text:
In Pandemic, when does the discard-over-7-cards rule take effect?
Scenario
Pandemic's excess card rule states that if you have more than 7 cards in your hand at any time, you must discard the excess (according to your preference, of course).
Let's say you're the Scientist, have 5 city cards and 2 special cards (like the airlift, or research center build card). The Researcher comes to town and gives you the remaining 1 color city card that will allow you to cure a disease as soon as you get to a research facility.
Let's also say there's only two players (Researcher and Scientist). And that this is the last color that needs to be cured.
This takes you to 8 cards - over the amount allowed.
Question
When do I, as the Scientist, need to play / discard my excess cards (in this case, let's take the two special cards as the ones to play) so I am not in violation of the excess card rule, but also so I maximize the value of the Researcher's endowment of city cards?

edited to reflect the limit of 7 vs 8, as noted by Gendolkari

First, note that the hand limit is 7 cards, NOT 8 cards!
You cannot hold more than 7 cards in your hand for any length of time. This means that while you are holding 7 cards, the researcher cannot give you 2 cards. Actions are one at a time, so first the researcher would give you a card, at which point you would be over the limit. Before any other action is taken, you must discard down to the hand limit. Once you are at 7 again, the researcher can give you another card now, at which point you will need to discard again.
You can play special event cards instead of discarding, however. So the answer to your question is that you need to play/discard your excess cards immediately, before any other action is taken.
From the rules:

If you ever have more than 7 cards in hand (after first resolving any
  Epidemic cards you may have drawn), discard cards or play Event cards
  until you have 7 cards in hand (see Event Cards on page 7).

and under the Share Knowledge action details:

If the player who gets the card now has more than 7 cards, that player must
  immediately discard a card or play an Event card (see Event Cards on page 7).

good point - though the question remains, just with the reduced number :) .. updated the question to reflect the proper number :)

@warren, I'm not sure what part of the question you feel remains unanswered by my answer. The answer is "immediately."

@Gendolkari - perhaps I could've worded it better .. I mean the question still stands, just edited to 7 from 8: your answer is exactly what I was looking for in a clarification :)

I still think this question is fair. The rule about Hand Limit falls as a subheading under the main heading of “DRAW CARDS”. The aside about resolving infections further strengthens the argument that this rule is about drawing cards at the end of your turn, not at any time in the game.

Aha, we found the deterministic answer. At the very end of the rule book, there is a section titled “Commonly Overlooked Rules,” and it specifically states: “Your hand limit applies immediately after getting a card from another player.”

@Rob: That's just the order they decided to lay out the rulebook. The actual rule on Hand Limit is generically applied whenever one player receives cards (e.g. due to drawing, Share Knowledge, etc.) The rulebook could do with a Catan-style index of key concepts and their page no.


text:
Is pawn promotion to rook or bishop something that is seen in play?
Reading What is the proper Algebraic Notation for a pawn being promoted? made me wonder whether pawn promotion to rook or bishop ever happens.  The only time I can think this might happen is when promotion to a queen would provide stalemate.
Are there any other situations where one might choose a rook or bishop over a queen (or knight)?  Secondly, has this ever been a case where promotion to a rook/bishop gave an advantage in an actual game?

Preferably answers to the second question should be between players of some repute, but if you've ever seen any game where this happened I'd be interested.

I love this question, particularly the fact that it contains an answer that had never occurred to me - to prevent stalemate. I only play chess at a 1500 level, I guess it shows :)

@tttppp: Did you see the new chess.SE site?  Just thought you might be interested, since you asked this question.

See this Chess Stack Exchange question: What are some examples of promoting a pawn to a rook or bishop?

I happen to find that a King and Rook mate is easier for me to engineer than a King and Queen mate. Because of this, I will often promote to a Rook if there are only those 3 pieces on the board.

Under-promotion to bishop/rook happens from time-to-time.  I've only seen it in three cases:

The pawn will be captured regardless of what it's promoted to, and the promoting player wants to be cocky
It's checkmate with just a bishop or just a rook, and the promoting player wants to be cocky (in those cases, a queen would mate also)
Promoting to a queen is stalemate

Of those, the only one that's interesting is #3.  It's extremely rare, but has happened in tournament games.  For example, in the game Ruben - Sultan Khan, 1930:

Playing 1. f8=Q leaves Black in stalemate, but 1. f8=R does not (though 1. Kf6! would have been better :) )

Here is another example (Vasiukov - Tukmakov, 1976)

White, in a last-ditch effort, played 1. Rg1+ -  1.. hxg1=Q would be stalemate!  Black responded 1.. hxg1=R! 0-1

Under-promotion to knight is more common (though still very rare) than to rook/bishop because, unlike rooks/bishops, the knight has the possibility to attack squares the queen cannot, which can sometimes be necessary to win material or force checkmate.

Isn't your second one also an example of #3?  White's laying a little trap; hxg1=Q is stalemate, so if Black wants to capture the rook he has to underpromote... (obviously h1=Q+ wins too, but Black comes out further ahead on material with the underpromotion).

@Steven: Yes you're correct - cripes, I didn't even notice that!!  I've edited that into my answer.

Thanks, this answer is great!  In the second example I'm not sure I would have spotted the stalemate (but then again I'm not a grandmaster!)

@Steven h1=Q+ would not "obviously" have won, because it is illegal.

Link for the first game: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1135506 Link for the second game: http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1368406

I have seen situations where under-promotion to a rook or bishop has been a key move to prevent a stalemate.  Without going into two much detail, its possible for the opponent to place his King in a place whereby your pawn being promoted stalemates him, but an under-promotion to a rook or a bishop leaves a square unthreatened for the opponent's king to move into.  Unfortunately, the situations I've seen where in semi-casual or academic play, and I have no citations involving players of note or repute in these scenarios.

Tim Krabbé compiled a list of over 40 serious examples of promotion to rook and bishop, including some seen in the top answers.

Welcome to Board & Card Games! Whilst this may theoretically answer the question, it would be preferable to include the essential parts of the answer here, and provide the link for reference.

This mentions the possibility of underpromoting to create uncertainty on the board, something I haven't seen mentioned before: "Had he played h1Q+ or h1R, White would have had to capture, but now he had to think". It would be great to update this answer with a summary of that page and some examples.

This is really a link only answer - I would recommend deletion but the the up votes prevent that. Please explain the content of the link in your post if the website is taken down or the page location on the site changes, the link will become dead and this answer gives very little else.

@Glorfindel Are you suggesting that they list all 40 examples in their answer?

@Acccumulation no, but it's still possible to give a summary of the page and perhaps one or two of the more interesting ones.

If you have a winning position but you are running out of time, then you'll want to be able to deliver checkmate without having to think for too long about each move.  In these situations a rook can be safer than a queen because you are less likely to accidentally put your opponent in stalemate, even if you could have delivered mate with a queen had you more time to think about your moves.  For this reason I have seen blitz games at lower levels where the winning player promotes to rook to safely finish it off.  But I'm not aware of this having been done at master level or in slow games.

As a low-rated player enjoying games with tight time controls, I very often promote to a rook instead of a queen. The reason is slightly different from the other answers: not so much to prevent instant stalemate, but to prevent running into accidental stalemate down the line, while trying to mate my opponent through ladder-mate or a king and rook endgame.
To the second question, if this "an actual advantage"... for a low rated player, it can be. Needing less mental capacity to prevent stalemates while checkmating in a low-time situation is an advantage to me.

When an opponent refuses to resign in a hopeless position, I will often promote to a rook, bishop or knight.  It makes the end game much more interesting, and sharpens my lesser-piece endgames.

If black move and selects Q then it's stalemate.

And also a checkmate next step if you chose a rook.

This does no provide an answer to the question. The asker stated in the question that they're aware of the possibility of using this to avoid a stalemate; they wanted to know about real games where it has happened; or other reasons it might happen.

Readers may be interested in the following link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1dgrvlWML4
in which the great physicist Richard Feynman made use
of promotion to bishop, specifically, in an entertaining analogy between theoretical physics and chess. Perhaps I missed it, but I
did not see in the discussion above a case occurring in a recorded
game where bishop promotion gave a result which other promotions would not.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
How can I set up a game of the Resistance without anyone needing to close their eyes?
Thinking about this question reminded me of a problem I thought of some time back.
I love playing the Resistance (particularly with the plot cards), but I always find the eyes closed, open, closed, open business slightly awkward.  This is particularly the case if there is someone in the group that I don't know very well, or who hasn't played before.
For anyone unfamiliar with the game, the setup is as follows:

Everyone watches while a deck of role cards is created with x good and y bad cards where x+y is the number of players (the exact values of x and y are given in the rules, but it's not relevant for the question).
All players are dealt a role card telling them whether they are good or bad.
All players close their eyes.
All bad guys open their eyes and look at each other.
All bad guys close their eyes.
All players open their eyes.

The result is:

Everyone knows how many bad guys there are.
The bad guys know who each other are.
The good guys have equal suspicion of all other players.

Is there a neat* way to initialise the game without players having to close their eyes?

* In particular a way that doesn't require a computer or a moderator.

I can imagine a digital solution where everyone passes around a phone and it tells everyone what they need to know.  I do not know of such a solution though

@Andrey I guess that this would end up the same as having a computer moderating, which is a fairly neat solution, but I was wondering if there was a cards only solution as in the other question.

