced, or really boring. The first system of attacking worked as follows:
damage to health = attack - defense.
When I could not
Then it occured that I needed another system so I came up with this:
damage to health = highest_of_these_numbers(attack modulo defense, attack / defense)
This produced really weird results because of the modulo.
After that I came up with some other unpromising systems, which I have yet to test some of these of.
The testing takes quite a while and I thought that someone here might have a very good idea to make it balanced. Or maybe, some people tried it and found out it is impossible.
So the question is, what would make a balanced system of type base stats, seven of them and a good health damage calculation?

Define "balanced".  Do you want some sort of rock, paper, scissors type arrangement where each creature type wins in roughly half the encounters?  Is that based off the idea that both creatures come in at full health?  Are there other considerations (for example, in MTG a 7/7 green fatty will wallop any white weanie creature in a one on one, but that doesn't mean one 7/7 will win a game against white weanies).  Are there costs associated with using these creatures?  Would having an abnormally strong creature with some sort of drawback / cost be considered balanced?  Etc. etc.

A good comment. Yes something like rock, paper scissors, but then defined by the number stats. This solely about the base stats that the types define. I think it is important to have a good base line to base the real creatures on. The game will resemble MTG in some way, so yeah effects come at the costs of stats or the other way around.

Forget fixed stat blocks decided by the type. They're too deterministic! Nobody wants to remember all those different number triplets! What should you do instead?
Use non-transitive dice
Each creature has a colour for attack and one for defence. When a creature is attacking, it rolls a die of the same colour as its attack marker, and similarly for its defence. The higher result succeeds, whether to hit or to block. A five-year-old could learn this game in five minutes.
How do types fit into this?
You could set each type to a unique colour, and each colour to a unique type. Then you have guaranteed a balanced competition in which every type has advantages and disadvantages in the same measure, and in a way that is determined by simple rules, but provides some chance of winning despite the disadvantage or losing despite the advantage.
I'm sure finding or creating a seven-member set of non-transitive dice is easy with Google available. You're definitely not the first person to investigate these amazing quirks of probability. Problem solved!
Or you could make this game interesting...
Who says Type X has to use red dice for boh attack and defence? Why can't they roll a red attack and a green defence, or a yellow attack and red defence?
By mixing and matching different colour combinations, you can simultaneously make your game simpler in mechanic by reducing the number of colours (from seven to say, four) but deeper in strategy (because there are now sixteen possible combinations, and they will all interact differently with the others).
Now creatures may be perilously weak against some enemies, but immensely strong against others. They might be their own worst enemy or their own easiest target.
But wait, there's more. Include colours that are always weaker or always stronger (like a white one rolling five 2 and a single 7, or a black one rolling a single 1 and 10 otherwise). Now you can build the type that fails spectacularly but carries useful benefits, or the type that will always win after striking first but always lose if forced to wait, or the type that is expensive but virtually unbeatable once it gets involved.
So how do I count damage done, when both need to inflict it?
You roll both creatures making an attack, and both creatures making a block. Successful attacks knock off a health point, or even just knock off the opponent.
You should not be aiming to guarantee damage for or to either side - again, deterministic and boring. The result otherwise is a MTG-style arms race where only the players who spend hundreds on cards and the encyclopaedic knowledge to tailor decks specifically to an opponent can win effectively at a high level, or knowing the only rules technicality that the opponent has failed to protect against.
This game has a simple mechanic, that everybody knows. The rest is all down to what you can do with what you have, and that's the same for everybody. The best player isn't rich or connected or a lawyer-in-training; they're a thinker who can take efficient risks for effective rewards no matter what situation they find themselves in.
This mechanic can be easily modified for expansion or depth. Bonus dice for surviving a certain number of turns?  Mirror effects that mean always using the same colour as the opponent? Rainbow marks that allow choosing the colour when you play it? Allowing weak creatures to band together and combine results?

Thanks for the reply! Although indeed an interesting system, it does not fit in my game. I should have added the game tries to prevent luck of the most kinds. The only luck is in the cards drawn from the deck. I do not quite understand the first part of your answer however. It seems to me that you misunderstand the idea of types in monsters. Types only describe base stats. A few creatures will use them, but most will defiate to some extend. If what you meant was about needing tables for damages, that is something I prefer above luck.    But yeah this could be an alternative gamemode.

So, one thought I had was that you could have combat be a series of steps.
Say there are 2 combat steps.  Both you and your opponent would, for each creature, have to split up the attack/defense between each step.
So, the 6/2/4 could split the attack 3|3, and hope the opponent goes for a defense of 0|4 and get 3 damage through.  Or could split 6|0 and hope for the same, or even a defense of 2|2.
Likewise, the 6/2/4 could split the defense 1|1 and be guaranteed to survive, or try to split 2|0 and keep the most life.
One consideration about this setup is that some battles would be unwinnable. A 4/4/4 vs a 4/8/4 would never be able to do damage, since the 4/8/4 could just split defense 4|4.

