text:
If I own both Utilities but mortgage one, do I get 10x or 4x the die roll in rent from the unmortgaged one?
In the last game of Monopoly that I played, I bought both the Utilities and I mortgaged The Electric Company.
If an opponent lands on The Water Works, how much rent would be due? Would I get 10x the dice roll for owning both Utilities, or does having one mortgaged mean that I would only get 4x the dice roll?

The real question is, why did you buy the utilities in the first place? :-) Buying utilities explains why you're mortgaging later in the game. :-O

@corsiKa - That's an interesting question...

Bought them both at auction for slightly more than half price. Actually, I think I mortgaged the Electric Company to buy the Water Works.

It says right on the card (emphasis mine):

if BOTH Utilities are owned, rent is 10x the amount shown on the dice

Also, from the Monopoly rules:

No rent can be collected on mortgaged properties or utilities, but rent can be collected on unmortgaged properties in the same group.
The player who mortgages property retains possession of it ...

This answer could use clarification.  If you own both,  but one is mortgaged, you get 10x for people landing on the unmortgaged one,  but don't get anything from people landing on the mortgaged onr.

@NealTibrewala, in what way is my answer not clear? "No rent can be collected on mortgaged properties or utilities, but rent can be collected on unmortgaged properties in the same group.The player who mortgages property retains possession of it". Looks like I have all bases covered. You collect rent when someone lands on an unmortgaged Utility, if if you own both (mortgages properties are still owned by the same player) you get 10x die roll. What could be added that would clarify?

The question is asking about the unusual case of owning both, having one mortgaged, and landing on the other.  Your answer provides the evidence needed to come to the right conclusion, but it doesn't actually answer the question, which could be better asked as "Does a mortgaged utility COUNT for purposes of getting the 10x dice roll on the other  utility"?  Even with the evidence you provide, someone could (incorrectly) argue that "even through it is still owned, it doesn't COUNT because it is mortgaged".

@NealTibrewala, I "capped" the BOTH when saying the answer is on the card, and only quoted the correct answer from the card. I suppose I could bold it, or I could bold You get 10x before quoting the card, but I don't see that adding to clarity. Owned == retains possession, so I could technically drop the 2nd rule quoted as it only explains that rent is due, which the OP obviously understands from their question. If someone believes that Owned == retain possession of, but for some reason mortgaged properties shouldn't COUNT, then no amount of explanations will help them understand.

I always like it when the comments on an answer vastly outweigh the answer itself in word count. +1 on the answer though, to me it seems the correct one.

If I remember correctly, it would depend on whether you're playing the American or British version of the game (I've owned both). In the British version, you would only get 4x from the unmortgaged utility (mortgaged properties of any kind do not count towards bonuses in that version), but in the American one, you would get 10x if your opponent lands on the unmortgaged utility and you own both, even if the other is mortgaged.

In my British version from 1995 the rules say: "Double rent cannot be collected from a Colour-Group if one Site is mortgaged. A player holding four Stations, but with one mortgaged, may only collect rent from the other three - i.e. he would collect £100 - not £200." I think this applies to the utilities as well. The South African version probably has this rule also, but I don't have it or the American version on me at the moment...


text:
Does a creature that has both double strike and first strike deal damage three times or only twice?
In the new Dark Ascension expansion, the card Markov Blademaster has double strike. Stormkirk Captain gives all other Vampires first strike and +1/+1.
This means that the Blademaster has double and first strike. Does that mean it deals combat damage three times?

It will only deal combat damage twice.  First Strike and Double Strike create an additional combat damage step.

702.4b/702.7b If at least one attacking or blocking creature has first strike or double strike as the combat damage step begins, the only creatures that assign combat damage in that step are those with first strike or double strike. After that step, instead of proceeding to the end of combat step, the phase gets a second combat damage step. The only creatures that assign combat damage in that step are the remaining attackers and blockers that had neither first strike nor double strike as the first combat damage step began, as well as the remaining attackers and blockers that currently have double strike. After that step, the phase proceeds to the end of combat step.

Only one extra combat damage step is created in which all creatures with first strike and/or double strike deal their combat damage.  Then it moves onto the "normal" combat damage step where double strikers deal their comabt damage again (along with anything that had neither first strike nor double strike)

Also note 702.4c Removing double strike from a creature during the first combat damage step will stop it from assigning combat damage in the second combat damage step.

It will only hit 2 times.
Double strike just means that the monster deals damage during first strike and regular damage.  It's already dealing first strike damage, so adding first strike won't add anything.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
If the room is dark, can I still move to a closet or explore?
When I enter a room that is "dark", can I still move to a closet or continue exploring or do I need to complete a puzzle first?

Darkness has only 2 effects per the rules:

If you want to explore, it costs you an action plus a movement step
-2 to all attribute tests during combat

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


text:
Can I use the Axe weapon more than once?
Once I find the Axe card, can I continue using it to "solve" all locked puzzles I find or is this a one time use then discard card?

You can use it multiple times to pass any Lock Puzzle as long as you can pass the test of strength.
Note that the Axe cannot be used on Rune or Wiring puzzles.  (We played this wrong for several games before figuring it out!)


text:
When can the Keeper use Trauma cards?
I understand I need to pick up a Mythos card during the Keeper's turn, but when do I pick up and use Trauma cards?

The rules on Trauma cards are on pg25 of the Rules of Play book.

These cards can only be played by the keeper immediately after an investigator takes damage or horror.  The only exception to this restriction is if an investigator has zero sanity, in which case the keeper may play one insanity Trauma card on the investigator as a keeper action (once per turn per insane investigator).

The main way to get Trauma cards is to use Keeper actions, particularly the Evil Presence and Dark Ritual actions.  (All 5 stories in the base game have one or the other available to the Keeper)


text:
Can I change the order of cards stacked in each room?
The first few times I played the game I've placed the cards in the rooms in the order that the Seed Cards reference tells me to, but I find that some cards at the bottom of each pile are supposed to be there to "unlock" access to the rest of the stacked cards within that room. Can I change the order each stack is placed on the board so it makes sense or do I need to follow the reference sheet which I find is wrong?

No, you cannot change the order of the Seed cards.  However, do make sure that you are using the latest errata.
If you have any specific concerns, please ask.  We can try to address this question without specifics.

Ah, I struggled with this as well. The order in the manual is the order in which you lay the cards down, so the card at the end of the list is the card that ends up on top.
So the exploration cards will always be under the obstacles/locks, and in the rare case where a room contains an obstacle and a lock, the lock will always be on top of the obstacle.
Also, equipment and clues are always on top of "nothing of interest" cards.


text:
After the combat phase, can hexes be claimed even if the ships weren't involved in combat?
From the Eclipse rulebook, page 21:

Influencing hexes:  If a hex has no population after all
  battles have been resolved and you have at least one Ship
  there, remove the previous controller’s Influence Disc (returning
  it to his Influence Track). After this, you may place
  your own Influence Disc there. Also, if your Ship is in a hex
  without an Influence Disc after the Combat Phase, you may
  place a disc there.