This solution would work, though it may take a minute to perform. For p players, with t traitors and n "normals", you need:

t "You are a traitor" cards and n "You are a normal" cards, obviously
p "player" cards marked with unique colours (or numbers or whatever)
1 card with an identical back to the player cards and a blank face (a kind of joker)

Deal each person a "Traitor/Normal" card so they know their faction, then the process is:

Everyone takes a coloured "player" card. Show them publicly since they identify each player.
Everyone holds their player cards with their hands under the table.
The first player takes the blank card face-down under the table too.
Players will pass the spare card around under the table, BUT, if they are a traitor, they will instead pass their own player card.
Once the spare card gets back to the leader, he should keep it face-down on the table, since it reveals the identity of a traitor! Then, everyone secretly looks at their card. Normals will see their own card again, of course, but traitors will see the card of one other traitor (or the joker if they were the first traitor).
Perform steps 4 and 5 a total of t+1 times.
Now all players (including traitors) should have their own cards back and the leader can flip the joker to reveal that it IS the joker. If it isn't, someone cheated/messed up. The traitors should have each learnt a new traitor's identity on each lap (except for one). Everyone should reveal their colours again to remind everyone what they were (though it's only relevant for traitors).

A detailed example
Alan (Red), Ben (Blue), Chris (Green) and Dave (Yellow) are sitting round a table. Ben and Chris are traitors. Alan, the leader, takes the joker and, because he is not a traitor, passes it to Ben. Ben IS a traitor so he keeps the joker and passes his own card to Chris. Chris - a traitor - keeps Ben's card and passes his card to Dave, who, being a normal, passes it on back to Alan. Alan puts it face-down to one side.
Everyone looks at their cards. Alan and Dave see their own. Ben sees the joker (so he can already deduce that Alan is not a traitor). Chris sees the blue card (Ben's), so he knows his co-traitor.
Alan now takes the face-down card (Chris' green card) and passes it again. After they repeat the process, Ben has Chris' card and Chris has the joker. Then they perform the rotation one more time so that the traitors both get their cards back and the joker is flushed out.
Everyone reveals their coloured cards and Chris confirms the owner of the blue card, while Ben confirms the owner of the green card. The game begins.

+1 This sounds perfect. The coloured cards can be replaced with numbered cards representing how far around the table people are sitting. This could then be done with a standard pack of playing cards.

@tttppp Glad I could help; it's definitely an interesting question! My only concern with this solution is that it may be a little complex. If you're not a traitor it's fine; you just pass some cards. But if you're a traitor, you need to remember the cards that have gone past and then "translate" that into faces when you're done. It could be easy to make mistakes, especially if you're trying to look like you don't care (i.e. bluffing that you're not a traitor).

You've got a secret channel (the role cards) and the ability to broadcast a shared secret, so any implementation that uses those two features can be made to work. There are an unlimited number of such implementations. Each one varies in the security of the code, and the difficulty or tediousness of the discovery process.
The eyes open/shut approach is elegant, and it will be hard to make something more convenient. Its only real disadvantage is the temptation to easily cheat and sneak a peak. You also have to remember who your fellow bad guys are (unless you repeat the process).
A few concrete examples to make this less abstract:
1) Mark the face of each role card with a colour, and provide pawns of all colours. Mark each bad guy card with the set of (one or more) bad guy colours. Each player places a pawn of that colour in front of them. By comparing the pawns in play with the bad guy colours on your card (if any), you can see who the bad guys are. The good guys can't see the list of bad guy colours, so they are left to speculate. For multiple games, duplicate the role cards with different bad guy colours in each set of role cards. Choose the set of role cards randomly each game.
2) Each role card has a four letter code, and a decipher code. Each player places the code in front of them where everyone else can see it. Only players with bad guy roles have a decipher code which is useful. For example, a simple substition cipher (a Caesar cipher):
Code: DUHK or FNNC
Decipher code: 1111

Add the decipher code shift to the code, to move each letter on:
 DUHK
+1111
-----
 EVIL

Indicating that player is a bad guy.
Obviously, you can make the ciphering scheme as complex as you like.
3) The role card indicates that bad guys are to all make a secret sign, for example, to rest their left hand on the table, or touch their face or hair. Again, multiple sets of role cards indicate different hidden gestures.

These look promising! I think these all work by the bad guys sharing a secret that's on their role card, and the set of bad guy role cards being chosen at random from a large number of sets of bad guy role cards.  I think this means that for 10 players, with 4 bad guys, there are something like 210 sets of bad guy cards? Is this right?

If you were only going to play one game, with one group of players, then a single set would be fine. You need multiple sets because the bad guys in each game will know the secret at the end of that game. If the secret is easy to discover, then the good guys might know too. The players can try the code solution in subsequent games. So you need a large enough number of sets to make it hard to guess which set is in play at any given time. If you were doing ciphers, I'd guess around a dozen sets would be sufficient. It depends on how good your player's memories are, and how hard they are trying!

I like the approach, but I'm not sure this solution would work in practice. The problem with having some secret code (however it's manifested) to share the information is that it would either involve too many cards so as to be impractical, or it would be learnable with enough play, unless it involved some random unique key (e.g. pick a number between 1 and whatever) for a cipher, at which point it would probably become too difficult to easily implement.

The other concern I can see with having a set of "evil colors" is that someone has to hand out that list (or write it on the card), so unless you're building a set and not handing it out, someone by definition is in the know.

@Johno - too many cards so as to be impractical - I disagree. More than 6 or so sets makes it an effort to learn the secret, especially if the games are spread over time. More than 12 and it gets hard quickly. If there are 10 players, then each set will be 10 cards. So you're looking at 120 cards to create a reasonably hard to learn system. Bear in mind that in any given game instance, the complexity is still flat - you only use one set of 10 cards at a time.

@Allen Gould - The person handing out the cards doesn't need to look at them. He only needs to know that all the cards belong to the same set.

@ire_and_curses But how do you mark the set without giving away information? Either the marks are on the card back (which means people can learn that the A set has blue and red spies), or they're on the card front (which means someone is looking at the details.  It's not impossible, but it'd be pretty easy to mess up (and difficult to detect when you've been compromised as well)

@Allen Gould - I was imagining each card set was kept in e.g. a separate rubber band in the box. I would keep a small mark on the front, e.g. an 'I', 'II', only for use if you managed to mix the sets somehow. I agree that if a player is determined to cheat, they can use that information. On the other hand, a player determined to cheat could just squint through closed eyelids...

@Allen Gould - I suppose if you were really paranoid, you could mark the set ID number using an ultraviolet pen. Now your players need a blacklight to cheat... ;)

Option 3 sounds like it would make a really interesting, if slightly different game. The good guys would be able to try to muck up the bad guys' communication.

I know you don't want a computer-based solution, but a simple mobile app can solve this nicely.
Tell it how many players you have, then pass it around the table.
There's a single button you tap to view your role. If you're a bad guy, it also shows you where in the seating order your comrades are.
Before you pass it to the next player, tap a button that closes your view and increments the device's internal counter of which player's role it should show.

Who makes such an app?

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


text:
What is "Go" in cribbage?
I've played a fair bit of cribbage, but I've never heard of scoring one point for "Go" (as mentioned in this other question: Cribbage score going out).  What is it, and what impact does it have on the game?

"Go" is when the count is less than 31 and the player whose turn it is to play has no legal plays (all cards remaining would put the count over 31). That player says "Go", the other person scores one point, and then plays any remaining cards in their hand (without going over 31).
The explanation at cribbage.org from rule 1.5.e.2 ...

Players alternately play (place face up on the table) one card at a time, starting with the pone. The cumulative value of the cards played is announced as each card is played.
When a player cannot play a card without the cumulative total exceeding 31, that player calls "go", and the opponent continues to play all cards possible (not exceeding a 31-count). The player who calls "go" plays first in the following 31-count sequence.
Points are scored during this play of the cards (see scoring chart in rule 1.7).

Scoring occurs normally on these cards – points for pairs, runs, etc. are still scored – except that if such play takes the count to 31, that player scores an additional point: you get two for reaching 31 or one for Go, but not both.
See the definition here and the scoring rules below.
The impact is generally small. It's unlikely that you'd get much more than two points during this time, as it takes at least two cards from your hand to reach a state where the other person would call Go, leaving you only two to play. You might be able to score a triple, but more likely you'd just get two or maybe four (with a pair) ... and your opponent might get those points back if you end up playing your remaining cards, e.g. by having 4-5-6 and being able to play them consecutively (after you've played your last card following Go).

Actually I've always played with this rule - I've just never heard it called "Go" before.

@tttppp: out of curiosity, what did you call it?

We would say e.g. "30 for 1".  We announce all counts like this (i.e. without stating what the score is for), the only difference with "go" is that we may announce the same count twice - e.g. "10", "20 for 2", "28", "29", "30 for 2", [knocks], "30 for 3".

@tttppp  I have always counted that way as well but it is the person moving the peg says the score "30 for 1" as they move it.  The only way they know to do that is if the other player says "go" because they can't play.

@JerryJeremiah Pedantic but "30 for 1" isn't really accurate as you aren't getting 1 point for your 30, you're getting one point because your opponent said "go"

You get 1 point if your opponent cannot "go" because the count is too high
The official rules of cribbage describe the general turn order of a cribbage hand.
During the count phase, each player lays down a card in turn, adding to a monotonically increasing score. Upon their turn, if a player does not have a card in their hand that they can play without taking the cumulative count past 31 then they say go, and the other player gets to peg one point.
That other player then continues to lay down cards until they also cannot play, until they are out of cards, or until they reach the exact count of 31. Playing your last card and hitting 31 exactly are each worth 1 additional point each.
This site has some good examples of how to score "go", which is probably the most complicated rule in cribbage.

How it impacts the game...
The obvious impact on the game is just another way to get a point. Practically, it influences what cards people play as they approach 31:

People tend to save smaller value cards for later in the count (both so they won't have to say go and to increase their chances of getting 31 and/or last card).