Thanks for the answer. So you propose a sort of gamble system where both players choose how many points go in a slot and then both slots are compared? I really like this idea. Unwinnable battles are no problem strong creatures may have that advantage. Obviously I would balance the seven type stats unwinnables most unwinnables.

I have now also come up with something entirely different.
What if I made a few (was thinking of three) different attack and defense stats? They would all represent another kind of damage (magic, slashing etc.). This way I might easily balance out the types and have a potential mechanic at the same time.
I have two ways to make the combat work with this:
-subract every defense from every attack point (negative not allowed) and then subtract the sum of the damage from the health.
-the attacker chooses what kind of damage will be used in the combat.
I will yet have to test this ofcourse.

Okay the way I wanted to test this using a brute-force algorithm... it would take an enormous amount of time. Unless I think of some ways to make it go fast, my own answer is not an option.


text:
Where can I find the value of cards from the Dragon Ball Z Trading Card Game?
I've got a bunch of old Dragon Ball Z Trading Cards from 2000-2004 that I'm trying to find values of, but I can't seem to find anywhere that gives me prices for any of these old cards. Is there somewhere I can go to find old card prices?
I've found sites like RetroDBZCCG, but it only shows images not prices.

You have a few options actually.

TCGPlayer: Will give you market price and median
Ebay  : Will give you what people are asking for the cards
AlternativeWorld: Seems a bit outdated, but it may help.

Hope this helps.
Edit: Also I noted that in your question you referred to it as CCG (Collectible Card Game). If you do your searches with TCG (Trading Card Game) it probably turns out more results.


text:
How can I make a game of Memoir '44 last longer?
Whenever I have a game of Memoir '44 I feel as if you take ages to set up, and the game is over really quickly, before you have had time to develop tactics. When I win I don't feel like a winner and when I loose I feel cheated. I have tried playing one army just defeat the other, and this became very boring for both players, I have likewise tried increasing the number of victory points you need to win and this has the same problem.

Well the overlord game certainly takes a little longer if you have the players for it (https://www.daysofwonder.com/memoir44/en/other-expansions/overlord/).  Also using more of the specialized units from the other expansions can prolong the game a tad.  Also the online version (https://www.daysofwonder.com/online/en/#m44) of the game is extremely well done, for me it's hard to actually setup the physical game anymore because online I can play games quickly.  However this hardly prolongs the game, but you can learn a lot more strategy by playing online and play other scenarios more quickly online.
If you are actually wanting to change the rules of the game, it's hard to do since Memoir 44 is very well balanced as it is.  What you could do is make units harder to kill.  Give all units "hitpoints" so that they require multiple hits to kill.  Also you can make up scenarios which are more difficult by adding units and more objectives and raising the amount of units needed to defeat your opponent.  I imagine you could use some of these methods as a handicap as well.

I will defiantly have a go at trying this, I'd never considered using hitpoints.

Do you play each scenario twice (switching side each time)?
This has a double advantage:
First, you set the scenario up once every other game instead of once each game.
Second, as the scenarios are based on true events, they are not always 50/50 balanced. The idea by playing on both sides is to get a global score (sum the medals up to get an overall winner).
If you feel it's still too short you might want to investigate the Breakthrough mode which can be enhanced by the Winter Wars Expansion

I do play each scenario twice but I still feel it to be a little short. I've had a look at the Breakthrough and Winter Wars expansions so thanks for that.


text:
Does the result of the last game of Euchre determine who gets to deal first in the next game?
I have always played where a new game gets a new "Jack for deal" scenario.  Playing with my nephew this week he was ADAMANT that since he and his partner won the last GAME, this gave him the privilege of dealing first.  I say a new game has absolutely NOTHING to do with previous games.  Who is right?

I would have to agree with you. A previous game definitely has nothing to do with the proceeding game. It is equivalent to playing a game then a few years later the winner is still able to be the dealer without the blackjack deal (well maybe not quite that far, but you get the point). But just clarifying we are talking about entirely new games, not rounds? If we are talking about games then yes redo the blackjack deal.

You're likely to get different answers from different people/rulesets. For example, the rules at euchrelinks.com say:

I. To determine who the players will be in a euchre game, the cards need to be shuffled by one (potential) player, then passed to the right for a cut. The person who cuts should then deal one card face up to each person who wants to play, starting to their left and continuing clockwise. The player who receives the first jack will become the first dealer when the game begins. The cards should be dealt in this manner, skipping players who already have jacks, until all four bowers are dealt. The players with the same-colored jacks will be partners. Players that don't receive a jack must sit out.

