text:
In Catan, can I ask how many cards are in a player's hand?
While playing Catan tonight, I rolled a 7 and moved the robber.
No one had more than 7 cards, but I still asked how many cards people had in their hand because I wanted to know who had the most.
All the other players told me false numbers and said they didn't have to tell me how many cards they had if I was going to use the knowledge to steal from someone.
Is this right? Am I not allowed to ask how many cards a player has?

Per the Settlers of Catan FAQ here:

Is it true that the number of cards in your hand is always open and
available information? Specifically, should it be readily apparent how
many development cards you have, but have not yet played? Or can you
hide the resource cards under the table or in your pocket so that no
one can see how many cards you have?
Yes. The quantity of cards you have in your hand is public
information. But the identity of those cards is not. If another player
asks, for example, how may resource cards do you have, right before he
moves the robber, you must tell him truthfully the number of resource
cards you have in your hand. The same goes for Development or Progress
cards. The number of each type of card (resource, development, etc.)
that you have is public knowledge at all times. (But, not the specific
cards, i.e. wood, sheep, rock…)

It's a terrible idea to allow players to dissimulate about the number of cards in their hand.  For one thing, it means that unscrupulous types could pretend they didn't need to lose resources to the robber.  For another, it runs the risk of creating a situation where everyone has to keep track on paper or mentally of what everyone else draws just to make sensible plays, and that would be a big waste of time and effort.

You could say something like "You need to count out loud to prove that you don't have more than 7."

@thesunneversets Is that site you linked official? It doesn't seem to have any correlation to Mayfair Games or Klaus Teuber.

The email address for rules queries given at that site is @mayfairgames.com, so I see no reason to suspect it of having been unofficial information.  A bigger cause for concern would be that it's quite an old site!  In any case, the ruling was and remains correct...

The link now requires authorization and can't be viewed.

"For another, it runs the risk of creating a situation where everyone has to keep track on paper or mentally of what everyone else draws just to make sensible plays" I don't see how one's plays would not be "sensible" without knowing how many cards are in people's hands, and if we don't trust someone to not cheat and not discard cards for the robber, they why should we trust them to tell us how many cards they have? And there's already a competitive advantage to keeping track of who has gotten what resources from die rolls.

As answered in the FAQ on the official Settlers of Catan Website:

Resource Cards - Am I obligated to tell my game partners the number of Resource Cards in my hand?
Yes.


text:
Trying to remember a classic board game
I'm trying to remember the name of a game so I can look up strategies for it for my discrete math class.
The game is laid out with however many rows of marbles or stones and each player can choose however many stones they want from one row per turn, where the object of the game is to have their opponent choose the last stone.
It's a very old game and I'm interested in the math behind the game. I just can't remember its name.

It's called Nim, and it's an excellent (and common) game for discrete math studies.
Wikipedia's article.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Do the Elf creatures put into the battlefield by Planeswalker Nissa Revane suffer from summoning sickness?
The 3rd ability of Nissa Revane Planeswalker is

-7: Search your library for any number of Elf creature cards and put them onto the battlefield. Then shuffle your library.

So the question is do the Elf creature cards put into the battlefield as a result of this ability suffer from summoning sickness?

Summoning sickness is a pretty all-encompassing rule of Magic, that overrides almost any other consideration in the game.  Unless a creature has Haste: if it didn't start the turn on the battlefield and under your control, it has summoning sickness.  A card has to be pretty explicit about the creature not having summoning sickness if it wants to get around this rule: e.g. all the red cards that all you to untap a creature and gain control of it till end of turn.  Such cards always have a clause reading something like "That creature gains haste till end of turn".

Yes,
From the Comprehensive rules:

302.6. A creature's activated ability with the tap symbol or the untap symbol in its activation cost can't be activated unless the creature has been under its controller's control continuously since his or her most recent turn began. A creature can't attack unless it has been under its controller's control continuously since his or her most recent turn began. This rule is informally called the "summoning sickness" rule.

Any elf with Haste ignores that restriction as usual of course.

Any creature in play that wasn't in play at the start of the turn suffers summoning sickness. So yes, the Elves will have summoning sickness. Here's the official rule:

302.6. A creature's activated ability with the tap symbol or the untap
  symbol in its activation cost can't be
  activated unless the creature has been
  under its controller's control
  continuously since his or her most
  recent turn began. A creature can't
  attack unless it has been under its
  controller's control continuously
  since his or her most recent turn
  began. This rule is informally called
  the "summoning sickness" rule.

Unless, of course, there is an effect on the board (like an enchantment) that gives haste to creatures, or at least to creatures with a property that the elf has.

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

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


text:
Recommended rules for 1000 Blank White Cards
I really like the idea of the game 1000 Blank White Cards (aka 1000bwc), and have played it a couple times. Seems like there is some variation with the rules (yes, there are rules) and want to get some recommendation for the best or most fun rules to play with from others who have played.
Thanks!

We played the game based on a badly remembered skim through the rules, and that version has stuck.  We also call it 1001 blank cards because we remembered the title incorrectly!  Personally I think it's better than the original game, but I'm sure many would disagree.
To set up, each player is given a pen and something to lean on.  A deck is created containing about 50-100 cards.  Most of the cards should already be written, and some should be blank ones.  Before the first game this will require the creation of a load of new cards, but we usually each create new cards before a game anyway.
The cards are shuffled, each player is dealt five, and then the rest are placed in a draw pile.  Each player starts with a score of zero and the player with the highest score at the end is the winner.
A players turn consists of playing a card from their hand into a discard pile, following the rule, and then replacing it with a card from the deck.  If a player takes (or is dealt) a blank card then they must create a new card, and place it at the bottom of the draw deck. They may then take a replacement card from the deck.
Each card must have three parts - a title, a picture and a rule.  There are no restrictions on the rules on the card, but we have a gentlemanly agreement not to obviously benefit ourselves with the rules - e.g. we tend not to create cards that say "Jack gets a million points".  The other thing to take into account is replay-ability, as any of the cards could end up being used in future games.  However, it is a source of constant amusement to be playing with cards that no longer make sense - e.g. "Score 10 points if you can guess how many baubles are on the Christmas tree".
When the draw deck is exhausted, play continues, but players no longer pick up new cards.  When a player has no cards that will go, and the draw deck is exhausted, then the game is over.
The major benefit of our version of the rules, compared with other versions I have seen, is that there is less incentive to create a good or bad card.  Whenever you create a card you do not know who will end up playing it.  The primary aim is to get the most points, but I think everyone agrees that the real aim is to create the most noteworthy cards!

Sounds like a cross between 1000bwc and Dvorak. http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/9010/dvorak

My friends and I have played something similar that we call "Justification." Each player makes ten cards (each with a title and a picture), and they are shuffled and dealt out. You then take turns going around and playing a card. You have to justify why your card beats the previous card, subject to the general agreement of the rest of the players.
Ex: I play a chair. The next player plays a sumo wrestler, who breaks the chair. A cheetah outruns the sumo wrestler. A zombie eats the cheetah...
If you're stuck for ideas for new cards, or if your deck is full of one-use cards, you can do this: Draw two cards at random. Make a new card that beats the first card but can be beaten by the second card. Sometimes you have to be really creative!


text:
Fixing warped board pieces
The pieces are usually kept in the box and not even used that much. However, I took them out the other day to play and all the hex pieces were warped. How can I fix this?

You might want to contact Mayfair Games -- doing a Google search turned up quite a few people with warped hex tiles as well, and the consensus was to contact Mayfair.
If that's a dead end, you can try flattening them with a heavy object, or glue them to some thicker cardstock.

Do you tihnk they'd replace my game or send me replacement pieces?

@MaxMackie -- I assume they'll just send replacement pieces.  If you can take pictures send them to show the warping, that would probably help your case.

Thanks this is perfect. When I have a chance to (finals), I'll take some pictures and send them in.

I contacted Mayfair a week ago based on this advice. Didn't work. The response: "I am sorry but I cannot help you. The version you have is an older 3rd edition Seafarers expansion which has been discontinued since 2007 and I no longer have any replacement parts available."

A very nice set of laser-cut acrylic tiles costs about $100 ("How much do you love Settlers of Catan?")

Have you used these?  How well do they work?

Note that the link is to a DIY page with files for use with a laser cutter; it's not a store price, and there aren't (yet) places where you can simply purchase this set or the 3D printer set that may have been the inspiration for these (or vice versa).

Thanks for the note, Dave. Yes, this is a set of files that can be used to cut tiles, not an actual storefront selling the tiles. I don't own a set, but I'm hoping to get them soon. When I get them, I will likely purchase them from Daniel Holmes of JNC Designs (he posted on the thingverse page) - he gave me a price of $135 for acrylic tiles, $115 for poplar wood, and $62 for MDF.

To flatten the hexes themselves, stack them and bind them tightly with rubber bands in all 3 directions across the six sides.
To avoid the problem of the warped hexes entirely: get a sheet of clear acrylic that is big enough to cover the whole board and border.  You could cut it to fit, cut it to fit and in halves for portability, or leave it square/rectangular.  Place the sheet over the assembled board and play on the perfect resulting surface! It will flatten the hexes while you play, but I'd just keep a right-sized sheet with the game.

If you use it, let me know how it works out for you, hey?

Sure, but I'd have to get my hands on some acrylic and get it shaped for me. Unfortunately the local hardware store is incompetent and will only cut in squares or rectangles (I know this from personal experience)


text:
How can I use Board Games to help learn English?
I have set two goals here:

Introduce my wife to board gaming
Improve her English.

Does anyone have personal experience with similar goals that could recommend a best course of action?

I was going to suggest Agricola... but then I realised that your wife would end up with an amazing vocabulary for living and working on a farm, but perhaps not so much for more general purposes!

Can you elaborate your question with some background on your wife's current fluency in English? Does she need help improving her vocabulary? With spelling? With sentence structure? With reading comprehension? None of the above or all of the above?