The sneakiest way to use "go" to your advantage is when you have pairs or runs of small-value cards near the end and your opponent has high-value cards. Once your opponent calls "go" you get to play your cards one-after-another until you also cannot go. Well if they call "go" at a count of 25 because 10-5-Q were played and they're holding two cards of rank 7 or above while you're holding three 2s, then you're in good shape:
You'd play 2-2-2, scoring 2 for the pair, 6 for the pair royal, and 2 for 31. At this point the count would start over, and your opponent would play their last two cards (hopefully not a pair).

More experienced players will also try and infer what cards another player has by what they lay down so that on their turn they can avoid playing into a count where their opponent could use their likely last card to hit 31 (or close to it). For example,

If my opponent's penultimate card was a low-value card like a 4 and they'd previously played another 4, then I suspect they have a third one as well and I will try and avoid making the count 27
I'll try and look at what cards they've played and what cards would complement them in terms of making runs or totals of 15 (or pairs, as described above), and assume they might be holding those cards

In practice, there are lots of things to consider during the count, and since go is only worth 1 point these considerations shouldn't weight as heavily as avoiding playing into a large run or a pair royal, but absent those circumstances, go considerations can influence your play.


text:
Is Saboteur biased towards the miners?
I recently played a couple of games (i.e. six rounds) of Saboteur with ten and then nine players.  The miners found the gold every round, and it was only a close thing once.
The saboteurs win a bit more gold than the miners if they're successful, but I'd be surprised if this was enough to balance the game.
There's a similar question about ways to balance the win ratios, but I'm interested in whether the game as it stands has a balanced expected return for both sides.

Edited to add game information:
Rules
The rules for Saboteur are available from the ZMan games site.
Role Cards
The role deck contains 11 cards:

7 gold miner cards (whose aim is to find the gold)
4 saboteur cards (whose aim is to prevent the miners from finding the gold).

Gold distribution
The gold deck contains 28 cards in the following denominations:

16 cards with 1 nugget
8 cards with 2 nuggets
4 cards with 3 nuggets

If the miners win a round in an n player game, then n randomly select gold cards are distributed amongst the miners (for a 10 player game only 9 cards are distributed).  If the (1/2/3/4) saboteurs win a round then they are awarded (4/3/3/2) gold each (respectively).

Question clarification:
I am interested in the expected amount of gold for those playing as miners, and for those playing as saboteurs.  This is almost certainly different for different numbers of players, but I am interested to know whether the expected winnings is anywhere near the same for both sides.

The rules seem to indicate  keep gold nugget cards between rounds. This will change the distribution of gold nuggets for rounds 2 and 3. Are you interested in just the R1 expected gold winnings, or are you interested in the possible differences round to round. Further, are you interested in the expected amount of gold if a miner should win, or the odds of winning. The latter would require a Monte Carlo simulation, or a large game database (cannot seem to find an online database at this time of Saboteur win rates)

@user1873 For simplicity I'm interested in the first round.  The other distributions will only be different if the gold cards remaining have been biased, which can only happen when the saboteurs win.  I'm interested in the expected gold gained in a round, given that a player has drawn a miner card (/saboteur card).  I.e. The expected gold gained by a winning miner, multiplied by the probability of winning as a miner (and the same for the saboteurs).  What's more I'm really interested in a rough value for these expected values, and whether they are roughly equal or not.

Saboteur 1 does seem to be biased towards the "good dwarves" if you don't play it in really cutthroat fashion.  If the good dwarves just cooperate and go for the gold, they will win most of the time.
However, if the good dwarves break each OTHER in order to keep competitors from getting gold, it gives the Saboteurs a much better chance, obviously.
I think Saboteur was designed with an expectation that good dwarves would be more cutthroat and selfish than a lot of groups play them instinctually.
That said, I recommend you pick up Saboteur 2, which adds (and replaces) some cards and roles.  It's much more well-balanced and more consistently fun.

With the rule that Gold nugget distribution is handled counter-clockwise, wouldn't it make more sense to try to assist the next player in getting to the gold (in a 10P game you would get 2/3 g on avg as P2, and P1 would get 4/3 on avg, where miner 6/7 only gets 1? The game doesn't speak to seating order before each round, so if you redistribute players seating position randomly, it might balance it more.

Correction, the rules do mention the next starting player is the player to the left, indicating that seating order shouldn't change, but I wonder if rotating seating order and determining starting player in some random way would add more balance.

In my experience, if you're playing the Saboteur base game with a group of experienced players, the saboteurs have a better chance of winning than the gold diggers. During the first few (5-10 maybe) games, most gold diggers will get plenty of satisfaction from a 'team win'. If there are 5 diggers and 2 saboteurs, and this results in a 5 vs 2 play stile, the digger 'team' will win every time.
However, in Saboteur, there is an 'I' in team. After a few team wins, some diggers will want to be the #1 digger, getting the first pick. When this starts to happen, suddenly it's not 5 vs 2, but 1 vs 1 vs 1 vs 1 vs 1 vs 2, and even worse it will be more difficult to tell saboteurs from diggers. Diggers will create detours, cut off personally infavorable routes, and break tools of players (even known diggers) on their right hand side. That's when the saboteurs start to win.
If you go one step further, you'll start keeping track of the amount of gold people collected in previous games (at least for as far as you can tell). If you're ahead as a digger, it can be worth getting second or third pick. If someone else is ahead, you can sabotage them regardless of their role. That's about when the playing field evens out between diggers and saboteurs.

EndersGame has a post on BGG talking about a teams chances of winning a particular round. It doesn't take into account the fact that the game is played over multiple rounds for points, so you would have to take into account ACT points for each player when they win, and self sabaotague from teammates trying to get the most points by finding the gold.
There is at least one large game database of results you could consult to draw some conclusions. Board Game Arena has 1500+ online games recorded for Saboteur (bottom left of page). On the Saboteur page itself, you can review the results of previous games, and some interesting statistics about that particular game.
You would be interested in Number of gold nuggets earned by saboteurs/miners, but some of the other statistics might be useful. Unfortunately, you must either donate money to BGA to become a member, or get other players to join BGA through referrals to examine the statistics. It also appears to me while looking over a handful of 100 or so games, that few if any games are played with 9+ players. Most of the large games are 7 player. If you have too small of a sample size, you can't draw any accurate conclusions.
The interface for displaying the old game results isn't very well designed for gathering data across a large number of games. I haven't dug too deeply into the GET/POST messages that my browser sends to their server to see if it is possible to extract only the information that you are interested it, but I mention it here in case any other code monkey wants to dig into the problem themselves.

I've updated the question with additional information.  I was expecting to receive a rough answer based on experience of play, but I would be more than happy with an answer based on calculation instead!

I think it sort of boils down to a basic Nash Equilibrium for the miners. If you're playing for teams (i.e. cooperating), Miners have the upper hand. Tactics vs Strategy, Aggressive vs Cooperative.
Saboteur is meant to be played one against one, with the chance of the bad guy sneaking in there.
It can be a big help to introduce new people to game emphasizing that while there are "teams" it's still one person winning; it's still every man for himself. How new players approach the game will dictate whether they're tilting to cooperation or to simply winning on their own merit.
It also hinges a bit on the type of gamers you have. Casual players don't seem to care as much about team winning because it can be too analytical, whereas the folks who are really into gaming tend to overthink. For example, if you have one guy who is not a Saboteur, he will invariably analyze the play and realize his chances depend heavily on the miners as a team winning, and tend to rely on increasing the odds in his favor, through tactics, to win the extra gold or two he needs to be the single winner.


text:
When can I take additional actions in Grand Austria Hotel?
The rules for Grand Austria Hotel contain this section:

On your turn, you take the following actions:

Take a guest from the game board. (optional)
Take a die and carry out the corresponding action. (mandatory)

You can also take additional actions (see “Additional Actions”).

It does not seem clear whether additional actions have to be taken after step 2, as part of step 2, or if they can be taken at any point during the turn.
For example is it possible to pay a krone to move dishes onto a guest and then move the guest to a free room, so that you have a table free to take a new guest (step 1)?

On of the games designers clarified this on Board Game Geek, but you can take an additional action at any time during your turn, with the caveat that in order to increase the number on a die you must have the needed Krone when you take the die.
Page 8 of the rulebook contains the unorder list of "Additional Actions".

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


text:
If an Outpost is played during a Possessed hand, is the Outpost hand played next?
As pointed out in a previous question's answer, you may be forced to play an Outpost or Possession while you are possessing someone else's hand, despite the deck's owner getting to play the Outpost/Possession hand and not you.
However, Outpost creates an ambiguity.  Outpost's rules say to play another hand immediately after this one.  However, due to the Possession, the player's normal turn has not yet taken place.
Does the player take their normal turn next or the Outpost turn next?

Side note: My opinion is that they'd play the Outpost turn first, then their normal turn.

Just be careful if you are Possessing someone and you have them play an Outpost, then a Possession, then another Outpost. You're in for a wild ride.

@Mag Roader: You can't play multiple Outposts in the same turn, nor do you get to play any hand beyond the first Possession hand, as previously discussed.

I guess the wild ride would be for the one who got possessed in the first place. Outpost twice in the same turn is possible (like via Golem), it just doesn't help you normally. But now I'm curious what happens if you do play Outpost Possession Outpost. Meh, this isn't a conversation for comments.

@Mag Roader: "If you manage to play Outpost twice in one turn, you will still get only one extra turn.  If you play Outpost during an extra turn, it won't give you another turn." Official Dominion Seaside rules, Kingdom Card Descriptions booklet, page 3.  Now, this wording sounds like it would affect Possession's extra turn, but Alchemy's rules clarify that... specifically, the turn after the Possessed turn is the player's normal turn, not an extra turn.