A literal interpretation of the last sentence means that just having a ship in a hex allows one to stake a claim with an Influence Disc.  Obviously, this would apply for the following two combat-related situations:

Defeating ancients or the GCDS, leaving behind an unclaimed hex.
Two opposing armies fighting over an uncontrolled hex, leaving behind an unclaimed hex.

However, this also opens up a third intriguing possibility:

Moving a ship into an unclaimed and uncontested hex, later claiming it without needing an Influence action.

Is this third interpretation legal, or are hexes claimed in this step limited only to ships which actually did something during the Combat Phase?

You interpreted the rules correctly. The rules state:

if your Ship is in a hex without an Influence Disc after the Combat
  Phase, you may place a disc there.

Which does not require that you actually participate in combat, just that you have a ship in a hex without any influence disks. So you are allowed to claim an influence disk free hex by ending your turn with a ship in that hex.
This forum post at Board Game Geek discusses the same question.

It is an incorrect interpretation of the rules, these rules only apply to hexes where combat has taken place.
That said, if you move your ship into a controlled hex and you didn't fight any other ships there you still are in combat. If that hex was populated you get a shot at destroying the population. If there's no population left the influence disc is removed and you are able to claim it by placing an influence disc.

Do you have anything to back up your claim? I disagree with your answer and can't find any way to interpret the rules except for allowing people to fly ships onto empty hexes and claim them after combat is over. if your Ship is in a hex without an Influence Disc after the Combat Phase, you may place a disc there. The combat phase happens even if there is no combat. This to me sounds like you are allowed to claim empty regions by just ending a turn with a ship in them.


text:
When do I attack if complete my battle line with a card stolen by Venemous Creeps?
Playing a green card ends the turn so do I attack the turn I play the Venemous Creeps, or the following turn?

Welcome to B&CG!  Good question.

From the Venemous Creeps section of the Chaos Marauders card reference:

If a player completes a battle line with a stolen card, he may still
  attack an opponent’s battle line as normal.

So the normal rules apply, that is to say: "As soon as a battle line has been completed, it can attack any opponent’s incomplete battle line" [assuming the completed battle line is strong enough].
Therefore, yes, you do attack on the current turn, not the next turn.


text:
Can I show my resource cards to other players in Settlers of Catan?
I was playing a game of Settlers of Catan the other day and one of my fellow players rolled a seven. One of the other players was trying to convince the person who rolled seven to put the robber on me, because he thought I had a resource that I didn't. So I showed everyone my hand to prove I didn't have it. Then, the player who rolled seven placed the robber on a different player and a huge argument broke out.
I've lost my rule book, so I'm asking: is showing your resource cards like this cheating?

You cannot show other players your cards.
From the FAQ:

Resource Cards - Do I always have to keep my Resource Cards face down?
Yes.

It's useful to mention the spirit behind this ruling: to allow people bluff about their resources. Alice: "I have no wheat, Bob, I can't help you!," Bob: "Alright, prove it!," Alice: "I would, but the rules forbid it!"

@adama - source?

That's a point that has come up in many other games where there are , as well. For instance, in Shadows over Camelot players can never discuss explicitly the numbers on their cards; in a similar way, in Battlestar Galactica, players can only say "high" or "low", but never the numbers. The rulebooks do not explicitly mention that these rulings have been placed to protect the traitors, but that's the general consensus, as discussed on BGG. Granted, there's no traitor in Catan, but people are being engaged in negotiations. People may bluff and the rules are there to cover them.

In Catan, everyone is the traitor.

It seems like you could trivially state which cards are in your hand, how you acquired each one, what you did with whatever resource card the other player thinks you may have, etc. until they are convinced that you do not have that resource.
Having said that, I have always played under the assumption that you can show your cards if you would like. I have never heard of anyone playing with all cards exposed however, that removes some element of excitement I would think.

I don't think complete histories of the cards in your hand will necessarily be "trivial". Especially since sometimes there are complaints about time. I think it's more fun if there's the potential for a little deception as well, and it rewards anyone willing to pay attention to what resources other players are getting and spending.

No, but it's common to play with a house rule that you can or must display your resource cards face up.

Common according to who/what?


text:
Does the Bavarian Illuminati make a privileged attack in addition to their two actions?
The special ability of the Bavarian Illuminati allows them to make a privileged attack for the cost of 5MB. Is this a free action?

Welcome to B&CG!  I'm not sure it matters for this question, but I know there have been a couple different editions of Illuminati over the years.  Can you clarify which one you have?

Thanks, Pat. Here is a URL for the version I was refering to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati_(game)

No, the Bavarian Illuminati's special attack is not a free action.
It is not listed as an example free action in the list on page 7 of the rules.  It's function is built into the regular attacks used.  Note that the only mention of the special power in the rules section is inside of the Interference section on page 7.
The Bavarian's privileged attack is simply a way for them to avoid paying the usual cost to make an attack privileged. Instead of Discarding a special card, they can spend $5 once/turn to make an attack privileged.
This does not mean that the groups participating in the attack are exempt from the general rule that each group may only participate in one attack per turn.


text:
What is the "shuck-shuck" strategy?
I've seen lots of Axis & Allies discussion refer to "shuck-shuck" in passing. I understand it has something to do with the US and UK supporting Russia in northern Europe using fighters and transports. Due to my inexperience with the game, I can't really figure out what's going on beyond that.
What is "shuck-shuck"? How did it get its name?
How exactly does it work?
Why is it such a fixture in A&A discussions?

The shuck-shuck strategy is an application of the so-called "infantry push" mechanic.
America holds the balance of power in this game. Nevertheless, the Allies can lose if America spends her building points on say, airplanes, and gets unlucky. See Can the U.S. Open With an Air-based Strategy in Allies and Axis?
The strategy for a "guaranteed" American win was expounded by Don Rae: http://draidin.com/websites/AAEssays/Index.html. Since infantry are the most efficient resource, the secret is for America to manufacture mostly infantry (and transports), and dump them in key spots in the Atlantic. This could be North Africa or Norway. If you fancy an invasion of France that might work. But the whole idea is to build up an impenetrable defense line that the Germans can't cross. Once this is done, the superior number of Allies' IPCs will prevail, unless they are VERY unlucky.

Anyone reading this should consider that it largely varies depending on which A&A edition you play. And it's not 'guaranteed' Try it out and then play as axis ;)

@quinestor: "Guaranteed" as by Don Raw. Which is why I put it in quotation marks.

Under the classic rules A&A, this made sense, to buy US infantry and reinforce Russia, or threaten France, or land in Africa. The dynamics under more recent rules have changed things alot, but the fundamental idea, of having UK, US, and Russia gang up on Germany, defeat it before Japan busts out, still makes sense strategically. Trying to have the US fight Japan + German simultaneously is brutally hard.

According to 'Axis & Allies: Countdown to Invasion' article on the Wizards of the Coast website:
"2. The North Atlantic
The United States starts with a pair of fully loadable transports on turn 1. Where can they offload? Just two territories in the Eastern hemisphere, really. They can make it to the United Kingdom and Africa in one move, either preparing for D-Day or launching Operation Torch. Because they can't motor back and forth from Washington to Normandy (what many longtime players call the "shuck-shuck"), they must coordinate with their allies."
There was also an interesting 'How to prevent Shuck Shuck?' forum discussion about combating the 'shuck-shuck' strategy.
Hope that helps!