@Scott Mitchell - I'm not too worried about her grammar, but I am concerned about her very limited vocab. Reading comprehension is also another area she needs to work on, perhaps even her biggest challenge.

Possible duplicate of http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/2502/games-to-learn-a-foreign-language-or-to-enrich-your-vocabulary-in-your-native-lan ?

@LittleBobbyTables: I was thinking the same, but this question has two unique qualities: 1) it's specifically asking about games to help learn English, whereas the other is broader and perhaps even more interested about non-English games (although it does mention native tongue and several answers are English games). Also the other question is mainly focused on vocab, and while that's a concern here, reading comprehension is different. I say this question is good to stand on its own. (Also, I never got the joke of your name until you changed profile pics. I'd totally forgotten about that XKCD.)

@SystemDown - I've substantially rewritten your question to remove focus on the list of games.  I think by asking for specific games you are limiting your pool of responses.  Also, answers should include personal experience, a large list of people guessing at what might help probably isn't helpful (This really makes the difference between Good Subjective, and Bad Subjective IMHO).

One more question... are you interested only in games you could play together, or are you also interested in single-player games?

Tales of the Arabian Nights
This game has a ton of reading, but simple mechanics. You'll be getting a fun game, and an English exercise at the same time. Your wife will practice:

Reading English text aloud
Listening to English (when others read)
Reading English text silently (from cards / other private information sources)
Conversing in English (playing the game!)

+1, this definitely sounds like a game that you'd actively learn English by playing, as opposed to "a game that I like where the rules and cards happen to be in English".

yes that does seem to fit what I have in mind. thanks!

I'd suggest than any of these games would be both fun and really helpful:
1)  Snake Oil
Snake Oil is a party game where the players create a products to pitch to prospective buyers.  The game is a lot of fun and it is extremely rich linguistically.
Good for practising: relative clauses, describing, pronunciation of compound nouns, linking ideas, clauses of contrast, negative inversion for emphasis, making a convincing pitch.
2)  Deception: Murder in Hong Kong
In Deception: Murder in Hong Kong, players have to work together solve a murder case based on some clues that they are given.  The kicker is that one of the players will be the murderer! In fact there are a total of 5 different roles available, and these are randomly allocated at the outset with each role playing quite differently.
Good for practising: comparing and contrasting, vocabulary (common, everyday items.  Oh, and numerous causes of death), present speculation, making accusations, agreeing and disagreeing, making a persuasive argument, the passive for emphasising an action when the actor is unknown,giving a brief narrative.
3)  Apples to Apples
Apples to Apples is one of the classics.  From what I hear, it’s been quite popular in the US as a family game for some time, but it’s only recently popped onto my radar.  It is a fantastically versatile game and is a great way of engaging students to practice lots of different kinds of vocabulary.  From the original adjective version, all the way to idioms.
Good for practising: vocabulary (general + most idioms), persuading, explaining, describing.
4)  Once Upon a Time
Once Upon a Time has a long tradition in education, both mainstream and EFL.  So much in fact, that I almost feel a bit cheeky writing about it, to be honest.  I only decided to write about it as it seems to have criminally fallen off the radar in recent years.
Good for practicing: narrative tenses (past progressive, past perfect simple/progressive), storytelling, vocabulary (fairy tales and folk tales).
5)  Man Bites Dog
Tabloids are fascinating.  It’s extremely interesting how most are specifically written in order to be easily understood by the average native speaker, while at the same time remaining almost completely incomprehensible to most high-level learners.
Good for practising: passive forms, vocabulary (the kind of slang you see in tabloids), sentence structure and word order, narrative tenses, sensitivity to formal and informal register.
6)  FunEmployed
Funemployed sells itself as a satirical party game.  It is not wrong. It’s a lot of fun both in the classroom and over a few drinks with some less prudish friends.  Players need to be able to both think on their feet and spin a good yarn.  In short, this is a game for bullsh*tters.  With the right group, FunEmployed is absolutely splendid.
Good for practising: clauses of purpose, linking and organising ideas, negative inversion for emphasis, cleft sentences
7)  Sheriff of Nottingham
Sheriff of Nottingham is one of the few games which works just fine straight out of the box.  If you’ve never heard of or played Sheriff of Nottingham (SoN), then you should definitely try it twice.  Why twice?  Because you’ll learn so much about the game the first play through, that it’d be a shame not to play it again.
Good for practising: negotiating, bartering and haggling, agreeing and disagreeing, real conditionals (making suggestions), hesitating.
8)  Pandemic
In Pandemic, players cooperate to save humankind from four aggressive and fatal diseases.  They have to work together closely, use their unique abilities and carefully plan their moves if they want to be successful in finding the four cures and winning the game.
Good for practising: the names of nations and places, polite suggesting, agreeing and disagreeing as part of collaborative decision making, using real conditionals for speculating about solutions to problems.
9)  Mysterium
Tormented spirits, psychedelic dreams and a murder most foul.  Can your budding detectives discover who committed the crime?
Good for practising: present speculation, describing abstract images, comparing and contrasting, hedging (sounding less certain), agreeing and disagreeing.
10)  Wits and Wagers
A really neat twist on a trivia game, where it doesn’t matter if you are right, but whether or not you can guess which of the other teams is right.
Good for practising: present speculation, numbers, measures, comparing and contrasting, hedging (sounding less certain), agreeing and disagreeing.
If you'd like some extra materials (glossaries and useful language, then you can find this post in it's original form at:
http://www.teflgamer.com/top-10-best-board-games-for-teaching-english/

Dominion might work.

If you start with just the basic set you can limit the diversity of Kingdom cards to keep it from being overwhelming. Then as she becomes comfortable with the contents of one set you can add an expansion.
The basic concepts of counting money and actions and buys have symbols and numbers to help make up for the language barrier.
That said, the game is very careful about how verbs (such as discard, trash, gain, reveal, etc.) are used. That might be useful in terms of practically teaching the subtle differences between these words.
The cards in your hand at any given time may be secret, but the cards available in the game are there for everyone to see, so she can ask for help (hey, what's that card mean again) without giving up what's in her hand.
The English comprehension isn't really that critical to winning so she might be able to give you a run for your money despite your fluency.

I think getting a few card games that have English on the cards would be an excellent idea.
Of course, from a game standpoint, you want to make sure that not being conversant with the language isn't much of a hinderance.  You don't want to have to show your hidden cards to get a translation every single turn.  To that end, I've come up with a few suggestions off the top of my head, ranked in order from least to most difficult for a non-English speaker to understand.  All are good 2 player games, and all but the last one play well with more as well.

Citadels - There are a few role cards with descriptions of their powers on them, and a bunch of building cards, usually with just the title on them, but there are a few buildings which also have special powers listed on them.
San Juan - Each building card has their powers written on them, but there are still only a handful (20-30, IIRC) to deal with.  These blurbs are no more than a few words in each case.  There are a few public-facing role cards as well, again, nothing more than a few words each.

(Large dividing line between the first two and these two. Tread carefully.)

Agricola - There are a ton of specialty cards, each of which has a description of their power on them.  Only a fraction of them are used in any game, so you'll have to play a lot to see them all.  (Personal note: I own the German edition, and can vouch for using this game to help learn another language)
1960: The Making of a President -  Ton of cards, ton of flavor text, detailed descriptions of the card's power on each one.  Certainly not a good choice to start out with, but this would be a good test once you need something more difficult.

A number of English Foreign Language (ESL) teachers here in Japan have had success with Dixit. I've never used that, but I have had success using Battleships, Go Fish, my own board-game creations and, to some extent, Werewolf (aka: Mafia). I teach high school, from low to medium ability (ie: some students get confused if I say "hello" instead of "good morning". Most struggle with tenses and plurals).
First of all, you need to assess your wife's English level, because that will have a big impact on what you can use. For vocab, a game like Memory, but using words, might work really well. If she can, you could play Scrabble. I'd suggest letting her use a dictionary and maybe a few more house rules to balance things.
I'd really encourage you to look for "graded readers". They aren't board-games, but easy to read books that repeat vocab and build on it intuitively. They work very well. You may even find ways to incorporate the readers into your gaming, or find people who are building games around the readers. The readers, like games, work because they are fun and should not be too challenging. This is an important principle to keep in mind when you choose a game.


text:
Are Bishops more valuable than Knights?
Bishops and Knights are both traditionally considered to have a similar value, worth roughly three pawns each. However, I have heard arguments that under certain circumstances they are not so closely comparable. Are there situations where Bishops are more valuable than Knights, or vice versa? What factors should I weigh when considering a trade-off, for example?

There's a lot that can be said on this topic, but here are some of the factors that enter into my decision making process:

I have a personal preference for Bishops over Knights. This has nothing to do with their inherent value, but is simply because I tend to utilize Bishops better. It's worth considering whether you have a penchant for one over the other, because your personal play style may determine which is more valuable for you.
In general, Knights are better early in the game and Bishops are better late in the game. This is because, in the early game pawns tend to obstruct Bishops, while Knights can move more freely.
There can also be a difference in value between Bishops (the so-called Good Bishop and Bad Bishop). If most of your pawns are on black squares, your "white" Bishop (the one on white squares) has greater freedom of movement (Good Bishop), while your "black" Bishop's movement will be hindered by your pawns (Bad Bishop). Your Good Bishop probably has a higher value than your Bad Bishop at that point. A common tactic is to trade your Bad Bishop for your opponent's Good Bishop. This can create a slight advantage. You might also trade your Bad Bishop for one of your opponent's Knights.
Two Bishops is generally better than two Knights or one of each. Engineering exchanges that result in you keeping two Bishops and leaving your opponent with two Knights or one of each, may result in a small advantage for you. It's debatable whether two Knights are better than a Knight and Bishop. I tend to think so, but it's very situational.