The turn Outpost is referring to is "this one", the Possession turn.  Outpost doesn't really care what turn it was played on.
So during the clean-up phase of the Possession turn, the possessed player will draw 3 cards instead of 5, and immediately take their Outpost turn.
At the end of the Outpost turn, the originally possessed player will draw 5 cards as normal.  Turn order then returns to where we were before the Possession was played, so it's now the possessed player's turn (finally!) and they take a normal turn.
So your opinion is correct.

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


text:
How do the Investigators Collectively Decide?
So in Arkham Horror, we're playing with the "Lurker on the Threshold" expansion.  It introduces the idea of 'pacts'.  When these pacts are received, cards from the 'reckoning' deck are resolved.  We pulled a card in the middle of a game with the title "Prisoner's Dilemma":

The investigators must choose: either the investigator with the most
Power is devoured, or the investigator with the least Power is driven
insane.
Card Info

Nowhere in the rules does it specify how that choice is arrived at.  The pluralization of 'investigators' suggests that it is not up to the First Player, but how is this meant to be resolved?  In our game, we deadlocked on the issue for a time, as there was fierce and spirited debate over the best course of action.  We eventually settled it with a roll-off, but how should this be resolved?  Specific citations of applicable rules would be highly appreciated, as various theories were bandied about throughout the remainder of the night to the vague dissatisfaction of all.

It kind of reads like they expected that you'd be able to come to a consensus. Awkward.

Yea...  it came down to whether to drive a key investigator in a good position insane, or devour a VERY well-equipped and useful investigator who wasn't in the middle of something.... and there was a SHARP divide of opinion there.

"If players cannot agree, then the first player chooses" ...
(It reads something to that effect, though I could only locate it in the Headless Hollow version of the rules on short notice)

This seems reasonable, since it's sprinkled through the rules for other things. Notably the rules say that the first player chooses which investigator flying/stalker monsters go for if there's a tie for lowest sneak (nothing about players agreeing there), and that if the players can't agree about monster surge monster placement, the first player decides. Of course, this is effectively a random tiebreaker, so if you'd prefer a house rule about voting or die-rolling, I don't think it'd harm your game!


text:
In MTG, do Werewolves transform due to an out of range turn? Or an out of range player's spells?
The werewolves of Innistrad (such as Reckless Waif) transform from the following abilities:

[Human Side]
At the beginning of each upkeep, if no spells were cast last turn, transform [this card].
[Werewolf Side]
At the beginning of each upkeep, if a player cast two or more spells last turn, transform [this card].

I am not sure how these behave in a multiplayer game involving Limited Range. Suppose I am playing a 4 person, attack left, Limited Range of 1 player, so there is one person in my range on my left, one in my range on my right, and one out of my range. In that game...
Are my werewolves affected by the out of range player's spells?
Are my werewolves affected by other player's spells on the out of range player's turn?
Those are the important two questions, but I think this might be easier to understand/answer with examples, so I'm specifically curious what happens in the following situations:

I have a human side werewolf such as Reckless Waif on the battlefield and no one plays any spells during the out of range player's turn, will the Reckless Waif transform? (On the next upkeep, of course)

I have a human side werewolf such as Reckless Waif on the battlefield and the out of range player plays one or more spells on their turn, but no one else does, will the Reckless Waif transform?

I have a human side werewolf such as Reckless Waif on the battlefield and the out of range player plays one or more spells during an in range turn, but no one else does, will the Reckless Waif transform?

I have a werewolf side werewolf such as Merciless Predator on the battlefield and the out of range player plays two or more spells on their turn, but no one else does, will the Merciless Predator transform?

I have a werewolf side werewolf such as Merciless Predator on the battlefield and a player in my range plays two or more spells during the out of range player's turn, will the Merciless Predator transform?

I have a werewolf side werewolf such as Merciless Predator on the battlefield and the out of range player plays two or more spells during an in range turn, but no one else does, will the Merciless Predator transform?

Are there any other common situations I missed?
EDIT: I mistakenly called the range "Spell Range" but I really meant "Limited Range of Influence", referenced by section 801 in the comp rules. I've read the section, and I THINK I know the result, but I am still very interested in another human's interpretation of the rules, because the result seems somewhat counter-intuitive to me.

It would seem that the trigger does not even go off unless both the player currently taking their turn and the previous turn were both inside your range of influence.

801.7. A triggered ability doesn‘t trigger unless its trigger event happens entirely within the range of  influence of its source‘s
  controller.

On turns that the trigger does go off, one expects out of range spells would be completely ignored.

This is why I was looking for someone to confirm. I was incorrect! I was thinking about the conditions, how many spells played, but not the turn itself not causing the trigger. I got to thinking werewolves get free turns to flip, nearly automatically, but the triggered abilities not even triggering on the extra turns makes much more sense all around. Thank you.

Although I can't cite a rule to confirm this, I would treat the out of range player's playing or not playing spells in the same manner I would consider a global enchantment by that player.
It is simply out of range and does not have an effect on your cards in play.

But what about the out of range player's turn? The turn has to exist in case the player next to you plays spells that affect you during that turn such as Volcanic fallout to kill an attacking 2/2, but which also kills your creatures. So werewolves will just automatically flip with enough out of range player's taking turns?

I agree with this interpretation. I really can't see it working any other way because of the simultaneous-turns mechanism.

If I understand it right, the "spell range" rule merely limits the legal targets for spells and abilities a player casts and uses. However, they are still being cast, so they count for the current turn's spell total. So it does not matter who cast a spell on whom; all that matters is how many spells were cast at all.

I don't believe that's correct. Global Enchantments don't affect creatures outside their range, "Destroy all creatures" is limited by range, auras fall of if the object they enchant moves out of range. (by such effects as Mind Control) I'm going to double check if its actually called "spell" range, cause it seems to affect everything.


text:
Why can't I win due to "missing multiplier"?

Possible Duplicate:
Why couldn't this hand win with ron?

Occasionally, I try to Ron, but get prompted that I cannot due to a "missing multiplier". What does this mean, and how can I avoid it?
Example: The marked tile was just discarded, but I can't Ron.

Edit: A quick explanation why this question is on-topic on this site instead of at gaming.stackexchange.com.
The exact term "no multiplier" is certainly specific to this implementation, but I believe the question applies to the game in general. This message does not appear to be a "bug" or "error message" but a valid notification that my hand is missing something. Maybe (I'm guessing here) it should just read "Your hand does not have enough yaku yet!" instead.


text:
What is the difference between thickness and heavy or over-concentrated stones?

Possible Duplicate:
What is the difference between thickness and heavy stones?

Many beginners and even advanced players have difficulties telling apart thick from heavy or over-concentrated groups. How are these terms defined, and how can I quickly decide if a result in a certain position is good or bad for me based on that?
Is influence the same as thickness, or is there a difference?


text:
What rules changes have there been in Uno?
A previous question revealed that there has been at least one (albeit minor) rules change for Uno recently.
This makes me curious to know if there have been any other changes to the rules over the years.
How does today's Uno differ from the Uno of my youth?  I'm only referring to standard Uno, not any themed version.

A definitive answer would require someone who has a collection of all the printing of UNO since the beginning in 1971 to present day. The only one likely to have such an museum quality collection is the estate of the inventor of the game, Merle Robbins, an Ohio barber. He spent $8,000 to have 5,000 copies made. He sold the rights to the game to International Games Inc., which was bought by Mattel in 1992, who now owns the rights to the game.
Here is my best attempt at answering. I am going to assume that the 1983 International Games, Inc. edition is the same as original 1971 printing. The differences in the many spin off versions of UNO ([30th Anniversary Edition], Batman UNO, Hanna Montana UNO, Spongebob UNO, Dora UNO, Mickey Mouse Clubhouse UNO, Cars 2 UNO, Harry Potter UNO, etc.) are thankfully not included. I will mention that in general, the spin-offs have nearly identical rules, but instead of including blank cards like the most recent printings, these blank cards are replaced with special cards that have some unique effect. I would guess that the reason for the +4 blank cards from the original printing is related to card manufactures changing from 54 cards=9x6, to 56 cards=8x7 sheets.
The complete rules for the 1983 version are listed, with only differences for other versions listed. The 4 previous versions (1971-1981) are assumed to exist, because they are listed as additional copyright dates within the 1983 rule book. There are gigantic gaps in the editions, because I have been unable to find scans of the intervening years. To summarize the differences though, most versions have nearly identical rules. The earliest version only uses the (0-9) face cards for First Dealer selection, requires a challenged player to only reveal the color of the cards in their hand, if "caught" in a challenge they keep their Wild Draw4 card, and specifies a penalty for suggesting plays to your opponents. The 2001 editions (including 30th Anniversary) have a printing error in my mind, because no other versions I have seen make you Draw 4 cards when failing to call "UNO." I don't think the game rules have changed much in 40 years.