Dave (dmw71)

Shuck-shuck is when the US player uses a fleet of transports to move land units (mostly infantry) from Eastern Canada (and Western C, in most rule variations) to Europe, usually Finland. The idea is to get a constant stream of US land units into Europe where they can fortify Karelia, shift to defend Russia, launch minimal-force attacks into Ukraine, or whatever is needed.
After a few turns, US can have 5 trans, and build say, 8 inf, 1 arm per turn to load them. These can be spread between East US and West US however the player wants (again, assuming rules allow pickup from W Canada). On the non-com phase, move the land units to East or West Canada respectively. On the next turn, these units will be picked up by transports in the UK SZ, from E Canada SZ, and returned to the UK SZ where they can be unloaded in Finland, or alternatively in WE, if an attack is viable. Another alternative is to land in Algeria, or Spain, depending on strategy, from the Spain SZ.
I think the poster above accurately pointed out where the term comes from (this guy Don, who wrote some essay about A&A strategy - http://donsessays.freeservers.com/). He said the process makes the sound "shuck shuck", whatever that means.

He actually says that the player says 'shuck, shuck', which will become recognized as a death chant signaling germany's doom.  It's psychological warfare against the players.

Shuck Shuck gets its name from the sound that transports make when they land troops. the spelling I think is what throws people off, spelled how it sounds would be like Shoook shoook

Think of the sound of sliding 5 transports and 9 land units across the board and then sliding the transports back. Shooook Shook. Alternatively, it might be the sound of the large number of dice being rattled in an infantry stacked combat.

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


text:
How can you have units with secret locations on the board?
I've heard that there are games where the units on the board are secret -- that the other player doesn't know where they are.  How does this actually work?  How can you have units on the board without the other players knowing their location?

Something something blockchain.

There are a few popular ways.

Have a duplicate game board with a referee to validate things.
Have a map of the game board set aside with the secret locations marked.
Have numbered locations on the board where the hidden units can be and mark the number down secretly.
Use decoy markers.  Place several markers on the board and treat them like a real unit.  Only one of the decoy markers represents the actual unit.

Re: Decoy markers - that's essentially how Stratego works; have a marker on ever space, but only some of them actually be units.

Ares Project is a recent example that is a version of several of these... basically independent boards with a stand-up divider between the players. Only at certain points do you reveal how you've set things up. http://boardgamegeek.com/image/1242034/the-ares-project

Pandemic is a popular game using essentially the third idea (the bioterrorist variant in the expansion uses a secret sheet, with city names). Battleship demonstrates that you don't need a referee to use duplicate boards, as long as everyone plays nice.

The Ravensburger game Pyramid has a fairly creative solution to this problem: The board is stood vertically, with all the pieces attached by magnets to respective sides.
All but one of the players sit on one side and move their pieces to collect treasure inside a pyramid. The other player is a mummy and is trying to capture them, but he only knows where they are when they reveal treasure. In practice, the mummy sits on the other side.
Additionally, there is a mummy magnet on the adventurers' side as well, so that when the mummy moves, the other players can see where he moves to, making the mummy's location known to all, but the adventurers' locations secret to the mummy.
Not a particularly deep game, but one I really like just for this creative approach to secret piece movement!

It doesn't help at all for what I'm trying to do, but it's such an unusual way of accomplishing secret locations that I'm quite glad you posted it.

In Stratego, you don't know which units are which, but I am sure that isn't what you mean.
Scotland Yard and Clue: The Great Museum Caper have a player record their moves secretly, and only reveal their location at the end of the game.
Battleship does it with independent boards.
You could also institute a Fog of War by placing unit tiles facedown among blank tiles. Moving unit tiles on your turn (only you know the location of your units) when your opponent isn't in the room.  When you maneuver a unit adjacent to another you flip the tile and reveal an opponent’s unit or a blank. At the end of your turn, you replace the blanks and your opponent returns to the room and takes their turn.

ASL has two levels of secrecy: the simpler is concealment, where you place a blank counter (actually marked '?') on top of every stack, and have a few stacks consisting only of blanks; when the other player 'would see' the stack (it moves in the open, is successfully fired at, etc.), you take the blank (or blanks) off. Hidden requires you to write down a hex number for each hidden unit, with any relevant information (equipment, facing...). When you want that unit to act, you have to put it on the board (possibly concealed).
It is also possible to have one board for each player, with a barrier between them. On your board you place your own units and your guess as to the enemy dispositions. A neutral referee checks each move (ideally having his own board, which will be right for both sides), and reports what is visible.

Some game resolve this with having your units as cards, with a monogenous backside. The player will have a stack of cards with units on them, ranging from strong to weak. He also have a stack of blank decoy cards, and when he places the cards on the battlemap, only he knows which contains units and which are blanks.
With this method, you can also make some sneaky bluffs with the number of cards you put in each stack, which order you place them in and so forth.

One idea for keeping secret units, well, secret on a shared board would be for the player controlling said units to maintain a notepad with current (and past) unit locations. Keeping track would be trivial on a grid-based board where you could note "Spy is moving from A-2 to B-4".
This could be even simpler if combined with some variety of rules-enforcing system like a small computer application, a game master, or even a numbered turn counter to add to the notes.

The simplest way is for units which cannot move while hidden. They can simply start off hidden with a counter one every location. When you want to activate a hidden unit, turn over one of the counters. If people can search a location for hidden units, then let them look at a counter and discard/replace it. Alternatively you can merely write down where they are and reveal them whenever you want.
Written approaches lack the transparency of the counter method though, since you could easily cheat or forget a unit is in a location where it should have been revealed.
If you want to move hidden  units, you could swap two neighbouring location counters. This will give clues to the other players where units might be moving, however. You could possibly allow more then one move at a time so some might be real and some fake. This approach has the advantage that you cannot accidentally lose track of your hidden unit, and forget they should have been killed/revealed.

One way to place units at a hidden location that has not yet been mentioned is in MB's Gamemaster series Shogun, later renamed Samurai Swords due to naming conflicts. There players hold a card for each province they control. When they hire ronin (mercenaries they only get for one turn) they place the card(s) of the province(s) where they want to put the ronin facedown and put the ronin pieces onto the back of the card.
Thus the other players can see how they are spread (like 3 different provinces each reinforced with 2 ronin or all 6 in a single province) but unless that province is attacked or the ronin should be moved (picked up by a regular army) they can only guess where exactly the ronin are.

This is fairly close to the Star Wars: Rebellion works. The rebels have a secret base, which is a seperate part of the board, and there's a facedown card there to show which planet those pieces belong to.


text:
When should you side lands in and out?
Some Magic writers advise players to side out a land when on the draw in Limited, in order to improve the probability of drawing a strong starting hand.

Is it reasonable to do the same (side out a land on the draw) in Constructed? And, if so, why isn't it commonly done?

Assuming you have a good reason to have land in your Constructed sideboard in the first place (usually cards like Wasteland), when is it strategically beneficial to bring in extra lands instead of only making spell-for-spell substitutions?