Obviously, these are generalizations that may not always apply. Chess is a complex game and the situation on the board dictates what makes the most sense, but they are reasonable rules-of-thumb and worth keeping in mind. The real answer depends on your strategy, your opponent's strategy, and the current state of the board. That is what really determines the relative value of the pieces at that moment.

"Two Bishops" are generally thought to confer a small advantage over "two knights"  or "one of each."  The reasoning is that the disadvantage of the bishop is that it can only ever control one color, but a player with both bishops doesn't have that problem.  I've never heard that two knights is generally preferable to one knight and one bishop.

@BlueRaja I remember reading that somewhere, but perhaps it's just one author's opinion. It would certainly be situational. 2 Knights is definitely not better in all circumstances, as 2 Knights vs. lone King cannot force checkmate, while Bishop and Knight can.

A simple reason why 2 knights could be considered better than 1 of each is that the knights can simultaneously protect each other whereas any form of protection for a mixed pair would be one-way only.

@Todd:  No, it's a generally held consensus that having both bishops when your opponent has bishop-knight or two-knights is an advantage.  That is why, in annotations of grandmaster games, you'll often hear them speak of "the double bishops."  It's also why, when a grandmaster gives up his double-bishops by trading a bishop for a knight, it is surprising, and nearly always deserves a explanation.  It's also probably where lower-level players/teachers got the (false) idea that "bishops are worth slightly more than knights."

@BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft Sure, but all I was suggesting is that B+B > K+K > K+B. B+B is the strongest option, but I tend to think (and I also remember reading somewhere) that K+K is stronger than K+B. Were you disagreeing with that? Not sure.

BB is considered stronger than BN and NN.  As for BN vs NN: BNK vs. K can mate, while NNK vs K cannot.  However, since one very rarely reaches an endgame with no pawns, this is usually not a concern.  With pawns on the board, whether BN or NN would be preferable is exactly the same as whether just B or N would be preferable (typically, if the pawns occupy both sides of the board, the bishop is preferred; if all the pawns are on one side, the knight is preferred)

Oops, obviously the Ks in my previous comment should have been Ns.

One comment that might expand and ties into both the changing value of knights throughout the game and the good vs. bad bishop is that the relative value of a piece is a function of how much power it can exert. This in turn is how much it can move. Thus, knights have a greater degree of movement in crowded boards (on average but an upper limit of 8 moves). Conversely, bishops have a greater degree of movement (an upper limit of 13 moves) when the board is clear. (rooks: 14; queens: 27)

Todd wrote up a great answer, and points 2, 3, and 4, of his response are spot on.
My only addition would be to state that my preference for knights is based on the following:

For whatever reason, even at low-to-mid level play, you can often "surprise" your opponents with a knight.  Their non-linear movement pattern means that in one to two turns your knight can be wreaking havoc in ways your opponent was not anticipating.  This is less true at higher levels of play, but in general I find that setups with bishops are usually involving pins and get telegraphed pretty easily.
In late game bishops do have the ability to travel the board faster but if you are stuck with one bishop the king merely has to stay off the same colored squares ("hot lava!").  The bishop will have to be the "assisting" piece while some other pawn or piece actually performs the mate.
I'm personally partial to the ability of a knight to fork pieces without being in the line of fire for immediate retaliation.  That is, bishops have less utility to me when it comes to forking queens or other bishops in that they have to put themselves in danger to perform the fork.  This is, of course, entirely dependent on the context of the situation.

I'm upvoting Todd's post, but just wanted to offer some counterpoint regarding my personal bias towards knights.

It should be emphasized that this is just your opinion, not a widely-held bias by any means... in fact, in my experience, most low-to-mid level players tend to believe (or are taught) just the opposite:  that the bishop is slightly more valuable.

I'm not sure how I could have made it any more clear that it was only my opinion. ;)

One reason for trading a bishop for a knight is to inflict "doubled pawns" on an opponent. (It's possible but less likely the other way around.)
Former World Champion Jose R Capablanca felt that knights were more valuable with queens on the board (because their moves are "different"), and bishops more valuable after queens were exchanged. In one epic game (against Marshall), he had a bishop versus knight, and traded his queen plus a pawn for Marshall's queen, just to reverse the relationship.

I have found that there definitely are cases in which doubled pawns are only as good as a single pawn - meaning that you would, in effect, be trading your bishop for a knight and a pawn, in an exchange on your opponent's third rank.
One case in which this is especially and vividly true is after your opponent has castled; if you can manage to double pawns near his king, you can often make good use of the opened file.

@drm65: Removing a knight pawn (in front of an enemy king) is HUGE. It is sometimes worth a piece by itself: N (or B) x g7, k recaptures. Or Rx f6, g7 x R.

I'd like to play against you.  You sound good at chess. :]

@drm65: I USED to be good at chess. Some 35 years ago when I was the captain of my high school team. But haven't played much since then, am rusty. What is NOT rusty is my memory of concepts.

As a general rule of thumb, Knights are better in closed positions, and Bishops are better in open ones.  Bishops are usually considered slightly better than Knights because they move faster, and you can force mate with 2 Bishops and the lone King vs opponent's lone King; something you cannot force with 2 Knights.  It is really situational.  With as many times as I have missed Knight forks and Knight moves made by my opponents over the years, I never underestimate Knights.  If I am up the exchange, I would rather it be Rook vs. Bishop than Rook vs. Knight.  It really is all situational.  I think the value of 3 points for Bishop and Knight is correct. Although I have seen various books list the Bishop at 3.25 points; 3.5 points; and even as high as 4 points.  Most have Bishop and Knight as 3 points each.

Connected to this, the fact that closed positions can develop into open positions, while open positions generally remain open, tends to give bishops a slight edge.

Great answers here, however there are a couple of factors that I have not seen addressed.
The concept of "Good bishop" vs. "Bad bishop" has been mentioned, but it is worth clarifying that having most of your pawns on one color is not sufficient to make that color bishop a "bad bishop".  If the bishop is outside of your pawn perimeter, it can still be quite effective, although its avenues of escape may be somewhat limited.  A "bad bishop" typically refers to one that is trapped within your pawn perimeter, and therefore cannot threaten any of your opponents pieces, and therefore is forced to remain as a very limited defensive capacity.
Another key difference between knights and bishops is pinning versus forking.  As has been mentioned, knights are more effective than bishops at forking.  Bishops can fork, but it is far less common than knights forking.
However, knights are completely unable to pin, or skewer, another piece.  At higher levels of play, where you can safely expect that your opponent will be able to spot potential knight forks, the pin becomes more valuable.
Finally, the overall long-range capability of the bishop makes is more valuable in many end-games.  A knight will take several turns to move from one side of the board to another, whereas a bishop can do this in one or two moves.  This puts the knight at a severe disadvantage any time you are trying to put pressure on the king on one side, while trying to cope with an advancing pawn threatening promotion on the other side of board (or pawns on either side of the board, as Steven describes).

Michael mentioned this in passing, but it's worth making explicit: a lot of the bishop's endgame value comes from its range, and specifically in circumstances with pawns on either side of the board.  For instance, pawns on b2 and g2 vs. a lone black knight should be a win for the pawns, whereas with a bishop black can straightforwardly capture both pawns.

The value of the pieces depends of course on the position.   I've heard from sources like NM Dan Heisman that knights are considered to be worth closer to 4 pawns right at the start of a game, and that both knights and bishops on average are worth a "tad" more than 3 pawns.
Knights usually rule closed positions (where pawns obscure most or all of the diagonals) while bishops usually are very powerful in wide open positions.
Having an untouchable outpost knight (i.e. it can't be threatened by opponent pawns, it is supported by a pawn, on a square of the opposite color of your opponent's only bishop where he has no knights left) deep in opponent territory or even in the center can be worth as much as a rook in some cases because it's very hard to get rid of without giving up the exchange (rook for knight).
Others have already mentioned the bishop pair (having two bishops while your opponent does not have two bishops is called "having the advantage of the bishop pair" and is worth on average about half a pawn).
And as another tidbit, remember that two bishops + king vs. king can force checkmate while two knights + king vs. king cannot force checkmate.

The Queen is without question the most powerful piece on the board.
I have a much different opinion on the 2nd most valuable piece(s) on the board, at least for all beginning to intermediate levels of skill.
The Knights are extremely dangerous for their ability to threaten 8 widely separated positions at the same time and to immediately move to another positions that threatens a different 8 widely separated positions.  The ability of the knight to move 4 positions to put a King in check and at the same time threaten 7 other positions makes the Knight incredibly versatile and extremely dangerous.
Until a player achieves this understanding and is able to visualize the danger zones for both of the opposing knights, they are easily the second most dangerous pieces on the board.

the knight has a special abilities that the other pieces don't have. It can jump over other pieces. Also, unlike the other pieces it does not move in one line but I prefer bishops because knights can only move three squares at a time.

Knight is better than bishop. Better, because

it's much harder to calculate with knight-moves and this fact is VERY useful in 'everyday' chess games. (And this is the most
important argument defending Knights: you can suprise your opponent)
CPU is the strongest with Knights too.
Bishop and Knight are equal during endgames (in theory). - You won't know whether it will be closed or open endgame.
The  Good Bishop - Bad Bishop problem
Forking > Pinning... Forking is bigger problem :)
Bishops can not really stop pawns from reaching the 8th line. They must defend the 8th line or the 7th, while Knight's aren't
'compelled'.
2 Bishops can make checkmate, while 2 Knights not. But when will you have these situations at endgame? About never. Endgames are
about pawns. (And forced checkmate IS possible with 1 Knight and 1 Bishop, but very hard to learn the systematics)
You can not really hide from Knights. And if they made a check, it's hard to run. But if a dark-square bishop makes a check, you can run with going to light-square.
The only fact defending bishops is 2 bishops > bishop + knight

I think you (or the community at large) could improve your answer by providing references for each item in the list. For example, who told you that forking is a bigger problem than pinning?