1971 First Edition
1973
1979
1981
1983 International Games, Inc.

Components - 108 cards, 4x Wild, 4x Wild Draw4, 4 colors each;19x (0-9);2x Draw2;2x Skip;2x Reverse
Object - Score 500 points by emptying your hand before your opponents
First Dealer - Non-number cards are not used. Players who draw a non-number replace it in the deck and draw another. (This differs from all subsequent versions I have found. In newer editions, non-number cards are not replaced in the deck allowing that player to redraw a card. There are other differences from later editions that will be noted, but this difference will only be noted here). Shuffle and deal 7 cards to each player, place the top card in the discard, and the remaining cards become the drawpile. The person to the left of the deal starts. With the exception of the Wild Draw4 (replace in deck redraw) and the Wild (starting player decides color), Special Word cards affect the stating player in the normal manner.
Summary of Play - Play a matching number, color, word, or wild to the top card of the discard. If a player cannot play, they must draw a card (which can be played immediately if it matches). Play passes to the next player. If the drawpile is depleted, resuffle all cards except the top card of the discard to form a new drawpile, and continue play.
Reneging - You may choose to draw a card, even if you have a playable card in hand. If you do so though, only the drawn card can be played. You can play a drawn Wild Draw4 card, but might be subject to getting "caught" if you have a playable color card in your hand.
Special Word Cards - Wild can always be played. Choose a new color. Wild Draw4 can only be played if you do not have a matching color (matching number/word is ok) without being subject to "caught" rules. Choose a color, the next player draws 4, play continues with the player after the next. Draw2 the next player draws 2 cards, play continues with the player after them. Skip the next player is skipped, play continues with the player after them. Reverse the direction of play is reversed until the end of the hand, or the next Reverse card.
Going Out - As a player plays his next to last card, they must say "UNO" before the card hits the discard. If they fail to do so before the next player has draws/plays a card and are "caught", they immediately draw 2 cards. After the next player plays/draws, they are safe. When a player plays their last card, the hand is over. Points are scored, all cards are collected, the deck is shuffled, and a new hand begins with the player to the left of the dealer. If the last card played is a Draw2 or Wild Draw4, those cards are added to the next players hand before points are scored for the hand.
Scoring - When a player goes out, all other players card values are added that players total. First player to 500 points wins. Wild, Wild Draw4: 50 pts, Draw2, Skip, Reverse: 20 pts, All number cards (0-9): Face Value. Variation: Running totals for each player can be kept instead. When one player's total reaches 500 (or some other value), the game is over and the player with the least points wins.
Penalties - Fail to call UNO on next to last card draw 2 cards, Make a suggestion to another player on what card to play draw 4 cards, Play a Wild Draw4 card with/without another legal color draw 4 cards. The next player is the only one who can challenge. If they do, you must reveal the color of the cards in your hand to verify if the play was legal. If it was, the challenger draws an additional 2 cards (6 total), if instead you are "caught", you draw 4 cards. (Challenge In this version, only the color of the cards in your hand need to be revealed. Subsequent versions do not clarify what "reveal your hand" means. Another peculiarity of note here, is that in this version the Wild Draw4 card is returned to the "caught" player's hand, and the a correct color card is played. All subsequent versions leave the Wild Draw4 in the discard pile. This does have an unusual effect on the gameplay. With this rule, it is not possible to sacrifice getting "caught", with the only goal of changing the current color.)

Note: Houserules you might have played with. Piling On/Progressive UNO - It allows the normal recipient of a Special Word card to pile on the result to the next player. (i.e. If someone plays a Draw2 card on you, you can play a Draw2 card, making the next player draw a total of 4 cards.). Draw until you have a playable card - Instead of drawing a single card when you cannot make a legal play, you continue to draw until you have a playable card.

1984-1992 International Games, Inc.
1992-2001 Mattel, Inc.
2001 First Dealer is highest point value card. Going Out failing to call "UNO" and getting "caught" draws 4 cards, no penalty for opponent play suggestions. 4x Blank Cards for adding special rules, or just replacement cards.
2002
2003 First Dealer highest number goes first (word cards are 0). Penalties New penalty for making incorrect plays, the offending player takes the card back and draws 2 cards.
2004-2006
2007 Deluxe First Dealer highest number goes first (word cards are 0). Penalties no penalty for opponent play suggestions.
2008 First Dealer highest number goes first (word cards are 0). Penalties no penalty for opponent play suggestions. First mention of Houserule Progressive UNO.
2009-present

Has there been any further changes since 2012?

There are many changes today, but not because of the company. Most changes are known as Mandela Effects. These would include that stacking is not allowed (where one player lays a draw 2 and instead of the next player drawing that amount, they can lay a draw 2 causing the next player to draw 4.) However, the rule than changed again allowing stacking on draw 2 but not draw 4.
The other change (Mandela effect) was the fact if you drew a card that cannot be played, no card is lay down, and it goes to the next person. (Even if that card can play, you cannot lay it down) VS the idea you keep drawing until a playable card can be laid down.
Hand trading, shuffling between players, and playing out of turn is now allowed as it was not before.
The game is not won by last card being lay down but by a score system no one has ever heard of. First person to 500 wins!
A total of UNO Mandela Effects (changes) are listed at this link: http://mandelaeffectmainweb.website2.me/list8

Nice info! Would love to see some confirmation of this via scans of rules showing the changes over time, though.  I don't see a lot much proof at the link.

I don't see any of these rules mentioned in the quotes or source provided by the existing answer. They all appear to be house rules, or ignorance of what the rules do say. That would mean they aren't changes to the rules "only referring to standard Uno" and this is not an answer to the question as asked.


text:
What happens when playing Throne Room / King's Court *twice* with Caravan?
What happens if you play:

Throne room, choosing a Throne room, each time choosing a Caravan?
King's Court, choosing a King's Court, each time choosing a Caravan?

Specifically, what will your play area look like at the start of your next turn? How many cards will you draw at the start of your next turn?
This is different from this question; it is more complex than that!

Can you clarify the order of cards being played?  I'm confused and not understanding the issue here.  How do you play cards on a caravan?

@Pat By "on" I meant "choose." Changed wording for clarity!

The basic rule is given in the Seaside Rules, pg4

If you play or modify a Duration card with another card, that
other card also stays in your play area until it is no longer doing
anything.

If you have a chain of Throne Rooms or King's Court, you need to retain the cards necessary to correctly process everything on the next turn.
For your examples, discard the initial card (whether Throne Room or King's Court).  The remaining Throne Room is sufficient to indicate that each Caravan needs to be played twice at the beginning of your next turn.
On the next turn, each Caravan would be played twice for a total of +4 cards.
Two more examples should clarify the remaining edge cases here.
Example 1:

Throne Room (1)

Chose Throne Room(2), doubled by (1)

Chose Throne Room(3), doubled by (2)

Chose Caravan(A), doubled by (3)
Chose Caravan(B), doubled by (3)

Chose Throne Room(4), doubled by (2)

Chose Caravan(C), doubled by (4)
Chose Caravan(D), doubled by (4)

In this case, you will retain

All 4 Caravans obviously (ABCD)
Throne Rooms (3) and (4) as they directly modify the Caravans
Throne Room (2) as it will indicate that Throne Rooms (3) and (4) need to be doubled, subsequently doubling the Caravans again.

Throne Room (1) can be discarded as it is has no effect on the Caravans next turn.
Example 2:

Throne Room (1)

Throne Room (2), doubled by (1)

Throne Room (3), doubled by (2)

Caravan (A), doubled by (3)
Caravan (B), doubled by (3)

Caravan (C), doubled by (2)

In this case, all cards will be retained.  Throne Room (1) is needed to indicate that Caravan (C) needs to be doubled next turn.
King's Court will work the same general way, it just makes for even messier examples.
I've distilled this answer from a BoardGameGeek thread where the answers were provided by Donald X. Vaccarino, the designer of Dominion.
He recommends (as do I, for what it's worth) that you use some sort of tree format to help lay everything out as I've done above.  It will help remind you which cards are affecting which in these tricky situations.

So in my examples and your additional 2 examples, how many cards would be drawn on the next turn?

@Mag - a bunch :)  I added one answer, on my way out the door, will have do the remaining math later.

In your example 1, I can see arguments for keeping both 1&2 or neither, but keeping one and not the other makes absolutely no sense.  Also in example 2, NO caravan is EVER quadrupled -- that's not possible -- doubling a throne room allows you to double two cards, not quadruple a single card.

Right, in example 1, TR1 and TR2 have no effect on Caravans. TR1 allows you play TR2 twice, which in turn allows you to play TR3 and TR4 twice. In the end, you are playing Caravan A, B, C, and D twice each.

@David, @Chris, @Mag - sorry, work has been too busy and I haven't gotten back to give this answer the work it deserves.  Please feel free to edit away and make the answer perfect.  I'm turning it Community Wiki.

-It's hard to keep track, but I think this is consistent with Donald X's initial comments in the BGG discussion which he later takes back. I was going to edit, but I believe @philosophyguy's answer is already correct.

Donald (the game designer) answers this question in an extended thread on BoardGameGeek; here is his algorithm for what you do:

If you TR or KC a duration card, leave out the TR or KC with the duration card. [It's tracking that you doubled or tripled that card]
If you TR or KC a TR-or-KC used on a single duration card (and up to 2 non-duration cards), don't leave it out. [It's not tracking anything.] [You still leave out the one that hit the duration card though.]
If you TR or KC a TR-or-KC used on two or three duration cards, leave it out. [It's tracking the extra doubling/tripling done by the latter TR or KC, which also stays out.]
Therefore I am going to go back on my ruling from yesterday for what happens if you KC a KC a KC used on 3 duration cards. The 3rd KC stays out obv. The 2nd one stays out; it's indicating that the 3rd one hits 3 things. The first KC is doing nothing and so goes.
If instead you KC a KC, and that one KC's 1) a KC for 3 duration cards, 2) a duration card, 3) a non-duration, then you would keep the first KC out, as now it's indicating that the 2nd KC got to hit 3 cards, necessary for that 4th duration card to be tripled.