A recent case of this was in pre-Avacyn Restored Standard. There were some versions of UB Control that had 3 Nephalia Drownyards main-deck and another one in the sideboard.
In a control mirror with both decks full of reactive cards, the player who has mana advantage usually wins the game, because he or she can play many spells in one turn (e.g. play a threat, counter a removal spell against it, then counter the opponent's counter).
With lands in the sideboard, this deck could side in an extra land, taking out a removal spell. This way they would hit their land drops more easily and have another win condition in the deck, since milling was the best win condition in UB mirrors.
For reference, the 2nd place finisher of GP Baltimore 2012, as Hackworth pointed in the comments, used 2 lands in his sideboard. Its player goes so far as to say that Nephalia Drownyard is "the only card that matters in the mirror."

Reference: http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/eventcoverage/gpbal12/welcome Placed second, even has 2 lands in sideboard (4th drownyard and a 3rd Ghost Quarter)

For the first question, I would say that while the same mathematics work for constructed as well, sideboarding lands just for mana balance reasons in constructed does not seem reasonable.
Firstly, in constructed the impact of a single land on the mana balance of your deck is smaller than in limited due to larger decksize (and the effect is quite small to begin with).
Secondly, in limited you have infinite lands in your sideboard, while in constructed you would have to remove a real card from the sideboard to fit in a land. Since the sideboard cards in constructed typically are very high impact cards in the right situation, this cost is quite significant, and likely higher than any benefit from potentially better mana balance.

But the mana-balance part of the question just involves siding out a land on the draw, and putting that one land back into your maindeck on the play. This doesn't actually require keeping any land in your sideboard.

That is correct, I did not consider that. I would suspect that one remaining issue which is more likely to be valid in constructed, is that the number of lands is only part of the issue. You also need to have the right colors of lands. Since constructed decks often include many colors, it is likely more problematic to ensure a good distribution when changing the mana base, and I would suspect most don't find it worth the extra testing required (note: I'm not a very good magic player, so I don't really know the pro's reasoning).

Tengfred has already made what I think is the crucial point here: your constructed sideboard allotment is a parsimonious 15 cards.  If you're spending slots on the ability to subtly rejig your mana balance between games on the play and on the draw, you're probably doing it wrong.
Having said that, if you can genuinely only find 14 nonland cards that would improve your deck in any imaginable scenario, then I can imagine worse things than a land in the 15th slot.  An extra land is almost always going to be a better draw against a creatureless deck than a removal spell, for instance!

I think both of you misunderstood the question - the question is not about having a land in your sideboard, but about going from say 24 land and 36 non-land in the deck to 23 land and 37 non-land when you are sideboarding on the draw - you are not replacing one land with another. Since your first turn will have a draw, having 8 cards on your first turn and 52 left in deck change the odds of drawing your land enough to make it possibly viable.


text:
Are progress cards awarded if the barbarian strength is 0?
If there are no cities on the board, barbarian strength is rated at zero.  So automatically the players have tied or beaten the barbarians.  Are progress cards allocated under these circumstances?  If there are activated knights on the board, can a victory point be achieved?

Yes,
This is answered by the online Catan FAQ.

Can the players win against the barbarians if there is not one single city on Catan?
Yes

No,
but that's if you're playing the English variant.  In that variant, each player chooses how much to contribute to the defense of Catan.  A player isn't allowed to defend Catan if they have no cities, thus no-one can win and get a reward.

This question is not about having no knights, it is about having no cities.


text:
How can we win at Bohnanza: Al Cabohne?
My girlfriend and I have played the game Bohnanza a lot and we have bought the version Bohnanza: Al Cabohne. But somehow the game always beats us. Does anybody know a good tactic to win this?

For the most part, you can use any Bohnanza guide to win at Al Cabohne. All you have to take into consideration are the fundamental differences between this game and regular Bohnanza. I'll focus on those:
The most important difference created with Al Cabohne is in the way the discard pile affects the proceedings of the game. You can get some good value out of the discard pile if you can manage to remember which cards are on there.
Also something to look out for, if one of the mafia bosses ends up with a bean that you already have, you might not want to harvest them immediately. If your harvest goes onto the discard pile, that's basically the same as giving it to the mafia. If you think you can manage until the mafia harvests their field you can try to get all those cards from the discard pile back onto your field. So unless you really need the space, try to keep these beans on the table.


text:
In 7 wonders when you buy resources from neighbor do you take the card?
When you buy resources from neighbor do you take the card or just get access to the resources you need?

That would make some kind of really interesting variant, but it's definitely not the basic rule :)

No, you do not take the card. The neighbor retains the card; you are simply allowed to use your neighbor's cards, for a fee of course.
You can also buy the resource from the top corner of the civilization cards as well.  It doesn't need to be a "card".

I agree. Cards are not resources, it's more like a shop. You don't take the shop when you buy things in it.

But it does need to be gray or brown, stuff from yellow cards cannot be purchased.

Just the resources.
The rules on page 4 define things pretty well.
Cards are called "structures", the brown ones can generate "resources"

Often, a player will want to build a structure requiring resources he or she does not produce.
If these resources are produced by a neighboring city – players sitting directly to the left or right of that player – the player will be able to purchase the missing resource(s) through commerce.

In red, there is a notice:

Important : the resources are not spent during construction. They can be used each turn, for the entire game. The production of a city is never reduced (the cards played are never discarded).

Obviously if you were to take the card, the production of the city would be reduced and this is prohibited.


text:
In the sixth adventure, how do you destroy the Gravestorms Phylactery Token?
You can either kill the dragon by attacking it or by destroying the Gravestorms Phlactery Token.  My question is how do you destroy it.  There are no directions in the rule book or adventure book as how to accomplish the task.

The phylactery doesn't have an AC iirc, so you can essentially destroy it just by attacking it with an at-will.

Thank you, and everyone else who has put together all the interesting adventures for CR.  they are awesome!


text:
Can other Heroes and/or Monsters be purchased separately for Castle Ravenloft?
Can I purchase additional monsters or heroes for the CR board game?  And if so, do they come with their stat cards?  Just want to get the most out of the game as possible.

A Gray Hag promo exists, but it was a fairly limited release.
Wrath of Ashardalon is fully compatible with Castle Ravenloft, and Wizards has released bonus adventures that combine the two games.
Legend of Drizzt is the latest game in the series and, according to the product information page, is also fully compatible with both other games.

Still a valid answer but links are dead, just fyi

Except for gray hag

I don't know about add-ons for Castle Ravenloft, but I know wizards made ANOTHER D&D Adventure System board game called Wrath of Ashardalon.


text:
Do I have to tell the other players how much money I have?
Do I have to tell the others how much money I have or may I make this a secret and everybody has to calculate/estimate themselves?

Officially, Money is hidden.
See the FAQ for Funkenschlag (the game was originally published in German under that name.

Hide the amount of money
Question: Are you supposed to hide the amount of money you have?
Answer: The rules are not explicit on this point. You should play with hidden money, to prevent AP in the last (couple of) turn(s).