For that matter, what do you mean by "closed end game" (this term does not seem to be in common use since the end game occurs when few pieces remain (it's very rare to meet this condition while all or nearly all pawns remain) see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_endgame)?

Official ranking marks bishops and knights as equal point value, and are as follows:

Knight = 3 pawns (3 points)
Bishop = knight (3 points)
Rook = knight plus 2 pawns (5 points)
Queen = 2 rooks = 3 knights (10 or 9 points)
King = knight + pawn (4 points)

Welcome to the site, and thanks for your answer. However, it doesn't add anything here: from the question it is clear that OP already knows the "official" point values, and is asking for a more nuanced answer. Also, I wouldn't assign a point value to the King without clarifying that the value is only a description of its mobility - in terms of trade value, it's priceless.

And the piece-to-piece conversions just clutter your answer without adding useful content: when I read "rook = knight plus 2 pawns", I don't learn anything that wasn't already obvious from knight = 3 points and rook = 5 points. Other than the value of a pawn, that is - why did you leave that one out?

Remember one thing though when you have just pawns left with bishops versus knight, you can put your pawns on opposite square as the bishop. But against the knight no pawn is safe.
I saw many endgames where a knight clobbered pawn the bishop. And vice versa. Every endgame is different it all depends on pawn formations king positions etc..
Bishop and knight are equal grandmasters know or even veterans know when one of them is better than the other. Sometimes a bishop is stronger and sometimes it is the knight.

Answer contains contradictory claims in poorly formatted sentences. Are Bishops and Knights equal, or do skilled players know saving one is preferential over the other in some situations? Can't distinguish what the intended message is in order to suggest an edit.


text:
What are the drawbacks of an automatic card shuffler?
I've seen people specifically mention they use automatic shufflers with easily replaceable cards, but what about if it matters if the cards get damaged?
What are the drawbacks to using automatic shufflers? Does machine shuffling cause any more damage than would occur through a normal riffle shuffle? I've also seen some mention that automatic shufflers don't truly randomize the deck. Is this true?

One drawback of auto-sufflers is that you don't get a truely random distribution. I don't remember the exact math, but if you cut a deck perfectly even and do a perfect 1-1 riffle shuffle, after so many iterations you end up back where you started.

@DForck42 Mechanical shufflers are designed to randomize the deck using different shuffle sequences — not just repeating a perfect riffle X times. For example, this shuffler has two settings, fully random setting is 1 riffle, 1 strip, 2 riffles, 1 strip and 4 more riffles.

@DForck42 If you can do 8 perfect shuffles you can restore a deck to it's original state http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lNk7bfkFq8

possible duplicate of Card shuffler for many sizes

as well as Please recommend a good shuffling machine

VTC — Exact duplicate of http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/1316/card-shuffler-for-many-sizes

While I do see that there is another question that addressed the fact that card shufflers can deal with cards that are sized differently than standard playing cards, they do not address the question of what are the drawbacks to using an automatic shuffler, so I believe my question is still valid.

I proposed some edits to focus on the differences, from the above questions, but it's still unclear to me if anything new might be provided in answers to this question. In particular, the [Please recommend a good shuffling machine] (http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/2605/please-recommend-a-good-shuffling-machine) answer---though not accepted---seems applicable. Maybe OP could edit more, making the question even more specific about sort of answer is desired.

Mechanical shufflers come in several types. The simplest are the hand cranked gravity fed multi-wheel versions... and are the only ones I've much experience with, having owned two. (Both inherited.)
These particular ones both use a wheel to throw cards into the central bay from two elevated bays.

some cards end up face up - I've averaged 1 face-up per 3 shuffles or so.
cards can get scratched on the metal surfaces
can't handle anything that's not "standard height" - it'll do bridge and poker decks of the 3.5" tall variety, but it won't do larger cards, as they get stuck, nor smaller, as they don't stack up in the center bay.
crunches over-thick cards badly. In other words, 110# cardstock won't work well, as home cutting results in being too thick to work.
Kem and other solid plastic cards don't grip right - increased flipping, and more manual downpressure required
older machines' rubber wheels lose tackiness, and don't drag cards as effectively
not quiet.

All the automated ones I've seen have the same issues plus

not stopping if a jam occurs
needing a source of electricity
being even noisier.

I've not used it enough to determine edge wear effects, but Kem used to note that shuffling machines voided their warrantees.

For a deck of 52 cards, 8 Perfect Riffle shuffles to get back to where you started with the deck. Getting back to where you started is different based on how many cards you are dealing with. For 24 cards, it takes 11 perfect shuffles (like euchre).
For mechanical shufflers, it depends on the type you have. If you have split the deck in half, then the top of one will always be the top in the final deck. And the bottom in one of the halves, will always be on the bottom. Thus, a cut should always be done to further randomize the cards.
One or two shuffles (mechanical or manual) is not sufficient to randomize a deck of cards. At least four is required. Beyond 5 or 6 is a waste of time.
Unless properly done (several shuffles) you will not get the cards randomized.

Every analysis I've seen on the subject suggests that 7 riffle shuffles are required to properly randomize a 52-card deck. Four definitely isn't enough, and it's not a waste of time to go beyond 5 or 6. Not sure what the point of your second paragraph is, as it's the same for manual shuffling - when doing a riffle shuffle, the top card of one of the two piles will be the top card of the shuffled deck. This answer doesn't seem to address the question at all, as it doesn't mention anything that's unique to automatic card shufflers.

The key word there is perfect shuffles which means you will alternate between each cards and it takes a highly trained person to be able to pull that off. Most people will not get anywhere near a perfect shuffle.

How does this actually address the question asked? The question is about drawbacks to automatic shufflers, not how much shuffling it takes to randomise, or how many perfect shuffles will revert a deck to the original order. You seem to completely miss the question asked.

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


text:
Name and official (?) rules for this cards game I half remembered
There is this card game I like to play whenever I have 5+ people around and the group includes some 'not so serious' gamers.  The problem is I have sort of forgotten the real rules over the years and I feel like I forget a few every time I teach new people to play.  Here is the basic idea:

Deal our all the deck.
Whoever goes first plays either a single card, a pair, triple, or 4 of a kind.
The player to their left then must play the same thing but with a higher number (if a pair of 4s was played the next person has to play a pair of 5's or higher).
2s are considered the highest card, playing one two at any time will 'win' the trick and let you lead a new card.
The first person out is the... president? Some title. At the start of the next round the last person out must give the president their 2 best cards, and the president then returns 2 cards of his choice.

Soooo what game am I playing?  Are there real rules for it I can brush up on?

I've played this game before and it was called 2s (but I'm not convinced that's the proper title).  The game didn't seem to present the player with much in the way of choices, and so I got fed up with it!

I have played this game under the name 'scum'.

Daifugō
Your playing with the "Deuce Means Clear" optional rule.

You are playing asshole, a classic drinking game. Rules vary, but here's a pretty standard set: http://www.webtender.com/handbook/games/asshole.game

There's a few names for this game: Asshole is the one I've heard most often. President or Janitor are other names I've heard when Authority Figures are around.
Wizards of the Coast releases a version of this game under two names - the old one is The Great Dalmuti, and the new one is Dilbert-themed and called Corporate Shuffle. (I've never played Great Dalmuti). These ones vary in two respects - first, you play down rather than up (so you need to play 4s to beat 5s), and the number of copies in the deck is equal to the card value. (Only one 1, two 2, down to 10 tens). This adds a touch of balance, since you can overwhelm the better cards through sheer numbers.

If you want to upgrade this card game to something slightly more "shiny"... I can recommend Frank's Zoo which uses these basic rules but has cute animals and some interesting (and varyingly optional) rules twists.  At heart it's still Asshole :)

Big Two
It sounds like Big Two, to me. Then again, Daifugo and Big 2 are close relatives...


text:
What is the effect of a scout standing at an enemy barracks?
A barracks add +2 to the owners Combat score and 2 Trade.
A scout allows you to effectively block or steal the benefits of an opponent's buildings by standing on them.
When I have a scout on an opponent's barracks what happens with the Combat score bonus?

Do I steal it? (His score:0 Mine:+2)
He just loses it? (His score:0 Mine:0)
Or nothing, I just get the trade? (His score:+2 Mine:0)

Military bonuses can be blockaded, but not stolen. So you get the trade, but nobody gets the combat advantage.
Source Blockading a Great General (Board Game Geek), from the the designer

Military bonuses CAN be blockaded, however, scouts CANNOT steal
  military bonuses (military bonuses weren't originally icons, and I'm
  pretty sure that could be game breaking).
Scouts can send home anything they're on top of except wonder
  abilities and military bonuses (even in another player's outskirts,
  even on top of a wonder, building, or great person).


text:
Can I play Marrow Shards in my second main phase in MTG?
Is it possible to play Marrow Shards in the second main phase after combat is completed? Marrow Shards says:
Marrow Shards deals 1 damage to each attacking creature.
My opponent played this card only to do the same damage with his Rage Extractor. I think he is allowed to do this, because there are no prerequisites like a valid target or something like that. If this is really possible, what happens to creatures that attacked in the combat phase? Do they still count as attacking creatures and so take damage from the spell?

You are correct: the spell doesn't target and has no restriction about when you can cast it, so you can cast it outside of combat to do "nothing" (i.e. just to trigger the Rage Extractor).
Casting it on your second main phase won't damage any creatures, since creatures are only "attacking" for the duration of the combat phase. Once the opponent has made a valid selection during the "declare attackers" step,

508.1j Each chosen creature still controlled by the active player becomes an attacking creature. It    remains an attacking creature
  until it’s removed from combat or the combat phase ends,    whichever
  comes first. See rule 506.4.