In short, the rule is to leave in play as many TR/KC as are necessary to track what is happening, but no more.
The full thread is here; my quote from Donald is on page 3.
So, in response to your specific scenarios:

TR-TR-Caravan x 2: All four cards stay out; Donald recommends placing the cards in branching format so it is clear that the Caravans were both played by the second TR. All four stay out because the first TR is what allows the second TR to play both duration cards twice. If you played one Caravan and one non-duration card with the second TR, then the first TR would be discarded at the end of the turn.
KC-KC-Caravan x 3: Same deal; all five stay out. If you only played one Caravan with the tripled KC and played two non-duration cards, then the first KC would not stay in play.

The answer is still answered on page 4 here: http://www.riograndegames.com/uploads/Game/Game_326_gameRules.pdf
You would only need to keep out whichever card(s) directly affected a Duration card. For example, if you TR a TR, then play 2 Caravans on that second TR, you only need to keep out the second TR, and I would probably arrange it and the 2 Caravans in sort of an inverted tree format, with the Throne Room above and between the Caravans.

Contradicted by Donald X at BGG (see philosophyguy's answer)

Excellent point, although I feel like pointing out he actually changed his answer during the thread, so I'm not totally crazy. :)

Yeah, I was half way through editing the community wiki answer before I decided I had better look at the next couple pages of the BGG discussion.

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


text:
Does drunkenness / poisoning / death interrupt ongoing abilities?
In Blood on the Clocktower, the Bad Moon Rising edition has a few characters that have ongoing effects. I notice in particular the Courtier and the Pukka, who have abilities that span multiple days.
Normally, drunkenness or poisoning prevents an ability from successfully happening. However, I'm not clear on when happens if these characters become poisoned or drunk while their effects are still happening.
For example:

The Courtier uses their ability on the Mastermind. The next evening, the Pukka attacks the Courtier. Is the Mastermind still poisoned from the Courtier's ability? What about the following evening, after the Courtier dies?
The Pukka attacks the Tea Lady, poisoning them. The next evening, the Courtier chooses the Pukka to poison. Does the Tea Lady die due to the Pukka's ability?

Normally, an ongoing ability is suspended / malfunctions while drunk or poisoned. It resumes when sober / healthy again. It goes away (they lose ability) when they die, unless stated otherwise, or implied. If they die while drunk or poisoned, they remain that way, and their ability malfunctions / is gone. (The droison remains if it's static, such as from a Sweetheart. It moves to another player if it's dynamic, such as from a Poisoner.) It's also possible to become drunken or poisoned after dying, which may be temporary or permanent. This affects characters that function after dying, such as the Politician.
In the first example, the Courtier's drinking with the Mastermind stops (they are temporarily sober). The clock keeps ticking, though, and if the Courtier becomes healthy, somehow, before three nights and days pass, their drinking effect resumes. In this case, if they die the next night, their ability / effect is lost (Mastermind remains sober).
In the second example, when the Pukka is drunk, the previously poisoned player does not die yet. They die when the Pukka is sober again, at night, after the sober Pukka chooses the next player. On nights when the Pukka is drunk, their new target is not poisoned, and so they don't die later. The previously poisoned player is temporarily healthy (unpoisoned) until the Pukka becomes sober, at which point, the player is poisoned and dies that night.
The Pukka death happens just after they choose, and usually both occur, or neither works as normal because of drunkenness. The exception is when the Exorcist chooses the sober / healthy Pukka. Then the poisoned player dies, but Pukka does not wake to choose the next victim. If the Pukka is drunk when chosen by the Exorcist, the previously poisoned player, who is now healthy, is on hold until Pukka is sober. Then they are poisoned, and die that night. (The Exorcist does not change how the previous target is affected by the Pukka becoming drunk or sober.) Also, players who are Pukka-poisoned, and about to die to the Pukka, can be protected by another player's ability (e.g. Monk). Then they do not die, and Pukka's poison is removed. A new target who is protected does not get poisoned in the first place, and does not die the next night. Protection is against all (harmful) demon effects, including things like false info from a Vortox.

From what I can determine both effects are still in play for the full duration regardless of the character losing the ability dying. The courtier even lists on the page that it can only be used once per game and getting it off to learn something before you die is a good thing. It however doesn't mention the effects going away when they die.

You can only use your ability once per the entire game, so time it well! The later you make your choice, the more information you will have the game's state and what characters are in play and causing mayhem. On the other hand, the evil team will be keen to target you as soon as they possibly can, so using your ability early can ensure you get it off and learn something before you die. It's up to you to judge the landscape of your particular game and make your choice!


text:
Where can I watch recorded Go games from Masters?
I think I can learn more if I see what people some kyu above me do.
I'm aware of a related question, but I think, this one is more specific and might diverge.

The best place I find to watch amateur games and learn to play go is KGS. It's a fairly friendly Go server with an emphasis on teaching. You can watch and kibbitz on games in progress, or you can look through many game records. It's also good for finding stronger players to play in teaching games, in which they review how you played afterwards.
IGS/PandaNet tends to broadcast more professional games, so if you want to watch and learn from pro games, rather than higher level amateurs, that might be a good place to look. There are other Go servers as well; there's a list on Sensei's Library.
If you're interested in reviewing older games, not watching live games, there are many professional games available for purchase or sometimes even free download, such as the "Games of Go on Disk" collection. Or if you prefer paper, you can find collections of games by master players, such as Honinbo Shusaku or Go Seigen.

Lately wbaduk had an English server added. From there you can jump to korean/chinese/japanese servers as well. On each you can find several "recent" pro games, some played on the site, some relayed on it. But I do prefer kgs+ (where pros teach you (usually in groups via lectures) using a nice interface. And they often teach using a Pro game as the material)


text:
Board games for two players
My wife and I enjoy playing board games (having gotten hooked on Settlers of Catan and expanded from there) but we don't often have the opportunity to play with other people. The question What cooperative board games are there that I could safely play with my wife? is similar but we're less concerned about avoiding conflict and more interested in gameplay. (The question Good board games for single player is also similar.) What board games are good for two players?
Edit: Having done a poor job in limiting the scope of my question, since there are clearly too many board games to list them all, let me try to clarify. I'm looking for games with similar scope, time requirements, cost, and complexity to Settlers of Catan that play well with two adult players. I'm not especially concerned by the level of cooperation or competition required, but I'd like to avoid anything especially blood-thirsty.

Flagged for wiki conversion. See: http://meta.boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/66/recommend-a-game-questions

-1 because you have given no real sense of what sort of game you would like - how long would you like the game (six months, two weeks, eight hours, two hours?)?  What kind of price range / number of components?  What level of complexity?

@Richard I mentioned Settlers of Catan in passing but I'll make the comparison more explicit.

I would suggest Agricola. A deep, strategic game, which excels as a two player contest. There is plenty of interaction in blocking your opponents moves, plus the card sets ensure no two games are exactly the same. Should make for some good cut and thrust gaming fun!

I've upvoted, but this may not be the best game to play with your wife.  A two player game of Agricola involves a lot of action/resource denial which may end up being too aggressive for some folks.

I love Agricola, but I didn't really love it with two.

I think it's great with 2.  But even better with 3 or 4, admittedly.

Just one data point: my husband and I play this as a two-player game a lot and we find it very enjoyable without being too cut-throat.

I'm a big fan of Carcassonne -- the game is better with more people, but you can certainly play it with two people, and since it's a tile-laying game, the board will always be different.
In my opinion, the game bogs down with expansions, but the core set (with or without the River Expansion), is a lot of fun.

Agreed...although the Princess and Fairy expansion is a worthwhile investment for the introduction of the Dragon...

@Albort -- hah, that's funny, I won that at as a prize at a game store, and gave it away.  Good thing it's inexpensive!

I'm surprised this is winning so far, since despite is popularity and quality, two really isn't the best number of players by a long way. And yes, I downvoted. Carcassonne is a good game, but isn't the answer to everything, especially this particular question.

@Mark Withers -- It's not a matter of "winning", some people just agreed with me is all.  And wow, you feel that strongly, huh?

@LittleBobbyTables I've made an answer myself, and upvoted Dominion. I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of the original poster. Lets say he makes one purchase on the back of the recommendations here, I'd like him to end up with the best available 2 player experience! :)

+1: Carcassonne is one of the few board games that's actually fun with two players

I agree that several of the expansions bog things down a bit, but the one essential one is The Count. It adds incentive to complete your opponents roads, cities, etc, which helps keep the game moving.

I love Carcassonne with two players.

Besides a few mentioned above I like Dominion as a two player game as well as Ascension (so far).

Dominion is superb 2 player. Make sure you replay your set of 10 cards a few times to really explore the two player interactions

Is Ascension a CCG or not? I can't quite tell from the marketing text, and since it trumpets how it was designed by champion Magic players, I can't help but wonder. I don't do collectible anything.

@gomad - Ascension is not a CCG.  It's more on par with Thunderstone, in that it's a deck building game.
Pretty good game at that, although I've only played the 2 player version, it's marked as 2-4 players.
Still I would play this with 2 players, and Thunderstone with 3+.

I've played Ascension with 2 and 3 and it's an fun game. It's reasonably fast and has enough diversity to be played again next week.

I and my gf loves Race For The Galaxy. This game is still very interesting when playing 2, 3 or 4 persons.

My wife and I really enjoy Lost Cities.

It's a pretty simple card game, but there is a fair amount of depth to it, and only takes around 30 minutes to finish 3 rounds.

I found the video game adaptation to be a lot of fun; if it's true to the card game, this would definitely be a good choice.

San Juan is a really fun game that works well with two players (although it plays up to 4). Puerto Rico is a very popular and highly acclaimed board game; San Juan is its card-driven little brother.