As Chris notes, this can slow the game down quite a bit as

People try to keep track mentally of everything
People may spend extra time figuring out their move by obsessively calculating how that would affect other people's turns.  (The common term for this is analysis paralysis)

So if you are playing in a tournament, expect that everyone's money will be hidden.  At home with your friends, if y'all are not overly competitive or wish to avoid analysis paralysis then feel free to keep money public for everyone.
Since shuffling money back and forth in Power Grid happens frequently, you can take advantage of declaring that money will be public by getting rid of the paper money completely:

Use a whiteboard or computer spreadsheet to track money for each player
Use poker chips.  They tend to be much easier to move around quickly and can be easily counted if everyone leaves them in stacks.

Which of course greatly slows down the game as players try to track how much money everyone has.  Much simpler (and faster) just to play with open money, as all income and expenses are public and thus trackable.

@ChrisDodd - You are right!  I've expanded my answer a bit to give a few options.  Most groups should probably use public money IMHO.

One should note also that all transactions are public knowledge; anyone paying close enough attention can track exactly how much you have.

You said this both ways so i want to make sure.  Open money causes AP

@Andry: my experience is the reverse -- closed money in PowerGrid causes AP that open money avoids.  Other games may be different.

AP : For those who, like me, had to wonder about this for a while : «AP» is, I think, «Analysis Paralysis»...


text:
If I put a copper and add 4 more random cards into my hand from my starting deck, does it change the odds of getting the 5:2 split?
I was thinking about a situation where someone accidentally reveals a copper from their starting hand while shuffling their deck or discovers that they only have 9 cards in their starting deck (and they are certain they put the required 3 Estates in).
If they added a copper from the supply to their first hand, and drew 4 more of the remaining 9 cards, would their odds of getting a 5:2 or 2:5 hand versus a 4:3 or 3:4 hand be any different than if they drew a normal 5 card starting hand from a normal 10 card deck? (I realize that a 5:2 hand is slightly different than a 2:5 hand, in that it allows you to change your possible 2:5 coin buy after an opponents first purchase. The thing I am wondering though is if it changes the chances of getting a 5:2 split versus the more likely 4:3 split).

Short Answer:
No.
Long Answer:
The odds of getting a 5:2 split over the more common 4:3 split is unchanged, even if the first card is intentionally chosen to be a copper.
Mathematically, this can be proven using hypergeometric distribution.  This can be calculated using the following function, where N is the size of the deck, n is the number of cards drawn, and m is the number of coppers available:
P(X=k) = (m choose k) * ((N-m) choose (n-k)) / (N choose n)

With a normal starting deck, you would use values of N=10, n=5 and m=7.  Without boring you with the math proper, these would give you a result breakdown as follows:
2 copper: 1/12
3 copper: 5/12
4 copper: 5/12
5 copper: 1/12

So you would normally have a 1/12 + 1/12 = 1/6 chance of getting the 5:2 split.
Now, if the first card is preemptively selected to be a copper, this changes our starting numbers.  Since the first card is known, your starting draw would effectively be a four card draw from a nine card deck containing only six coppers.  Punching in the values N=9, n=4 and m=6 into our function, we end up with the following table:
1 copper: 1/21
2 copper: 5/14
3 copper: 10/21
4 copper: 5/42

Even though the spread of numbers is significantly different, your odds of a 5:2 split work out to 1/21 + 5/42 = 7/42 = 1/6, which is exactly the same as before.
However, note that although the odds of the split themselves are unchanged, by selecting out the first copper you are now over twice as likely to get the 5:2 draw as you are to get the 2:5 draw.

I believe a probabilistically equivalent question is "If a single card revealed from an opening hand is copper, does it tell you anything about the starting deck?" Order doesn't matter (even in your example situation, as every hand is guaranteed to have copper, that the first card is copper isn't significant).
Bayes' Rule for conditional probability says that
P(A|B) = P(B|A) P(A) / P(B)

Let A be the event that there is a 5:2 or 2:5 split and B be the event that a random card revealed is a copper.
For P(B|A), the number of coppers in the first two hands are 5:2. Which hand is first (the 5 or the 2) is equally likely, so the probability of revealing a copper from the first hand is the average probability of revealing a copper from the two possible first hands, i.e.
P(B|A) = (1.00 + 0.40) / 2 = 0.70

Now we must consider the 4:3 case to calculate P(B). If the first two hands are 4:3, same comments about order apply, and the probability of revealing a copper is
P(copper revealed | 4:3) = (0.80 + 0.60) / 2 = 0.70

Thus the probability of revealing a copper doesn't change based on a 5:2 or a 4:3 split so P(B) = P(B|A) = 0.7. But this is the definition of statistical independence, and going back to the original Bayes' Rule, P(B) and P(B|A) can cancel, so P(A|B) = P(A). The odds of a 2:5 split are unchanged by reveal of a copper in the hand.
It's initially more counterintuitive, but it follows directly that a first card Estate also provides no information about the breakdown. (In all cases P(estate revealed) = 1 - P(copper revealed), so we'd have .3's instead of .7's.)

Knowing that the first card is a copper (or an estate) doesn't bias the 5/2 distribution at all.  Knowing the first two cards, however, does bias the distribution.  The best justification I can come up with is to mark a single copper as your special copper.  If you divided the ways of getting a 5/2 split into different classes depending on 10 different possible locations of that special copper, each of those 10 sets have equal size and an equal ratio of 5/2 vs 4/3, so you haven't really told me anything about the likelihood of a 5/2 by telling me which of those 10 subsets you are in.
Output of some sims:
   0.16722
C  0.16752
CC 0.19536
CE 0.10769
E  0.16728
EE 0.37528

Here is the Python code that produced the numbers.
import random
import collections

def split_is_25(start):
  cur = start
  rest = []
  startC = start.count('C')
  startE = start.count('E')
  rest.extend(['C'] * (7 - startC))
  rest.extend(['E'] * (3 - startE))
  random.shuffle(rest)
  split = start + rest
  rand_split = [split[0:5].count('C'), split[5:10].count('C')]
  rand_split.sort()
  return rand_split[0] == 2

N = 100000
tests = ['', 'C', 'CC', 'CE', 'E', 'EE']
counts = collections.defaultdict(int)

for i in range(N):
  for test in tests:
    counts[test] += split_is_25(list(test))
for test in tests:
  print test, float(counts[test]) / N

I'm a little unclear what you mean by revealing the copper, then keeping on shuffling.  If you're still shuffling, then you're not done yet, and any cards revealed should be put back into the 10 cards.  If you're already starting to deal, then the cards are fixed, in which case you keep dealing regardless of the revealed card.
Nevertheless, making any kind of decision based on a revealed card will change the odds. Here's what I mean by decision:
I'm trying to game the system, so I shuffle until I accidentally reveal a card, if it's a copper, I let it remain in my starting hand, but if it's an Estate, I shuffle it back in.  I've just drastically increased my odds of having more copper in my starting hand.
NOTE: This scenario is equivalent to one where I intentionally reveal copper, as that's simply  the same as choosing the first card of your hand, and having the rest random.
In short, getting to choose your first card (instead of it being random) definitely affects the odds of getting any particular hand.