Hoyle gaming and Bicycle Cards have no instructions on how to choose the dealer. Pagat merely suggests that the dealer should be chosen at random.
This is similar to how many rules in euchre are chosen. With my friends, I play that anyone can go alone - whether you called it or not. If you defend alone and euchre the makers, your team gets 4 points. Most people don't play that way. Some people don't screw the dealer. I know of one variant where if the dealer calls it s/he must go alone. Most people I know play to 10, but some play to 11, and I've known some who play to 5 for quicker games.
When in doubt, I always say that house rules govern. If you're playing at your house, then dealer gets selected at random. If your nephew is hosting, you may have to play by his rules.

I play differently, or did long ago. When playing multiple games the winner gets the first deal.


text:
Is Risk: Legacy playable two-player?
I have Risk: Legacy, I have an 8 year-old son who loves Risk, and I have three other household members who don't like games. I'm tempted to try Risk: Legacy two-player, either head-to-head or with the Classic-style "neutral" faction. But since I don't actually know all the rules to Legacy I don't know if this will be fine, "just okay," or "crash-and-burn."
Given the audience "just okay" is playable result. But if it's going to crash and burn I'd rather not waste the investment and wait until we find/create a third.
Is Risk: Legacy playable two-person, or will game developments fundamentally fail two-person?

It is a three to five player game according to the rules because the negotiation dynamics are integral to the rules. With two players there can be really no good negotiation and the game loses an essential element. Tweaking the game would definitely be needed, especially in regards to some items found in secret passages.
So in the end, since you would play just as long as the game doesn't crash and burn, I would play with one of the 2 player variants that can be found online (basically both Players get 2 factions).

I've accepted this answer not because I know anything about its correctness, per se, but rather because it's what we're actually doing right now: each playing two factions under multiple noms de guerre.

In 2 player variants, if you don't draft "player identities", how do you prevent one of the players building up a lead (via victories and stickers) to the point of being unstoppable? This is usually accomplished by the other players teaming up, but this can't work if you're controlling half of the players.

Allied World Domination Risk
For 2 to 3 Players
Although Risk is best played with 4 to 6 players, the allied style allows a game to be played with 2 or 3 players by giving each player more than one coloured army acting as allies yet playing as individual players, thus, having the effect of playing a 6 player game.
Allied Set Up:
Two players:  Each player selects 3 different coloured armies.
Three players:  Each player selects 2 different coloured armies.
If you have more than one style of risk soldiers, each player can use a different style thus making it easier to visualize which armies are allies or opponents.
Allied Random Distribution of Territories:
Remove the 2 wild cards from the deck of Territory cards.
Shuffle the remaining territory cards.
Deal out the territory cards to each coloured army.
Territory cards are not exchangeable between allied armies at this stage.
These cards determine which territories armies will occupy at the beginning of the game.
Each player places 3 soldiers on each of the territories featured on the cards they have been dealt for each army.
Collect the 48 territory cards, add the 2 wild cards, shuffle the deck and place it face down on the board.
Allied Playing:
In allied risk, the playing order is not known until the first playing round is complete.
Players roll 1 die to determine who the first player will be and then play passes to the left.
Note:  The player, who placed his soldiers first, during the set up phase, does not necessarily take the first turn.
First player:  Chooses which colour they will play and sets aside an artillery piece of that colour to keep track of the playing order.  Then plays that colour as usual.
Next players:  In turn, do the same.
Once each coloured army has played their first turn the playing order is set.
Allied armies can exchange territory cards with each other at any time as long as the number of cards each coloured army has remains the same
Note: In Allied Risk, from time to time you may be required to fight your own allies that are in the way.  In this case it would be advantageous to roll only 1 die with your defending soldiers as you are trying to eliminate those soldiers with the least amount of attacking loses.
Allied Elimination of another army:
When a coloured army is eliminated, the player is not necessarily out of the game as they can continue playing with their other coloured armies.  The eliminated army must surrender its territory cards to the army that eliminated it, however, the eliminated army can exchange cards with allied armies prior to surrendering its cards.  A player may eliminate their own allied army and take its territory cards.  If the eliminating army ends up with 5 or more cards, you must immediately trade in enough sets to reduce your army's hand to 4 or fewer cards.  This is called a mid-turn card trade-in.  Remove the eliminated colour’s artillery piece from the, playing order layout.
Winning a game of Allied World Domination Risk:
In Allied Risk, when all opponents are eliminated, the game is considered to be won even if the player has not necessarily conquered the world with one specific colour as this objective would inevitably be attained.
Allied World Domination Risk Questions and Answers
Q:  Why would anyone eliminate one of his own allied armies?
A:  Recall that an eliminated army surrenders its cards to the eliminating army.  These cards can be valuable, particularly in the latter stages of a game.  It may be advantageous to retain those cards instead of having them fall into your opponents hands.  Also, you might need these cards to obtain a mid turn card trade in.