Note that there are still opportunity to cast Marrow Shards after damage is dealt but before combat ends:

During the combat damage step, after damage is dealt.
During the end of combat step.


text:
How many completed routes is typical in Ticket To Ride (for each number of players)?
I played Ticket To Ride for the first time yesterday.  I found myself wondering how many routes one typically "should" have completed at the end of the game if playing moderately well.  I assume this varies based on the number of players; more contention on the board means less opportunity to build for new routes.  I'd like to get a sense of this so I can calibrate my play in future games, and no one in our group has much experience with the game.  (Of course, knowing when to draw more and how to select them are related questions, but that's not what I'm asking.)
I understand that there are variants of this game.  We were playing from a set that was just called "Ticket To Ride" and used a US map.

In my experience, the answer to your question actually varies less based on the number of players (except for at the very top end) than on what strategy you prefer to pursue. This is because the biggest limiting factor for the most part isn't route competition as much as it is simply running out of trains (or time, if someone else goes through their trains more quickly) to build more routes with, and those factors don't change as much with the number of players.  So how does strategy affect the number of routes you complete?  Well, the core USA version of Ticket To Ride supports a few different strategies, including most notably:

A 'transcontinental' long-route strategy, featuring routes like LA to Boston or Seattle to NY (tiny note: I haven't vetted any of these routes specifically; my copy of the game is at home and I'm not.)
A 'hub and spoke' type strategy featuring many roughly-parallel shorter routes, typically around the eastern seaboard and along the Mississippi River corridor; this might include routes like NY-Dallas, Pittsburgh-Houston, Duluth-Houston, etc.

For the transcontinental strategy, it's not unusual to have just two or three routes successfully filled, and to make a large proportion of points on the routes themselves, especially since the preponderance of five- and six-train segments run primarily east/west so they're relatively straightforward to pick up while completing one's routes.  Contrariwise, a successful shorter-route strategy will need many routes to work, often completing as many as 6-8 or sometimes even more.
One thing to note is that a number of players consider the base TTR USA set to be unbalanced in favor of the long-route strategy, for various reasons - a player who starts with the right routes to pursue that strategy is more likely to be successful than a player whose starting routes force them to play the 'short game'.  If you have the opportunity you might consider picking up the USA 1910 expansion for the game, which does a fine job IMHO of correcting many of the strategic flaws with the original game.


text:
Order of events with Stitcher's Apprentice
My girlfriend has Stitcher's Apprentice, and she thinks that you can activate its ability, use the homunculus to block, and then sac the homunculus.  Is this possible, or does the sacrifice have to happen before the homunculus can be declared as a blocker?

Alex P has the answer right, but I thought it prudent to point out the principles you and your girlfriend are missing when it comes to the declare blockers step and playing and resolving abilities.
The Rules:

509. Declare Blockers Step
509.1. First, the defending player declares blockers. This turn-based action doesn't use the stack. To declare blockers, the defending player follows the steps below, in order. If at any point during the declaration of blockers, the defending player is unable to comply with any of the steps listed below, the declaration is illegal; the game returns to the moment before the declaration (see rule 717, "Handling Illegal Actions").

Note this well: declaring blockers is a turn-based action that doesn't use the stack. Therefore, if she wants to block with the Homunculus token, your girlfriend has to play the ability to generate the token during the Declare Attackers Step, after you've declared  your attackers but before the Declare Blockers Step begins.

When abilities are played, the costs are payed (everything before the colon) then the ability is placed on the stack. Nothing happens yet.

To be clear, one of the costs to play the ability is tapping the Stitcher therefore she won't be able to block with it in the Declare Blockers Step.

While abilities are on the stack, players may play any other abilities or instant spells and place them on the stack but you cannot end any phase or step until you resolve any effects, abilities or spells on the stack.

I point this out to emphasize that the Declare Attacker's Step doesn't end until the stack is empty. There is no opportunity to declare blockers until the stack is empty. Even if she could do something during the resolution of the Stitcher's ability (see below), she couldn't declare blockers.

Once you start to resolve an ability or spell on the stack, you cannot do anything else besides following the instructions of the ability. The only things that can happen is that triggered abilities that depend on game state may be placed on the stack for resolution later.

So the Stitcher's ability resolves:

Put a 2/2 blue Homunculus creature token onto the battlefield,
then sacrifice a creature.

She could sacrifice the Homunculus just created and any "when a creature enters the battlefield" triggered actions will still trigger and be placed on the stack to be resolved or responded to with other effects after the Homunculus is sacrificed. But the Declare Blockers step hasn't begun yet, so it wouldn't be available to block as it is dead. The Stitcher would be tapped, too, so it wouldn't be available to block.
(Oops, got this striked-out part wrong. "Enters the battlefield" trigger isn't state-based, it's event-based. A trigger would have to be written as "if you ever have X creatures in play" or something similar for it to be state based. Very tricky and non-intuitive part of the rules, in my opinion!)
As Alex P suggested, she could wait until the Declare Blockers Step, declare the Stitcher as a blocker, then play the Stitcher's ability. (Note he misspoke a bit. There is no "between the declare-blockers step and the combat-damage step" — the ability resolves during the Declare Blockers Step.)  When the ability resolves, she could sacrifice the Stitcher and have a Homunculus token on the battlefield.
In that case, During the Combat Damage Step, your attacker is still considered blocked, but has no creature blocking it, so it deals no damage (unless it has trample or some other deals damage as though it wasn't blocked ability.

Thank you for putting my thoughts into words!  I was trying to explain this to her but I wasn't doing a very good job.  Hopefully she'll understand this.

When an ability resolves, all parts of it are resolved in the listed order. You can't interpose any other actions (including playing another ability, but also including ending a step). So, you must sac a creature immediately after the homunculus comes into play (before any ETB triggers even go off).
What you can do is chump block with a creature you already have on the field (including the Apprentice itself), then activate the Apprentice's ability between the declare-blockers step and the combat-damage step, sacrificing your chump. Even if you end up saccing the Apprentice to its own ability, you're still trading up to a 2/2 and getting a body in your graveyard, which is useful in an Innistrad blue deck looking for corpses to enable cards like Skaab Goliath and Stitched Drake.

Also, strictly speaking, there is no step between the Declare Blockers and Combat Damage steps. The chump blocking trick you describe happens fully in the Declare Blockers Step.

Also be aware that if you it this way your sacrificed creature won't deal any combat damage to the attacking creature, since it's not there to fight. But the creature will be declared blocked and won't deal any damage to you. Unless it has trample, then it will deal full damage to you since there's no body there to soak up damage.


text:
What happens if a blocking creature with flying loses flying?
Lets say that both  my opponent and I both have a 1/1 white flying spirit. Now lets say I declare my spirit as an attacker, and my opponent declares their spirit as a blocker.  After they declare their spirit as a blocker I cast Turn to Frog, which causes their spirit to lose all abilities and become a 1/1 blue frog until end of turn.  What happens?

@ghoppe, you said "If you cast Turn to Frog after attackers are declared, but before blockers are declared, your spirit can't be blocked by that creature." Is there an actual step where you are allowed to cast instants and sorceries after declaring attackers, but before your opponent declares blockers? I was under the impression that the next step after declaring attackers was declaring blockers. Also, sorry for writing this as an answer, but I don't yet have commenting privileges.

Yes, players get priority to play spells in each step of combat.  1) Beginning of combat - priority 2) declare attackers -> priority 3) declare blockers -> priority 4) combat damage -> priority 5) end of combat -> priority

Your creature is still blocked. The blue frog will still deal damage.
If you cast Turn to Frog after attackers are declared, but before blockers are declared, your spirit can't be blocked by that creature.

509.1b The defending player checks each creature he or she controls to see whether it's affected by any restrictions (effects that say a creature can't block, or that it can't block unless some condition is met). If any restrictions are being disobeyed, the declaration of blockers is illegal.
A restriction may be created by an evasion ability (a static ability an attacking creature has that restricts what can block it). If an attacking creature gains or loses an evasion ability after a legal block has been declared, it doesn't affect that block. Different evasion abilities are cumulative.
Example: An attacking creature with flying and shadow can't be blocked by a creature with flying but without shadow.

The check for evasion ability blocking restrictions is made before blockers are declared, but is not made again. If the attacker gains or loses evasion abilities it doesn't matter. It's not explicitly mentioned in that rule, but it logically follows that if the defender gains or loses the ability to block flying creatures after the block is declared, it doesn't matter.

@brendonchives after declare attackers priority passes to both players, allowing them to cast instants and abilities.  then blockers are declare, priority passes.  then combat damage is done


text:
Can fire cross walls into another room after an explosion?
If you read the Flash Point rules, it says to place a fire marker on each adjacent spot after an explosion.  Does that mean place a fire on the other side of a wall?  For instance, if the fire is in a corner of a room, would you put fire in another room after an explosion?  The instructions don't say the wall becomes damaged, except from a shock wave.  But it seems confusing because if you read that, it seems like fire is placed on the other side of wall or door, without causing any damage.

Squares are not adjacent if there is a wall or closed door between them.  From Page 2 of the rules

Any reference in the game to Adjacent spaces means those spaces that
  are up, down, left, or right from a space. Diagonal spaces are not
  Adjacent. Closed Doors and Walls prevent spaces from being Adjacent –
  unless the Wall segment is Destroyed. A Wall segment with two Damage
  Markers is Destroyed. A Wall segment with one damage marker is
  Damaged.

An open door or a destroyed wall (one with two damage counters) does not prevent adjacency.  So in each direction you will either find an adjacent space without fire (which you will add fire to) or run into a wall/door (doors are destroyed, walls are damaged) or reach outside (add fire but remove it at the end of the turn).


text:
What happens to Mythos, Trauma, Keeper Action cards that have been used once?
What happens to Mythos, Trauma, and Keeper Action cards that have been used by a Keeper?
Are they discarded to a discard pile, and can these discards later return back to the game when they run out?