Actually, as others have shown, choosing deliberately your first card (be it Estate or Copper) and then drawing the remaining 4 cards necessary to make a 5 card starting hand does not change the odds of getting a 5/2 split versus a 4/3 split in your first 2 hands. It does change the odds of getting a 5,4,3,2, or 1 Copper starting hand (but doesn't change the combined first two hands odds)

Please read my answer carefully.  I said it changes the odds of any particular hand, not the combined odds of one of two hands.  A 1st copper will increase the odds of getting any hand with more coppers.  The question's been edited anyhow, so this point seems to be moot.


text:
Do weak decks win a disproportionate amount of multiplayer FFA games?
Some people ignore weak decks in a multiplayer FFA setting. They believe that because a deck's card quality is poor that leaving that player basically unmolested, and not expending resources to remove that weak player from the game, leaves you with more resources to deal with the stronger decks at the table. Weak decks should be easier to beat when the game comes down to a duel anyway, rather than fighting another strong deck 1 vs 1.
Is there any evidence that weak decks actually win more often than stronger decks played in the same multiplayer FFA setting?

There's no direct advantage to playing a weaker deck. There is, however, an advantage to managing perceptions.
In some sense, free-for-all is about always being outgunned: taken together, your opponents have more resources — more cards, more mana, more life, more time (turns) — than you do. Luckily, those resources aren't always directed against you at all times. However, as The Ferrett says, "Eventually, you have to be Alpha Threat to win" — and, when you are in that position and most of the table is gunning for you, it pays to have access to strong cards that can power you through that opposition.
The flip side is that those strong cards are more likely to get you labeled as the "Alpha Threat" prematurely. The best way to mitigate this isn't playing weaker cards, it's good strategic timing: as he continues, "The lesson is that you have to time your shot at dominance perfectly. You have to wait until your opponents don't have the resources to stop you, or you have the ability to stop them."
Multiplayer strategy writers emphasize the importance of gaming your opponents' perception to get to that point. Your card selection certainly plays a role here:

Even if you're just defending yourself, too powerful of an early board presence might make your opponents see you as the major threat. This could be an argument for playing bad cards, but...
Inversely, too little of an early presence marks you out as an easy target — some players love to take pot shots at anyone who doesn't have some blockers — or, worse yet, gets you flagged as That Guy Biding His Time Until He Can Use His Combo, at which point many players are likely to move to take you out even if you have no obvious strength, based on the fear that you could steal the game at any time.
Some players just love to "spread the love around," e.g. by attacking a different player each round, largely independent of their relative standings. Moreover, lots of multiplayer cards affect all players at the table: you don't have to be "The Threat" to have your carefully-laid plans trampled by another player's Cabal Conditioning. A weaker deck may dodge opponents' direct attention but find its game grinding to a halt anyway because it can't recover from collateral damage.

Thus, depending on the group, appearing weakest may be an advantage, a disadvantage, or largely irrelevant. Strategy writers often advise hiding your strength without actually showing weakness — trying to keep yourself in the "middle of the pack" to avoid the undue attention that may come from being either on top or at the bottom.

In my experience, the best way to dodge attention in multiplayer, particularly with relative strangers (e.g. at a game store rather than an enduring kitchen-table group) is not so much to play a deck that appears weak as a deck that seems linear and predictable. Players tend to spend most of their energy worrying about decks that threaten to do big "broken" game-changing things, or decks whose gameplan they have yet to figure out. Thus, it pays to play a deck that can build up in a slow, measured way with a very "obvious" gameplan, like creature-based midrange beats. Even when opponents notice your buildup, there's a bit of a tendency to dismiss it as a problem they can deal with in a couple more turns, after whatever more pressing concern is addressed.
My wife often steals games this way. She develops her board with some decent creatures, goes after one or two of the weaker players while the big splashy decks fight each other, and then sticks a card like True Conviction or Bellowing Tanglewurm for a game-winning alpha strike once the coast is clear. To win this way, you actually need some of the attributes of a strong deck, just in less "sexy" categories like consistent development and resilience. A deck that's straight-up weak across the board can play the same unassuming startup, but won't be able to capitalize on the late-game state in the same way.
Does her approach win a disproportionate amount of games? It's hard to say with certainty. She seems to win more than her fair share of games, but I do, too, with much splashier punch-everyone-in-the-face control decks. I think trying to be unassuming and predictable works best when there are several big decks fighting for supremacy, e.g. with lock pieces, serving as a suitable distraction for themselves and all of your other opponents; if the table just has one, that deck likely has the resources to run you over while you're still in your "slow and steady" mode.

With the people I've played FFA multiplayer the deciding factor of who got attacked wasn't as much about who had the stronger deck but rather who was known as the stronger player. Those who won previous games or were more experienced had a much higher risk of being attacked. Of course smack talk, and other non MtG related things, plays a big role too.
But this is probably more common in playgroups where there's a big difference in experience among the players. Or where the players aren't very competitive, rather just want to have fun.

Here's a pretty good article on "Best Player Syndrome" (when groups tend to gang up on a player based on reputation), by my favorite multiplayer strategy guys.

FFA is a more luck oriented format than 1 vs 1, so of course weak decks will relatively win more than in 1 vs 1. But that doen't really mean that weak decks win more games that strong decks. Also in FFA diplomacy has an important role.
Not all players go first for the strong opponent. There are players that go first for the weak opponents. There are players that go first for strong opponents. There are players that go against nobody and wait for the other players to spend resources fighting between themselves. There are players that go first against opponents who play control decks. There are players with strong decks that form an alliance to defeat the rest of players before fighting between themshelves. There are players with weak decks that form an alliance to defeat first the strong player on the table.
In summary, it depends on the personalities of the players.

Why is it necessarily more luck-oriented? Arguably FFA multiplayer is more forgiving of players getting stuck with a few bad topdecks, for instance.

@user1873 Well, "disproportionate" only has meaning if it's in relation to something else. So I compared it to 1v1. If we only take into account FFA, the it can never be disproportionate: it's the right amount.

@AlexP Luck factor comes from random events. There are two sources of random events in 1v1: two decks. In FFA, there are several, therefore luck becomes more prominent. Also, it's harder to plan ahead in FFA because it's more likely than some of your oponents will have something that break you plans.

@Pablo, disproportionate as compared to strong decks played in multiplayer FFA. If there is no correlation between a weak deck and winning, or a strong deck and winning, you would expect to find a number of wins equal to the number of games played divided by the number of players (I.e. If you play 5 players, you would expect 20% wins. That would be a proportionate win percentage if deck strength had no effect on win percentage. So, do string decks, or weak decks win more on average, or does it have no correlation.)

@Pablo I think your luck factor argument is entirely subjective. In 1v1, if you get unlucky, your opponent will take advantage. In FFA this isn't necessarily so, someone else at the table may be in a weaker position so they have been more unlucky, or conversely someone has gotten very lucky and therefore pasted a big target on their forehead.

@Pablo ghoppe summarizes my take on it nicely: there are more random events, but tempo is less important and political "bandwaggoning" and "balancing" make bad hands less perilous and good hands less powerful.


text:
Which Faction Power will result in the greatest bonus troops and/or fewest troop losses?
Without taking into account any other packets that might be opened over the course of a game (no spoilers please, only use the starting rules, starting scars, starting stickers).
1) What is the best starting power for each faction that is likely to result in the most bonus troops or fewest troop losses in the first game?
2) Which faction is the best overall at this?