Please note the original question is about Risk: Legacy, not Risk. While the games start out superficially similar, there are many mechanics in R:L not in Risk. Do you have experience using the variant you propose in R:L?

I have never player Risk Legacy but the concept of one player playing different players in turn has been done by myself, family members and friends in many games such as Ticket to Ride, Power Grid and various maps of Risk.  It works & it makes for amazing games.  Are there missions in Risk Legacy?

Yes, and apparently also negotiations. Part of the game's structure is that one doesn't even know all the rules at the beginning of a (fifteen-game) campaign, which is the reason I couldn't just read through the rules and make my own general gaming-based judgment.

Allied Nuance for Missions:
Although players are playing with more than one coloured army, they still choose only the amount of missions for one player and not per army.  Each mission can be completed by any one of the players armies.  HOWEVER, each mission must be completed by only one of the player's armies.  For example; if one of the player's mission is conquer North America and Antarctica both of those continents must be fully occupied by only one of the players coloured armies for the mission to be completed.  Any coloured army can complete 1 or all missions.

I might not be familiar enough with Risk Legacy to answer your question.

My answer was related to the World Domination Risk & then elaborated into Mission Risk.  I am however familiar with teaching children on how to play board games.  Risk should only be played by people whom have reached the age of 10 minimum.  I am also familiar with teaching all sorts of people on how to play Risk.  First game is a walk through learning game to understand the process & explain the rules as you go along.  Second game is a real game.


text:
Do the benefits of going second in Yu-Gi-Oh! outweigh those of going first?
I currently have YuGiOh Duel Generation. Recently, I have noticed that some characters prefer to go first. Why would one do this?
If you go second:

You get to attack first
You get to draw another card

If you go first:

You get a lead in development

Do the benefits of going second outweigh going first, or does development really mean so much?

Well, one reason is because they are computer characters, thus they were programmed that way. But your question goes beyond that.

Obviously, the benefits of going second outweighs going first, or does development really mean so much?

This will depend on the type of deck  and strategy you play.
But generally speaking, many decks (specially control or combo decks) prefer to go first, as this gives them a head start in development, as you pointed out. In the current format this is perhaps more favorable compared to one extra card or attacking first turn.
Now days one card is not as big a difference as some years ago; it is now not so greater advantage, as many cards now have abilities to search or special summon.
Also, following a greedy strategy by attacking on first turn may not be such a good idea (by that I mean go all in, not greed as in avarice). As your opponent had lead in development surely some nasty traps or effects await you, thus attacking first is also not such a great advantage anymore.
Another aspect is that some decks "need" to go second/first, as per an intrinsic or key part of their strategy. Say you play a Lava Golem deck, you will need a monster on your Opp side to play your Lava Golem, so going first may not be such a great idea. Or say you play some control deck, or play with Traptrix. In that case you surely want to start to lay out your traps and control mechanisms ASAP.
So, to sum it up: in the current format starting with one card or attacking first is less advantageous than before (now many cards search from deck or special summon), except for those decks whose strategy requires or benefits from going second.

This is more an answer to "Compare going first to second"; You have not specifically answered my question.

@VortexYT :0 I even quoted your question, what other one did I miss? The one on the title? That one was also answered in my post, please clarify so I can edit

Don't get me wrong, you did answer it but only partially

I would've liked an explanation on the key pts I made. You didn't talk about drawing an extra card or any other pts I missed

However this is not your fault for I didn't specifically say

@VortexYT uhmmm... please read my answer again, as I did mention those things (extra card, attack, lead development). I'll enhance my answer in a while if I come up with new things to add.

Please explain to me where? I may have misread, but I don't think you did

"Now days one card is not as big a difference as some years ago; it is now not so greater advantage, as many cards now have abilities to search or special summon. ", or "Also, following a greedy strategy by attacking on first turn may not be such a good idea...", or "Some decks (usually control or combo decks) prefer to go first..."

How does that explain the draw one card?

I've accepted and up voted, but I'm still quite unsure what you have talked about. It isn't as clear as I would like it to be

And I apologise about how pedantic I am

@VortexYT haha no problem, edited my answer in the hopes of better readability and clarity.