In short, you are responsible for developing the city of San Juan by growing crops and building buildings.  There are many viable strategies, so the game changes from one play to the next, and it's a lot of fun to discover just what those viable strategies are.
There is not a whole lot of direct interaction with your opponent in the game, although the decisions you make are certainly heavily influenced by what your opponent is doing.

More info on the difference between Puerto Rico and San Juan :) http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/2266/whats-the-difference-between-puerto-rico-and-san-juan

I'm a big fan of the Kosmos 2-player series; not all of the games are great, but most of them are solid, and they're all geared specifically for two players, they come in small and easily portable boxes, and they're generally reasonably light while having just enough strategic depth to keep them interesting.
My favorite is Kahuna, as I find the gameplay a bit more strategically interesting than most, and my girlfriend likes Odin's Ravens best. I've heard good things about Lost Cities, but never had a chance to play it. There are many good games in the series; you can try sorting them by rank on BoardGameGeek, and look through the first few pages to find the best ones.

My favorite games in this series (in order):  Flowerpower, Lost Cities, Times Square, Jambo, Hera and Zeus, Tally Ho!, Odin's Ravens.  Also, technically, the two-player Settlers of Catan card game, which was actually the first game Kosmos published in this format.

Hive is a great abstract game for two players.

The goal of the game is to completely surround your opponent's Queen Bee.  There are several different types of pieces; each is a bug of some sort, and each has unique rules governing how it moves around the board.  This game is very quick to teach, it's fast to play, and there is a world of depth to the game.
It's a good game for a couple to learn together, as they'll get to discover the best strategies and tactics as they play - each game evolves a bit based on what the players learned in the last game.

My 'group' is almost always 2 players, here are some of our favorites:
As mentioned on the co-op question, my wife and I really enjoy Pandemic. It's quick to setup, quick to play, and co-operative.

The Munchkin games are also a lot of fun for two players. They're also really quick to set up,  it's not too competitive and the tone of the game makes it a lot of fun.

A recent favorite has been Thunderstone, it's a deck building game similar to Dominion (as mentioned in other answers)

Through the Ages is a great resource management game, especially if you like the Civilization video games.

Finally if you're looking for something a bit more 'hard-core' I'd recommend Arkham Horror. It's tough, and it's brutal but we have a lot of fun with it two-player.

Upvoted for TtA and Pandemic. I can't really recommend 2 player Munchkin, myself.

I enjoy Thunderstone and Pandemic as two-player games.  I didn't care too much for Munchkin (I've only played it with 2 players).  I've never played Through the Ages, and I've never played Arkham Horror with two people, so I can't comment on those.

Instant downvote for munchkin: not only it is a very poor game in general, but in two players is even more pointless, since its only value (besides humor) is in the interactions between lots of players. If the players are only two it becomes only a very very very poor completely luck-based race.

You can play Arkham Horror in the time it takes to play Settlers?

Agree on Pandemic; we play this with two players a lot and it works well.  Some of the roles behave differently with two players than with four, so be aware of that.

Small World
This is a game for 2-5 players and is very enjoyable at each size. Two player games go very quickly and I've been known to play several games of this in an evening. The gameplay rarely gets stale, too, because of the nature of the game.
Pandemic
This is a cooperative game for 2-4 players where each player assumes a role that grants them abilities throughout the game. Each game has the roles randomized, giving each player a chance at a different play style. A two player game is especially challenging, but still a very good time.

Two variants of games that are originally better suited to 3+ people:

Ticket to Ride: Switzerland brings a board that is far tighter than the original (or the European variant).
Carcassonne: The Castle is explicitly a two-player game in which the building the courtyard of the castle is constricted by the walls.

I'd add the TtR: Nordic Countries as well - it's also a 2-3 player map.

I happen to love Memoir '44 and the Battlelore system by Days of Wonder. Now Fantasy Flight owns the rights to Battlelore and has also released a Westeros version based off George RR Martins A Song of Ice and Fire series.  It's pretty quick and easy to set up and the system itself is very versatile.  With many different games/scenarios/expansions using roughly the same rules you can pick and choose the setting and the exact game in the set that's right for you.  The basic premise involves two players coordinating small units in a single battle on a hex grid based map.
I'm also a fan of classic card games including cribbage, which is played with a board, but probably not what you were going for.

Ta Yü is one of my favorite 2 player games.  It is a tile placing game.
The first player plays a tile in the middle of a large square gridded board.  The tiles are 2x1 blocks that have a river section on them with 3-4 outlets on each tile.  Each player in turn plays tiles which have to match the river flow.  The object is to direct river outlets to opposite sides of the board.  One player controls the top and bottom of the board, the other controls the left and right.
The score at the end is the product of the number of river outflows on each side.  This forces each player to work in two directions for themselves while frustrating their opponent on two directions as well.
Nearly anyone can pick up the basics of the game quickly and it rewards repeated play.
There is also a really good three player version, but it requires that all 3 people have some experience with the game first as the players need to bid at the start of the game.

I'd suggest Ticket to Ride.  (BoardGameGeek link)  The rules are simple, and the game can move fairly quickly with two experienced players.  Since your trying to get to different destinations each time you play, it also provides diversity when playing with two people.

In particular, the Swiss expansion is built for 2-3 players.

I can't recommend Stefan Feld's Roma (and its sequel, Roma II) enough.  I can't think of many two-player games that I've played more than 100 times, but I'm sure I've topped that with Roma.  First, its basic design is ingenious.  The use of dice to activate cards is quite novel, and the fixed victory-point pool is such a good idea that I can't believe other games don't use it.  Second, it's tense from the very beginning:  both players start the game losing, and sometimes you win just by keeping your opponent from repairing his position faster than you repair yours.  It has fantastically sharp gameplay.  A phrase I've used to describe it is "like a knife fight in a phone booth."  You don't have very much room to move, and you really don't want to make a mistake.
I also love Attika, a game whose reputation suffered badly by its being sold as a 2-4 player game.  It's fatally flawed with 4, and not very good with 3.  With 2, it's a deep and fascinating game of positioning, resource management, and timing, with two completely different ways to win.  (If you have 4 players, divide the tiles and the cards into two sets and play two two-player games.)
And then there's Innovation, which I think is 2010's best game.  It's pretty easy to learn its mechanics, but you'll play it a dozen times before you start getting good at it.  It's going to top 100 plays for me before long.  It's a game that you keep learning more about the more you play it.  I'm beginning to believe that every single card in the deck can be crucial in the right game - I still haven't ever thought, "Oh, thank God, I drew Clothing," but I'm pretty sure that some day I will.

OGRE can be a good two player game. One player gets an army, the other gets a giant cyborg-tank. It's a pretty even match-up. There are some strategies that are pretty quick to learn, but you can use a variety of scenarios too.

I've played a ton of games, and Battle Line is among the best two player games out there.

Battle Line
This is a game made by the great Reiner Knizia, so already you know it's good. The way it works is there are 9 columns. On your turn you play a card onto your side of any column. Once your formation on a column can't possibly be beat by the opponent, you take that column. If you get 5 columns total, or three adjacent columns, you win.

(I posted this on another question about 2-player boardgames which was closed as a duplicate.  I appreciate that someone has already suggested Lost Cities to this question, but my answer does go into some extra detail, so I hope you won't begrudge me reposting it here!)
Lost Cities
I bought this game for my wife for Valentine's Day and totally got away with it - she loves it!
It's not to be confused with the Lost Cities boardgame - I'm talking about the 2 player card game. Essentially players are archaeologists setting out to discover the Lost Cities of the title. There are 5 different Lost Cities (each of a different colour), and the deck contains cards from 2-10 in each colour, and three multiplier cards. You can play a card to an "expedition" or discard one to a central pile, and then pick one up from the deck or from a central pile; the problem is, once you play a numeric card to an expedition you can no longer play a multiplier, and you can never play a lower number onto a higher one. At the end you total the value of each expedition, subtract 20, and times by the number of multiplier cards plus one (plus there's a bonus for an impressive 8-cards+ expedition).
Obviously you can lose mad points as well as gain them from starting an expedition you can't follow through with! There's a lot of strategy for a simple game, deciding when you can afford to play, when you can afford to discard, and when you just have to cling onto cards for dear life in your hand! A game takes only 5 minutes, and a match is meant to be best of three games. It's got a colourful theme, attractive (oversized) cards, and quite a lot of depth for a game that's so simple to get started with: it's a real couples game in my opinion.
The only thing I don't like about the game is that there's allegedly a 4 player variant - but to play it you're encouraged to buy a second copy of the base game just so you can add it about 20 duplicate cards to your deck. Yeah, right. This fact is not a problem if you just want a game to play as a couple though, thank goodness!

I regretted losing your answer on the other question and was considering merging the questions but I see you've taken care of the issue yourself :)

I'm going to recommend Puerto Rico. My wife and I play the 2-player variant (official variant from the designer) all the time and find it quite satisfactory. Since it's the top rated game on BGG, I think it will probably appeal to both of you.
We also have been enjoying Dungeon Lords lately. It is quite a bit more complex than PR, though.
We love Roll Through the Ages, though admittedly, we have both only ever played the version on the iPhone. The full-on Through the Ages is a great game, but it's a long one. You'll spend your whole afternoon on anything but the introductory version of the game.
As far as games designed expressly for two players, I recently traded in a couple of games that were fairly highly rated, Dracula and Mr. Jack, because neither of us particularly liked them.
The game I put the proceeds towards is Claustrophobia. It's a 2-player asymmetrical game built on direct conflict and interaction between the players. Tons of fun though, we both like it more than the two we sold put together!

Do you have a link for the two-player rule variant for Puerto Rico?

Yes, I added the link a couple of days ago - but forgot to tell you!