Die Mechaniker
1) Your starting HQ is always treated as FORTIFIED (+1 to both dice) when you defend it.
2) If your defense roll is two natural 6s, that territory cannot be attacked again for the rest of the turn.
The Saharan Republic
1) You can make your maneuver at any point during your turn.
2) When making your maneuver, you may maneuver between any two territories you control, even if they are not connected.
Imperial Balkania
1) When recruiting troops, round up when dividing your territory and population by 3, not down.
2) You still draw a resource card at the end of a turn where you expanded into 4+ territories, even if you didn't conquer a territory.
Enclave of the Bear
1) The defender subtracts 1 from his lower defense die in the first territory you attack during your turn.
2) If your attack roll is a natural three of a kind, and at least one defending troop is defeated, you conquer the territory. Remove all defending troops.
Khan Industries
1) At the start of your turn, place one troop in each territory that has an HQ you control.
2) When drawing a territory card, you may place one troop into that territory if you control it.

I'm not sure there's a provable "right" answer here, just opinions.

But EotB #2 could destroy any number of troops and DM #2 could "hold off" any number, for example.  I just think this question would be more answerable in a form like "what are the pros and cons of the various starting powers" rather than an absolute "which is best?"

Die Mechaniker
1) Your starting HQ is always treated as FORTIFIED (+1 to both dice) when you defend it.
2) If your defense roll is two natural 6s, that territory cannot be attacked again for the rest of the turn.
Reason: The odds of getting two natural 6s on a single roll is 1/36. Therefore, the odds that we have not rolled a pair of 6s by the nth attack is, (1-1/36)^n. This is roughly 50% by the 25th-26th attack. This means that in half the games that you roll with two defenders 25 times, you will still not have recieved a bonus from this power. I would say on average, the first game lasts anywhere from 3-5 rounds, and considering you will probably only get 3-5 troops per round, for a total of 8+[(3*5)|(5*5)]=[21|33] troops. If you only received the minimum troops each turn, you more than likely would never get the faction bonus. Even if you are lucky enough to roll 66, the only fair way to count troops saved would be to divide the troops that you could have lost by the odds of you rolling 66 (approximately 21/25 or 33/25, somewhere close to 1 troop. If you could get the 5 troops per turn (probably only likely by getting a continent bonus from Australia/South America/Africa, you would be much better off with a FORTIFIED Headquarters.
A fortified HQ gives you +1 to your High and Low dice. This bonus will result in you losing ~0.388 troops when compared to a normal unmodified attack. This means that you only need to have 4-5 troops within your HQ before this faction power is certain to have a greater effect than the pair of natural sixes power.
The Saharan Republic
1) You can make your maneuver at any point during your turn.
2) When making your maneuver, you may maneuver between any two territories you control, even if they are not connected.
Reason: While neither of these power directly results in fewer troop loses, the ability to maneuver at any point in your turn could allow you to move troops that were previously on one of two different fronts (South America/Africa), for a final assault against two opponents HQs. I will edit this with a little more detail later on troop loses that could be avoided because of this.
Imperial Balkania
1) When recruiting troops, round up when dividing your territory and population by 3, not down.
2) You still draw a resource card at the end of a turn where you expanded into 4+ territories, even if you didn't conquer a territory.
Reason: You aren't likely to be able to get 10+ territories in a 5 player game. At least with the second faction power, you will most likely get 1-2 resource coins. This will amount to at least 2 troops over the course of a game.
Enclave of the Bear
1) The defender subtracts 1 from his lower defense die in the first territory you attack during your turn.
2) If your attack roll is a natural three of a kind, and at least one defending troop is defeated, you conquer the territory. Remove all defending troops.
Reason: From the same statistics link above (Die Mechaniker), you can see that -1 do the defenders low die will result in 0.14 less troop loses, but only for the first territory that they attack in a turn. A clever opponent though can place a 1-2 troops in front of their main defenses to mitigate this power somewhat. The odds of rolling a natural 3 of a kind that kills at least one troop is 125/7776. The number of turns before that is likely to happen is about 43 attacks with 3 troops. I don't think you are likely to see this within the first game. Even if you did, you probably would only kill at most 5 troops, saving you about 5 troops yourself (5/43=0.116). Two attacks with Enclave of the Bears first power would already save you more troops in the long run, and is much more likely to happen.
Khan Industries
1) At the start of your turn, place one troop in each territory that has an HQ you control.
2) When drawing a territory card, you may place one troop into that territory if you control it.
Reason: You are certain to get 1 troop as long as you control your HQ. This will likely gain you 3-5 troops before the first game ends. The second power only gets you a troop if you defeat an enemy, and if you have that territory under your control at the end of the turn. You might have to waste a maneuver to bring those troops to the front lines, but you will earn more troops with the first power.
Overall, I think that Khan Industries is likely to earn/save you the most troops in the first game. With Die Mechankier placing a close second, if you can place your HQ at a good choke point.

Wow, Imperial Balkania's powers are both pretty mediocre. Last time I played, nobody wanted to be them.  Every other faction has one power that is amazing and another that is unlikely to ever help.  Last time I played, every faction had their lame power, and still nobody wanted to be Balkania though.  I think I'll give every faction their good power this time, and give Balkania both powers just to try and keep up.

On second thought, getting two free resource cards is a big step toward getting a free victory point.  Perhaps their power is pretty good after all.

The question is about first game only. However, I think it is very shortsighted to choose the second Balkanian power. The rounding up power is possibly the most powerful in later games. Recruited troops are based on number of territories AND POPULATION from cities. Attaining 10+ territories and population is not difficult at all once cities are placed. When I played with a full group of five, the player with this faction regularly benefitted from the rounding up power, especially when choosing the most strategic starting location to capitalize on this power.

I have personally found that Enclave of the Bear's The defender subtracts 1 from his lower defense die in the first territory you attack during your turn ability to be the most beneficial starting power, both at the start and throughout the campaign.

user1873 is correct in all but one respect: Imperial Balkania. The reason is that the first ability (expand into 4+ territories for a card) will likely only get you as many as 3 cards in any given game, while their second power (round up for territories) can be unlimited. And what he is forgetting is that, while no you arn't likely to get 10 territories in a 5 player game, you are if you include population. I know this doesn't apply in the first game, but remember these powers are permanent and there will be cities in every other game (this isn't a spoiler, you know this from the rulebook) and if you control 20% of the territories, which is 8 or 9, all you need is 1 or 2 cities for this to apply.
I would take the round up power, without doubt.

Hi!  Welcome to the site!  Please don't enter multiple answers for the same question.  Create your own best answer for the question, revise and extend it as needed.  Thanks!

Balkania's other power is pretty lame considering Khan Industries can get one troop every round, while theirs only gives an extra troop 2/3 of the time.  Though Khan's auto-deploy makes it possibly less useful.  Either way I think the resource cards may be better.