For Mythos Cards (Page 16):

After playing a Mythos card, the keeper discards it to a faceup pile
  adjacent to the Mythos deck. If the Mythos deck runs out of cards, this
  discard pile is shuffled to create a new Mythos deck.

For Trauma Cards (Page 25):

Each investigator may have a maximum of one injury and one
  insanity at any given time. If he receives a second card of the
  same type, the original card is discarded first.

Additionally, some injuries/insanities say discard immediately.
Under Component Limitations (Page 25):

Decks of Cards: If a deck of cards runs out, the players
  shuffle the discard pile to create a new deck. The only
  exception is the Event deck, which always ends the game after
  the last card is drawn (as listed on the card).

For Keeper actions (Page 10):

During this step, the keeper may resolve any number of these
  Keeper Action cards that he wishes (threat permitting). These
  actions are resolved one at a time by spending (discarding) the
  appropriate amount of threat (printed on the upper left corner of
  the Keeper Action card)

So Keeper Action cards don't get discarded ever, just the threat tokens. In fact, some keeper cards can be used multiple times in the same turn.


text:
What is the difference between the board game "Clue" and the card game "Clue"?
Obviously with the card game, there's not a board or tokens, but is the card game version just as engaging as the board game version? It would be ideal to travel with just the cards, but I'm not sure I want to purchase it if it is severely lacking somehow.

The card game preserves all the same important features present in the board game. All the deductive elements are still present, and the core gameplay is still the same - each player has cards which they reveal as you make accusations.
There are small thematic differences. Instead of the murder in the house, you are on the trail of the murderer. Room, weapon and person are replaced with destination, vehicle and person.
Instead of a board, players each have a destination marker, representing their location. You can move between destinations in order to ask particular questions.
What you are able to do on your turn is dictated by the action card you draw, so there is a little more randomness than in the board game, but also more variety.
Overall, I'd say the card game reworks the mechanics without losing any of the deductive interest of the original.
If you want (a lot) more detail, one good comparison/review is this one on BGG.


text:
How is Hnefatafl related to Chess and Go?
What is the history of Hnefatafl in relation to Chess and/or Go? Which was developed first and what if anything influenced the development of Hnefatafl?

History of these ancient boardgames is a bit murky due to their really old age.
The wikipedia article on Hnefatafl is a good starting point, but you can already see from that how vague the information is. Hnefatafl being played since around 400 is certainly older than Chess. In fact, it can be considered a predecessor of Chess.
A not so easy relation is that between Hnefatafl and Go - if it exists at all.
What can be said for certain is that written documents on these three games can placed in a timeline like this:

Go is the oldest with (written!) references dating back to ca. 400 BC
Hnefatafl appears around 800 years later
Chess appears again a few hundred years later.

What is particularly interesting is that Chess is believed to have originated in India, from where it basically traveled to Europe. By around 1000 Chess was far-spread in Europe.
As for the initial development of Hnefatafl, I am not aware of the influences. What is known is that Hnefatafl is tied very closely to the Vikings. Due to their enterprising nature they traveled through most of Europe helping to spread Hnefatafl. Also note that the end of the Viking age coincides with the time of the introduction of Chess, so it is not surprising that the latter continued to dominate the European scene for centuries to come.
Edit: In terms of influence between Hnefatafl and Chess, I'd wager neither significantly influenced the other. From the mere timeline it is possible that Hnefatafl may have influenced the development of Chess. But that would be a risky theory, as I am not aware of any written connection between these two and the spacial separation between Vikings and Indians makes it ever so unlikely.

So did Hnefatfl influence chess or vice versa?

Others have already mentioned the general history of the three games, but I can add a bit about hnefatafl itself.  The game seems to have similarities to an earlier Roman game, ludus latrunculorum, which was descended from an ancient Greek game, petteia.  Both of these older games shared hnefatafl's straight-line move and its capture method of surrounding enemy pieces on opposite sides.
The Roman game made its way as far as Denmark, and this is where the A.D. 400 date that everybody quotes comes from.  It's actually the date of a Roman ludus latrunculorum board dug up in Vimose, Denmark, in 1848, rather than a hnefatafl board (the back of the board bore the squares for ludus duodecim scriptorum, a Roman predecessor to backgammon).  Hnefatafl was developed, probably from ludus latrunculorum, some time between A.D. 400 and A.D. 750 which is when the first clear hnefatafl evidence shows up (a set of pieces in Salmo, Estonia).
From this I'd say that hnefatafl doesn't have any direct relationship to chess.  Petteia may have made its way to the borders of India with Alexander the Great, and thus seeded chess as well as hnefatafl, but there's no evidence for this.  Hnefatafl was chess's predecessor only in its social position, not through any line of descent - chess was a usurper.
As for go, I can't imagine that there's any connection.  It wasn't known in Europe till after hnefatafl had passed out of general knowledge.  There is a coincidence of the standard size of the modern go board, at 19x19 intersections, with ONE old form of hnefatafl (the alea evangelii, c. A.D. 924-939), and that board from Vimose had 18 squares along one edge, but probably fewer along the other axis.

Welcome to B&CG Stack Exchange!

Welcome! Do you have anything to back this up?

Thanks both of you for the welcome!From memory: for information about the Vimose board I consulted Paul Du Chaillu's 1889 book The Viking Age, which describes the items from the bog as being of Roman origin.  I've also seen a picture of the reverse of the board, possibly in the same book, but I'm currently trying to track it down again.

Apologies for the accidentally-submitted comment above. StackExchange won't let me edit now.
The Salmo pieces were described (with photograph) in a news item from recent years - the excavation was in about 2008 - but I'm having trouble finding that now too.
General information about spread of petteia, chess & tafl comes from H. J. R. Murray's books History of Chess (1913) & History of Board-Games Other Than Chess (1952).

I do not know about the others, but I can tell a little about the history of Go, one of the oldest board games in existence. There are various sources on Go history, but especially the early stages are widely different in each. The source used here is generally well accepted among Go players.
It is certain that Go was invented in China (called weiqi there). According to legend, an ancient Chinese Emperor invented the game to enlighten his son, though it is unsure if it was Emperor Yao (2357-2255 BC) or Emperor Shun (2255-2205 BC). Other sources (Encyclopedia Britannica) state 2356 BC.
Some even claim Go was developed as a game in China perhaps 4000 years before present time, but this date has been questioned by many. Either way, Go, a game that resembles a war and involves terms such as "territory" and "killing" has always been a popular game to be played at the court, slowly spreading to the people from there.
The oldest surviving reference is found in "Analects" by Confucius from the 6th century BC. Starting in the first century AD, there are texts specifically devoted to Go, namely "Yi Zhi" (Essence of Go) by Ban Gu. The earliest recorded games ("Wu Diagrams") stem from around 250 AD.
Starting 1050 AD, various books (for instance Qijing Shisanpian, the 13-Chapter Classic of Go), some still well known today, were created. Among them were problem collections as well as early works on joseki (patterns that are used frequently), some of those patterns are still in use by professional players today.
Go was imported at an unknown point in time (sometime before the early 7th century AD) to Japan, and gained popularity there as well as in China. About 600 years ago, Go became a widespread phenomenon with Go houses (elite study circles) becoming more and more important, later also gaining increased social and political relevance.
To end this boring story and return to the question: Hnefatafl, from what I gather, is purely Western and was in no way influenced by Go. I also never encountered either Hnefatafl nor Western chess in any texts on early Go history.
However, it is worth noting that there is a chess variant very popular in China. It is called Xianqi and probably originated from the same ancestor, the old Indian Chaturanga, as "Western Chess". It is actually said to be the most popular game in the world with half a billion players. However, it sprung into existence too late to interact with Go.

I see you ask about the origins of Hnefatafl, which are obviously hard to trace since the Vikings had effectively no written history.  It is possible that Chaturanga, a precursor of Chess, had some influence; it was certainly played in Persia and Iraq at the time when Viking traders reached there. There really isn't much likeness, though, particularly since it is believed that Chaturanga queens moved like Chess kings.
(Edit: it is entirely possible that these traders' tafl influenced the transition from Chaturanga to Chess, but there's no evidence, and not likely to be any.)
More likely is Nine Mens Morris, a game with visible similarities to tafl, and which was well known throughout the Roman Empire.  (An early version, Three Mens Morris, was known in Ancient Egypt.) I would guess that the long winter evenings in Scandinavia also had something to do with it.

authors: ครองภพ กองกันยา


text:
How can I keep track of things, in Discworld: Ankh-Morpork?
I'm lost. Flummoxed and worse, confused by this game.
I consistent fail to set up any sort of set piece, or notice when someone else is doing even the least sneaky, sneak move. I'm often in last place because I can't think tactically or strategically in this game (though in others, I'm OK). The one time I won was due to bluffing my way through as Vimes.
I think my main issue is keeping track of all the players, their pieces, and everything else. How can I get better at doing this?

Are you talking about Discworld: Ankh-Morpork? http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/91312/discworld-ankh-morpork

@seppo0010 yes, muxed up the title.

+1 for bringing this game to my attention - looks like something I may need to get hold of at some point!

One of the best ways to see people sneaking up on their victory conditions is to think like them. Here are the win conditions and some tell-tale signs for which victories they might be chasing:

Areas controlled by a majority. This is the most common win condition, so you should always keep an eye on this. It's useful to tot-up after a player's turn when they've gained one or more new majorities.
Areas with a piece present. A great tell-tale sign that the player is Vetinari is that they're placing lots of individual pieces (especially in non-empty areas, where the piece does not give them a majority). Cards that move pieces are also useful for Vetinari who can turn one "controlled" area into two quite subtly.
Money. Chrysoprase needs a lot of money, but don't forget that buildings count as assets (and are harder to lose). Players who buy a lot of buildings tend to be using them to consolidate their money as well as people who just have a huge pile in front of them. A great starting move for Chrysoprase is to try to get an early building that generates money (though that will benefit most players).
Trouble. The Dragon King loves chaos in the streets, so watch out for people who play pieces into territories they have no chance of winning and where trouble would be added. Also, be wary of players who repeatedly discard Watch cards that reduce trouble.
Running out the deck. Vimes can be a tough one to watch, and you shouldn't worry too much about him. The best way to beat Vimes is to win after all! Still, if you want to spot Vimes, you should look out for people who seem happy to tie territories without ever controlling them and players who are discarding and drawing a lot of cards. (Discarding the Time Monks - which shuffles the discard back into the deck - is a great one to watch out for too, because it can vastly increase the "deck size" depending on when it's played and most other players would be happy to play it.)