@Commodore Jaeger - I only recently found out that you'll only get a reply if I "@" you. I thought commenting AFTER your comment triggered a reply. So this is just to let you know that the link to the 2 player variant is, and has been, there.

Knizia's Lords series (Minotaur Lords & Scarab Lords) is a lot of fun for a 2 player head-to-head card game.
It incorporates elements from area domination, as well as deck customisation (as you would in a trading-card-game). Easy to learn, hard to master!

The Awful Green Things from Outer Space is a great two player game, that is always a little different thanks to the unpredictability of what each weapon will do each game.

Tikal is a great board game for 2 to 4 players, and it plays very well with two.

There's an entire list of lists of games to play with your loved one on Board Game Geek. My wife enjoys the Settlers of Catan card game, but some people hate it. I recommend the Kosmos two-player games, particularly Odin's Ravens and Balloon Cup.

My wife's favorite game is Balloon Cup. 2-player only, plays quickly, nice components.

Not really comparable to Settlers of Catan, but Blokus Duo is pretty good 2-player game. Price tag of $10 it's worth a look, I've played it dozens of times with my Brother already and it's pretty fun, simple, but challenging.

The regular Blokus Classic (4 colors) is also an excellent 2-player game, with more strategy and less randomness than when it is played with 4 players.

In terms of avoiding conflict, ire_and_curses recommends Pandemic, "where each player works together to try and halt the spread of a number of deadly diseases".

I recently had fun playing The Merchant of Venus 2 player, after not having played it for a few years.


text:
Other "network building" style games, like Hackers and Illuminati?

In these games (both from Steve Jackson Games) you build a network of cards you "control" over the course of the game.  The main difference between the two is that in Hacker's, the "card network" is shared and in Illuminati each player has one (though you can steal pieces of other players').
Its kind of fun in and of itself to build up these insane networks (the flavor of the games helps alot too), so I'm wondering...
Are there any other (good, hopefully) games out there with a similar mechanic?

Clarifying "network building" per Brian Campbell's request.

Players should assemble a connected set (or sets, as in Illuminati) of pieces over the course of the game.
There should be a notion of ownership (but not necessarily exclusive ownership), and the structure (the way the pieces are connected, and who owns them) should have a direct impact on the game.
The pieces used to build the network should be pretty varied.  In Illuminati and Hackers each piece is unique, although absolute uniqueness isn't required.

Carcassonne is a tile laying game where each player contributes to the same board while placing tokens to control different zones.

Farms
Cities
Roads
Cloisters

It is very easy to learn and there are a plethora of expansions that add a huge variety of different mechanics if you wish to make the game more challenging.

Carcassonne is absolutely nothing like these games. Carcassonne lets you lay down tiles, collect points and that's it (maybe expansions push this mechanic a little to the back). These games are much much deeper than that, with laying down cards/expanding the structure or network being only a part of the game mechanics.

@powertieke I haven't played Hacker, but I have played more than my share of Illuminati.  To me, there is a certain base similarity in the building of the tablespace as the game goes on.  I think the flavor of both games is evocative of what you are constructing.

Okay, it's just that the gameplay of american styled games (which theses SJgames are) is so very different from classic eurogames (like Carcassonne), that it would not be a good comparison. What i'm saying is that in Carcassonne, laying down the Tiles 'is' the game, whereas in Hacker-Illuminati you get to do a lot more fun stuff to/with the cards after placement.

Oh! I was thinking about this for a while, and couldn't come up with many good games; I can't believe I missed the family of Icehouse games Zarcana, Gnostica, and Zark City.
Zarcana was, I believe, the second game ever designed with Icehouse pieces (or at least one of the very early ones after Icehouse itself). It is played with an Icehouse stash per person and a deck of Tarot cards, with each card having particular powers. At the beginning of the game, 9 cards are laid out in a 3x3 grid. As you play, you try to take control of the cards with your Icehouse pieces; some cards are worth more than others, and you can use the powers of cards you occupy or cards in your hand. Some of the powers, however, involve being able to play more cards, which must be connected to existing cards; or destroy cards, leaving an empty space with a power vacuum. Thus, a changing network of cards emerges, and people develop their own islands or peninsulas of cards to defend from other players.
Zarcana, as an early game design effort, had some problems. The rules were complex and fiddly, without the kind of consistency that allows them to be easily remembered. You had to refer to a rules reference all the time to figure out the power of the cards, or add stickers to help remind you. There wasn't much balance to the game; some cards were so much better than others that if you couldn't start on them you'd be at a significant disadvantage. And games would wind up with each person building out their own little territory, without much interaction from other players.
A group of players and designers (including John Cooper, the designer of Zarcana) decided to fix Zarcana, and redesigned it into Gnostica. The history of how and why they developed Gnostica is a great read for anyone interested in game design.

Gnostica became Zarcana on speed. Gnostica is more aggressive, interactive, strategic, consistent, clean, exciting, and fun. We would never want to go back and play Zarcana anymore. In comparison, Zarcana was too stodgy, tactical, inconsistent, fiddly, random, and difficult.

Gnostica is much more of a gamer's game, with more strategic possibilities, more intense competition, and streamlined rules. Not everyone was a fan of the redesign, however. Andy Looney, of Looney Labs fame, happens to like games that are somewhat more random, chaotic, and quirky, with quicker turns and lighter gameplay (as you might guess from his most popular game, Fluxx). He wrote a great essay on why he prefers Zarcana, which is worth a read to help figure out which game you will prefer.
Finally, to promote the 3HOUSE bundle, Andy Looney developed a game that uses similar mechanics of controlling cards on a changing grid called Zark City. Zark City is a classic Andy Looney design; simpler, quicker playing, and more accessible than Zarcana or Gnostica, with a larger amount of luck. It uses ordinary playing cards, instead of Tarot cards, which also helps make it more accessible.
The Zarcana family of three games, all related and all using Icehouse pieces, involve a connected network of cards with different powers, which change throughout the game, and which players control.

For the record, I didn't like Looney's article, so much I stopped reading it.

@Lo'oris Really? You disliked it, not just disagreed with it? Because I thought that the majority of the article went towards explaining why Zarcana better fit Andy Looney's gaming preferences (random, chaotic, quirky, not too prone to AP), while Gnostica was still a fine game for people who preferred its style. As such, while I don't agree with Andy Looney's preferences here, I do think it was an interesting article on catering to different audiences with different game designs.

Sim City the Card Game: the cards form a city grid.
Phil Foglio's The Works card game: it forms a network of sorts; it's also not a great game.
Carcassonne (already mentioned by others) creates a network of interlocking features; most of the related games likewise require continuing a given feature across boundaries. one owns features on the map, said features spanning multiple tiles.
Entdecker is much like Carcassone, but with a more nautical theme. If one wants an island archipelagian setting for an RPG, it's a great map starter. One only owns islands.

Another family of games, that do involve constructing a network but in a slightly different way, would be Fresh Fish and Alien City (BGG).
I haven't played Fresh Fish, so I won't try to describe it, but Alien City has been described as an adaptation of it, as they share some of the same basic mechanics.
In Alien City, a game played with a Piecpack set and an Icehouse set, you build and claim certain buildings, while being required to leave a connected road network between them. At the end of the game, you score based on how many buildings of different colors are within two spaces, along the road, of your buildings, multiplied by the distance, along the road, to the nearest building of the same color.
These games are in some way the inverse of the mechanics described in the question; you are not building and controlling a network of pieces, but you are building buildings and the network is the negative space between them, that emerges as the pieces are placed. It's a fascinating mechanic, and it makes for a real brain-burner of a game.

Not strictly a network building game, but at least a positional game with cards: Catan Card Game, an example of which you can see here.


text:
Royal Supplier in Puerto Rico Expansion II -- is it all or nothing?
The rules for the Royal Supplier state:

The owner of an occupied Royal Supplier can supply the Royal Warehouse (the supply) with a number of goods from his windrose equal to the number of nobles on his island and take 1 VP for each.
  NOTE:  Such supplied goods must all be of different kinds (no duplicates).  Regardless of other buildings or abilities, the player may gain no additional bonuses from supplying these goods to the royal warehouse.

Now, we've got two things going on here - "goods equal to the number of nobles on his island" and "must all be of different kinds".  Assuming that "island" means game board (as answered here), how do you resolve this if you have more nobles than distinct goods?  And do you have to send all or nothing?
For example:
Scenario 1: I have 6 nobles on my island.  There are 2 corn, 1 indigo, 2 sugar, 3 tobacco and 1 coffee on my windrose.  I clearly can't supply 6 barrels of goods, because there are only 5 distinct types in the game.  Do I send 5 distinct barrels to the royal supply in this case?
Scenario 2: I have 2 nobles on my island,  There are 2 corn, 1 indigo and 1 sugar on my windrose.  If I choose to use the Royal Supplier, can I only ship 1 good to the royal supply, or do I have to supply 2 distinct barrels, since I have 2 nobles?

I can find no ruling on this, but there's some precedent to work with.
In the first expansion, the Small Wharf:

A player may ship different barrels of
  goods during one of his turns during
  the captain phase, but he gets only 1
  VP for every two barrels he ships.

Further clarifications on that building show that a player can ship < 2 goods*, and need not ship all remaining goods.
So, I'd reason based on precedent (and in the absence of any other errata) that buildings that modify the captain phase allow the player to choose the selection of goods involved.
Thus,
Scenario 1: You can send up to 5 goods (1 of each kind) to the royal treasury.
Scenario 2: Likewise, you may send up to 2 goods, provided they are different, to the royal treasury.
*There's some deviousness to be had in combination with Lighthouse, and effectively trading for 1 doubloon at the end of every Captain.