Lastly a general tip: don't forget that each player has multiple opponents. If you notice that someone might be close to winning with a win condition, especially if they would win at the start of their next turn, don't stay quiet! Let it become the group's problem to stop them from winning instead of just yours.

By "chaos" in the fourth bullet point I think you mean "trouble", and I think you're playing the "History Monks" card wrong (although anything to stop Vimes winning would be good).  Otherwise this is a good answer.

@tttppp Good catch about the History Monks. Looks like I have been playing it wrong all along (at least according to a pretty reputable source)

I've played this game ~10 times only, so I'm not so into the mechanics of it.
The dynamic in general is to avoid the other objectives of being completed. Every time you play you have to check each opponents' controlled (which is the most common objective) and presence areas, and the number of conflicts on the board.
Is hard to do anything to prevent everyone else of getting $50  (but there are cards that allow you to steal money of the other players, so that's also possible) or winning before getting to the end of the deck pile.
Finally, I think this game is not strong on the strategy and it's more of a chaotic and fun.

Wow I love this site..
Because I find someone asking about the same deal I had with this game! A rather unknown game which is one of my favorites. Anyways I contribute with my bit.
The chaos.. I'm lost!
The bluffing is heavy in this game.
The later stage of the game is very chaothic with the disasters and suspicions. You naturally have a lot of uncertainty.
The tactic
Is to play with this uncertainty, with this three guidelines:

Aim to be the less confused player. I mean, face it you will be confused
Keep one or two counters for that point of the game when the obvious may become the inevitable
Watch the discarded pile

With the first, really.. I love this game: If you bluff your oponents bluff. It's not enough to know vicory conditions of other characters; so keep your bluff up, eventually one player will be very suspicious; it should be you if you want to and not bee you if you don't want to. Apply to others ;)
For the second I will just give an example:  There some cards that take money from another player. You may be tempted to play it early in the game to get some cash.. but do you really need that cash right away?  Bear in mind that this is one of the few counters to Chrysoprase who needs to mint and who becomes obvious at some point of the game. If you use this card on another player it may be just the 3 bucks Chrysoprase needed...  This applies also for some cards that may seem useless sometimes like the one that removes two chaos marks.
The third is a practical reason. It's easier to see what the oponent played once the cards are dished than watch him move by move. Also, players who sell/discard cards, give away information of what they don't want; that's also easier to track.
But bottom line, it's best to play with some guidelines and just enjoy the game because if you play with good players.. they may outbluff you :).

The best thing to do is just try to keep track of who is controlling which areas. Most other win conditions can be achieved easier by controlling more areas.
You can look out for tell tale signs that they are another personality, such as Vetinari creeping across the board, but you should still be trying to disrupt their plans by reducing the amount of controlled areas they have.
If you can keep an eye on who controls which segments and who is setup to take segments you should be able to keep on top of the other players


text:
Will Return to Duty get someone out of the Brig?
The other day, when playing Battlestar Galactica, we had all (bar the CAG) been brigged, and someone drew the crisis Return to Duty card.

Turn 5 Crisis: Return to Duty
CAG Chooses

Any character on Galactica with piloting in his skill set may immediately launch himself in a viper. Then: Basestars Launch Raiders

OR

Basestars Attack Galactica
  Raiders Activate

Can the CAG pick the top one and get the character out of the brig? We ruled no, as it made it too easy, but it does sort of make sense to me (and comes with its own downside).

There are similar issues that arise with automatic moves of character's abilities (either moves into vipers or into the sickbay). We have a house rule that just says "you can't cheat your way out of the brig" for such occasions.

Is it really 'cheating' your way out though?

No, the rules are fairly explict about getting out of the Brig.

Players may move out of “Sickbay” without difficulty, but not the “Brig.” They may only move out of the “Brig” by passing the skill check listed on the location.

Piloting Vipers

A player who wants his character to pilot a viper simply moves his character to the “Hangar Deck” location and uses the action listed there.

Also from the BSG Errata, although it doesn't mention your particular example, it is a similar move a character from the Brig to some other location.

Q: If a character is in the “Brig,” and a card sends him to “Sickbay,” is he moved from the “Brig?”
  A: No. This reflects a change from previous rulings.


text:
What does the Skaven-themed expansion to Chaos in the Old World add?
What does The Horned Rat expansion add to the game? How is play different to the original?

The rats are interesting:
They are actually very well balanced to my opinion. While giving more locations for Korne to attack, the rat king can easily kill korne's units if he pleases.
They don't really ruin a region considerably faster, but seem to be balanced in their ability to score points.
That said I'd play with the default 4 powers if I only had 4 people.
Additionally, the expansion adds more difficult old world cards, as well as alt decks for the normal powers.
My players haven't liked the alt-decks, except the alt-korne one (you're supposed to use all of the alt decks or nothing). We haven't tried the more difficult old world cards (which are supposed to make mutual loss much more likely).


text:
How do I save myself from Khorne?
Chaos in the Old World is a game about stomping all over your opponents, either by dominating regions or killing them off! Khorne is particularly good at the latter, requiring to spill much blood to the blood god to win. This was an issue for me, playing as Nurgle as my precious lepers kept being killed and harshing my ability to lay down corruption. I can imagine it'd be an issue for anyone else too.
How can I protect myself from Khorne? What is his weakness, and how can I exploit it?

My feeling is honestly it's tzeentch's job to keep khorne in check, if he doesn't do it, he won't win either.  we house rule that in 3 player games khorne is out.

@Affe in the 3 player game I had previous to that we did the same, and it worked nicely. Poor Tzeentch was doing his best to keep Khorn in check but it wasn't enough!

Everybody needs to team up on Khorne, at least at the start. If he gets powerful early, he's hard to stop.
Khorne's biggest weakness, as I see it, is that he goes first. Early on, you should be able to spend some low-cost cards and force him to make his moves first. Then, put your lepers elsewhere. If he gets on the same space as you, see if you can move off it.
With this practice, my groups generally manage to keep Khorne in check. You'll still lose a few lepers, but as long as he's not double-ticking his dial, you should be able to tick yours or dominate for points. Later on, he'll be a spread-out unstoppable killing machine, but usually the game ends before that will cause you undue worry.


text:
Are Hirelings Looted From Your Dead Body?
At first we said that he simply loses his item, and sticks around until you're respawned...but then my friend changed his mind and thought that, given we were in a real dungeon/monster/treasure situation, he'd simply whistle over the hireling, who would be lost and afraid without a hero escorting him around. Listening to him, it almost seemed as if he had the hirelings best interest in mind while crafting his argument....hmmmmm.
I gave him points for originality, but told him I'd have to consult with the community here first.

Hirelings are just cards, like other cards. The rules for looting are quite clear - you lose all the cards you had in play. So not only do you lose anything he's carrying, you lose your Hireling too (he runs off somewhere)!

Death
If you die, you lose all your stuff.
  You keep your Class(es), Race(s), and Level (and any Curses that were affecting you
  when you died) – your new character will look just like your old one.
  If you have Half- Breed or Super Munchkin, keep those as well.
Looting The Body: Lay out your hand beside the cards you had in play. Starting
  with the one with the highest Level, each other player chooses one
  card . . . in case of ties in level, roll a die. If your corpse runs
  out of cards, tough. After everyone gets one card, the rest are
  discarded.
Dead characters cannot receive cards for any reason, not
  even Charity, and cannot level up.
Your new character appears when the
  next player begins his turn, and can help others in combat . . . but
  you have no cards.

All of this is just reminding me that I forgot to sacrifice my hireling, and instead failed my run away. <sigh>


text:
Where can I find good tile layouts for Settlers of Catan?
I just bought a copy of Settlers, and noticed that there was a suggested starting layout that is included in the Almanac. I noticed it was mentioned online as well:

"new editions of the game also depict a fixed layout in their manual, which has been proven to be fairly even-handed by computer simulations, and recommend this to be used by beginners" wikipedia

I have found a pretty decent tool for generating random boards, but I find myself flipping through multiple ones that place 6s or 8s next to their respective ports, or place all the clay on 3s, 11s, and the like.
Is there a list of user created recommended starting positions for tiles? Perhaps for tournament play? What do competitive players do to ensure variety and balance? I understand that the rules say to place the tiles randomly, but it can sometimes lead to long and boring games.
We have also experimented with a "drafting" of tiles as we lay them down, with rules about putting too many of the same resource touching, or near a port. I'm open to any suggestions in this regard as well.

Are you looking only for tile placement, using the default Chit Number tokens scheme for placing numbers on those tiles? (I.e. using the small letters on those chits to place the tokens in a clockwise spiral). Or are those part of setup you are looking for?

We use Better Settlers.

The Better Settlers Board Generator is for use with the offline board
  game Settlers of Catan. Not only does it allow for faster game setup,
  it generates a fair and engaging game.
We love playing Settlers. We've noticed that sometimes the game seems
  to be over in the first fifteen minutes--and no matter how fairly we
  try to distribute resources and probabilities during setup, natural
  bias creeps in. So we developed the Better Settlers Board Generator.
The algorithm for the generator is designed to create fair play. The
  result is more riveting and engaging play.
You'll have a better game of Settlers.

I have no idea what the algorithm that they use is, but in all of our games so far its worked fairly well.  There is also an android app.

In 9 hours I'm going to award you some bounty. Can't imagine how you found this, what with them not showing up at all when Google searching Catan board layouts.

From looking at that, it seems there will be a huge advantage to going last, as most location have similar "pips" and so choosing both settlements together will be very beneficial. Normally the advantage varies between going first, second, third or fourth depending on the layout.

@Nick I find there is an advantage to going last regardless of layout, or rather there is a disadvantage to going first as you are always going to end up with the worst position - 2 ok spots > 1 brilliant spot and 1 terrible spot.

@Justin: Sounds more like the generator deliberately weeds out those setups where its better to go first, leaving just those where it is best to go last...

I think a "fair" distribution of resources and numbers takes some of the fun out of the game, which is to come up with a successful strategy conditional upon the board layout, player order, playstyle, etc.

Short Answer: No, I've never seen such a list.
Longer Answer: it's pretty easy to generate reasonably fair boards for the starting tile assortment.
Remembering that the distribution is: Desert, 12, 11, 11, 10, 10, 9, 9, 8, 8, 6, 6, 5, 5, 4, 4, 3, 3, 2...
I would advise using the beginning setups only for a few games. (And for both senses of only - beginning setup only and only for a few games.)
Then, for the next several, use random tile placement and random port placement, with the fixed number sequence, but then swap out a marker so that
 (1) no resource has more than one of 6 or 8
 (2) at least one stone is in the 5, 6, 8, or 9.
 (3) it's may be worth avoiding more than 1 each in the 5's and 9's.†
and then randomize the ports so that
 (4) no port is touching its own resource -
  (4a) if one is, swap for a generic port;
  (4b) if two are, swap them with each other
I've found that after that, you should be able to handle any board that has at least one stone outside the range 2, 3, 11, 12.
Also, when you move on to randomizing number positions, make certain no 6 nor 8 is adjacent to another 6 or 8, and no number is next to itself. This is especially vital on the 5-6 player map.
The thing is, a "Fair Board" is merely one that allows all players an equal chance to win... but in general, no matter how fair the board is, at least one player in a 4 player game will wind up with a sub-optimal starting position. 2, typically, in the 6-player game.
Oh, and the longest game I played was a 3 player where stone was on 6, 6, and 8, and sheep were 5, 8, 9, 9. Wheat wound up 3, 11, 11, 12 - and never got rolled.
So, don't stress over it. Just make certain that no resource dominates in the 6's and 8's.

† only with novices do I really worry about that. Competent players can cope.

When I see a Catan game drag for lack of resources, it's usually because the stone is in short supply. Two factors can cause this: the stone having poor numbers, of course, and most of the stone being next to poor tiles (the desert, the coast, lousy ports like the stone port, other poor numbers). This means that cities don't get built for a while, which slows the game down, and development cards aren't bought much, which means you might not see the Largest Army or VP card bonuses accelerating the game end.
Stone is particularly vulnerable to scarcity because there's only three tiles, and building a city requires a lot of stone all at once, so it's difficult to trade with the bank to get enough. By contrast, if brick is in short supply, players can trade their excess wood/sheep/whatever with the bank at their convenience and often use it right away to build the road or settlement. Scarce brick is something that good players will be aware of and work around, of course, but I don't think it slows the game as much as a stone shortage, and I wouldn't fiddle with the board to make more available except maybe with a first-time player at the table.
If you want to prevent this from happening in a game you're playing, an easy house rule/trick is just to swap a bad stone tile with a good tile of some resource that's very abundant, leaving the number chits in place.
I wouldn't recommend extensive rules for setting up the board; any time you might gain in the play would be eaten up by the longer setup! I do not play Catan competitively, but I have a friend who plays in convention tournaments, and have never heard him mention any setup other than random. Everyone is playing on the same board, after all, and if one player takes a lead then the others have adequate tools available (the robber, trade embargoes) to slow the leader down.

I've played many of games of Settlers, and I think it's most fun to follow the normal rule of random placement (with pre-determined numbering).
The preset number arrangement keeps sixes and eights from being side-by-side, and depending on where the desert lands, there's usually also strong 5-9-10 points. And, that variable desert keeps it from being identical every time.
Sometimes there is a shortage of a key resource, and sometimes everyone looks at the board and groans, but that's part of the genius of the game: each is different, and you learn to adapt your plans to what comes out in the draw. If ore is rare and all the good ore spaces are taken by the time your turn comes up, then it's time to look at a sheep-port strategy or something else — even if it's not what you normally prefer to do. This is an important aspect which keeps the game fresh. It may not always be completely fair, but when you play several games, it all works out.
If you really like the idea of scenarios, take a look at the Seafarers expansion, which comes with a number of pre-designed layouts. The additional rules (including larger boards and multiple islands) allow for a flexibility which makes these more interesting than pre-determined boards for the base game would be.

When using Setup Catan you can select a Standard Starting Setup-up option for most layout. This will usually be based on the rule books from the 4th edition Mayfair sets sold by Amazon in 2009. For Seafarers, there are different defaults for 3-4 plays in the first four scenarios. Most of the provided defaults for combining Traders & Barbarians come from the PDFs available on the official Catan website.
I was inspired by Better Settlers to create this, but the algorithm used is entirely brute force. It takes the initial base layout and shuffles the tiles, tokens, edges, and/or harbors based the settings you select. The randomized layouts are tested against some basic checks all from the rule books, such as no 6 or 8 adjacent. This 6/8 rule is also considered when including Fishermen tiles. If you have combined all the additional pieces from the various expansions into a single box the parts list can help to set things up quickly.
To address your original questions with regards to Setup Catan.

These starting positions could be considered user recommended by me. I personally made the site and found that it has led to some enjoyable games.
I would be interested to know what is done for tournament play. This site tries to follow the available rules that I had in print and could find online.
For a more balanced game with some variety we generally shuffle just the hexes and harbor only. This cause the numbers tokens to be laid out according to the spiral alphabet pattern.
There are few additional checks that attempt to prevent an unbalanced or boring game. For example on the island scenarios the wood and sheep should be well distributed.

I linked to you in the question, if you read the part that says "pretty decent tool". I looked up your personal site from the footer, and from there, your bitbucket. Huge props for posting the site code publicly. Your source code for generating the tiles is an exception to the "ugly php" code rule.

Thank you for your comments. I did indeed notice the link; in fact it was the spike in referral traffic that lead me to this site. I did not know jquery or php before starting this project so it was quite a learning experience. One dirty little secret: I originally wrote the layout generation code in javascript and then developed a simple script to reformat as php.

This might be slightly beyond the scope of what you want, but if you're looking for interesting map layouts, there are a bunch at CatanMaps.com.  The emphasis for their maps is more on creativity than on "balanced" game boards, but most of the boards I have seen there are also pretty well balanced.
Regarding a balanced tournament layout, they have one listed that was used for the National Catan Championships US Qualifiers 2015 in Colombus, OH.

Have you tried contacting Mayfair Games and see if they publish the setups for previous tournament games? Or ask them how boards for a tournament are generated? I know that they print out sheets of layouts so they can build 10 similar boards but how the layout gets generated is a bit of a mystery. My feel is that some "authority" has to create the layouts and send them to all the tournament directors so gameplay at qualifiers through finals is "fair" for everyone. After a layout is used I don;t think it is used again so they should be able to release it in some way/shape/form for others to use and possibly practice on.

The pre-set layout is intended for your first game only. It includes the starting settlement positions. This means that if you haven't played before all players get at least a reasonable starting position, whereas if you picked starting positions on a random board it is highly likely that a novice player would choose a bad starting position as they have no experience with the game, and therefore have a bad playing experience.
My copy of settlers came with the pre-set layout printed on its own A3 sheet of glossy paper in the box, separate from the rules and Almanac.

After finding out that Better Settlers is available for Andorid only I wrote my own Catan board generator for iOS "Hex Isle Map". Algorithm tires to create even board by limiting max sum of pips for neighbouring hexes, optionally preventing clustering of same resource hexes, preventing 2:1 ports to be placed next to corresponding resource with high probability.
"Hex Isle Map" is universal app, support of 3-6 player, and contains both Settlers (First Settlement) and Seafarers scenarios.

I recently made Settlers Setup if anyone wants to give it a try. It's more-or-less the same idea as Better Settlers, but doesn't require flash and is mobile-friendly.

You can find board setups for Settlers of Catan on here.
http://menzgaming.com/settlersofcatan/settlers-catan-board-setups/
I just started to add Settlers of Catan game boards so the content is still a bit light, but I plan on having dozens for each version of the game(with and without expansions).

You have a free manual for fast and balanced map generator for Seafarers Expansion in:
https://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/219138/fast-and-balanced-map-generator-seafarers-expansio


text:
What is the name of this game with temples, volcanos and stacking tiles?
You build the board with tiles that are 3 hexes joined together, each has a volcano on it. You  stack them, and build stuff on them. Temples on tiles that are 4 high, villages need to have a certain size and there's a third building I can't remember.

Looks like you might be talking about Taluva.

Tikal
or
Java
They are both part of the Mask Trilogy of games created by Wolfgang Kramer and Michael Kiesling.  Mexica is the third.

I played Tikal once and really enjoyed it - certainly matches the description by the OP!


text:
What are "attack" Spells?
In the rules, it says

Attacking a monster does not require making an evade test.  This
  attack may be unarmed, with a weapon, or with an “attack”  Spell card.
  This attack does not need to target a monster in the  investigator’s
  space.

You can avoid the evade test if casting an attack spell. So what spells are considered "attack" spells?

Bind Monster and Shriveling are both Attack Spells.  Just under the title of the card is the phrase, Spell, Attack.
Bind Monster will stun the target while Shriveling will do a good amount of damage if you pass the test to cast them.
Gloria Goldberg can start with Bind Monster while Harvey Walters can start with Shriveling.  Otherwise you will have to gain the spells during play by reading a tome.