3 resource cards is almost a victory point. And it could be worth tons of armies if the cards are worth 4-6 coins each.


text:
Housing shortage in Monopoly
So the rules of Monopoly state that you can't buy a house if there are no houses left for sale. You can't even pay all at once and buy a Hotel if there aren't enough houses to place 4 on the property first. But, what happens if you have a hotel in a property, all the houses are gone, and you want to (or are forced to) sell your hotel? I'm guessing that you are forced to go ahead and sell the hotel and all 4 houses at once?

Yes, you can only downgrade a hotel to a number of houses if that number of houses is actually available in the bank. If there are no houses, you must sell the entire hotel outright. This fact can be used strategically:

If there is a shortage of houses, players should consider buying the last houses rather than buying hotels because each hotel built returns four houses to the bank for other players to use. When there are no houses in the bank, no one else can build houses. Also, players with hotels can't easily convert them to cash in this situation; they would have to strip an entire colour group of its hotels to raise money since buildings must be removed evenly from a colour group and because the hotels cannot be exchanged for houses since there are no houses in the bank. The owners of inexpensive monopolies should be particularly eager to use this tactic to prevent the owners of expensive monopolies from fully developing.


text:
Should I prefer Farmers or other followers?
My friends and I have played three or four games of Carcassonne with varying winners, and fortunately we're all about the same experience with board games in general.
I'm beginning to find, however, that our games are being decided by the farm at the end. It is common for thirty or forty points to be decided at the very end. With this in mind, should I start shifting my strategy toward keeping only one or two followers open for quick road/city/abbey completions and lay down more farmers?

I know this is a specific question, but this general strategy question is quite relevant: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/774/what-are-good-standard-strategies-for-carcassonne

It sounds like you are pretty new to Carcassonne.  It's pretty easy to start playing and have your group think that nearly everything should be finished and the board should look nearly square at the end without many blank holes in the grid.
If this sounds familiar, then yes, there are likely to be big farms and its a good idea to get in early on the farm.
You could change your style though.  I view every meeple played by my opponents as something to be attacked and stranded!
When an opponent plays a farmer, that meeple isn't moving ever again.  You need a good reason to extend that farm in any way.  Play around it.  The next road juncture you play should be positioned to cut off the farm.  Do not play city tiles on the farm.  Just leave it alone!

On the downside, if you cut off a farm like that, it is harder to join it yourself.

I think the answer to this question really depends on the state of the board.
Generally, if there are large farms with lots of smaller cities, then of course you should shift towards laying down farmers early and claim farming territory.
But if there are a few large, unfinished cities which look hopeless, or lots of little farms broken by many roads, then it doesn't make sense to lay down the farmers early.
If a farm is going to score 9+ points easily, then "quick" cloister/road/city completions are not going going to make up the difference. On the other hand, meeple management is important — if you tie up all your meeples too early, then you could put yourself at a disadvantage.

Beware of laying too many farmers too early on farms that are quite close to each other, lest cunning opponents join up all your farms so you end up with one farm, which may be quite large, but only scores you the points for the cities once, not for the multiple farmers.
AND beware of farm 'thieves' - my friend is a master of this - he'll wait until the last 20 or so tiles, then start adding farmers on tiny bits of what look like non-point-worthy sections of field, and then on subsequent moves join them up to MY farms - usually with a 2-point meeple (from Inns & Cathedrals expansion) or actually two or more meeple, thus depriving me of my huge farm score I'd been building up the whole game.  The swine! :)
EDIT: I released I didn't actually answer the question posed.  I usually use around 3 meeple for farmers during a game, then try deploying any and all remaining meeple as farmers near game end to grab last minute points from any remaining un-farmed fields.  Deploying too many farmers too early on can lead to the above noted things happening, by which time you have little way of gaining any foothold back!

Farmers are a great way to swing the board and win a game, but you have to be really careful because your meeples are essentially trapped. The answer, as ever, is it depends. But there are certain things you should avoid:

Do not overcommit meeples to farming. They become trapped and you'll become frozen from scoring. This is especially important later in the game.
Ask yourself if committing a farmer is worth it. It's easy to see if the board board will turn into a cluster of small cities, or some giant disjointed cities. I prefer to observe this pattern before I commit. Three or six points early in the game are not worth losing my meeple. I can use them to score similar amounts while retaining their use.
Don't rush. Joining farms belonging to opponents is easy with careful planning. Keep an eye out for curved road tiles and green patches on city tiles. I've seen games won and lost with the last tile on too many occasions.
There's no such thing as a useless tile. Tiles that seem useless can be used defensively to prevent people from taking over or infiltrating your farms (or other features).
Advanced players prefer to score small quick gains while holding on to their meeples. At the end of the game you'll usually see a blitz for small farms and other features as scoring opportunities diminish. I play regularly against players with circa 1800 ELO, and I've observed this pattern.

In the end, the biggest mistake newbies make is they over commit meeples to farming, or completely overlook it. The trick is finding the right balance and reading the board well. It's about using your meeples efficiently, and this is very situational, but the above guidelines should stand.


text:
Is untapping my permanents during the untap step optional?
I was reading the untap step rule and got confused a bit. It says:

502.2. Second, the active player determines which permanents he or she controls will untap. Then he or she untaps them all simultaneously.
  This turn-based action doesn't use the stack. Normally, all of a
  player's permanents untap, but effects can keep one or more of a
  player's permanents from untapping.

If "a player determines", can I determine not to untap all my permanents?

Very good question - the idea is actually not uncommon.

See Giant Oyster for an example of this rule being overridden by a card.

You do not get to choose whether or not to keep a permanent tapped during the Untap Step of the Beginning Phase unless a specific card's ability provides that choice. For example, Rubinia Soulsinger lets you choose not to untap her during your untap step. Notice that the clause "your untap step." is important, Rubinia Soulsinger must still be untapped if an opponent plays a Pestermite you must untap Rubinia Soulsinger and relinquish control of whatever creature you stole.
The word "determine" in this context does not mean choose, it means to evaluate whether or not there are any abilities preventing a permanent from untapping, and evaluating the decision to untap should an ability provide that choice. As the rule states:

Normally, all of a player's permanents untap.

Actually the answer is in the text you posted:

Normally, all of a player's permanents untap, but effects can keep one or more of a player's permanents from untapping.

So, no, a player cannot chose which permanents to untap during that step, unless an effect  makes it so.


text:
Increasing Vengeance and new targets
Increasing Vengeance states "Copy target instant or sorcery spell you control. If Increasing Vengeance was cast from a graveyard, copy that spell twice instead. You may choose new targets for the copies."
Does "You may choose new targets for the copies" apply only if Increasing Vengeance was cast from the graveyard?

No.
You may (but are not required to) choose new copies for any or all copies created by Increasing Vengeance. "Copies" in the last sentence refers to any copies the spell produces, even if it's just one.
Note that these types of questions can be easily referenced by looking up the rulings for Increasing Vengeance on Gatherer.


text:
What are the strength and firepower of Ivory X bombardments?
The 2nd Infantry Division online briefing for Flames of War has a special rule called Ivory X that lets you fire anti-tank guns and anti-aircraft guns like a normal artillery bombardment.  The briefing lists the strength, anti-tank, and firepower values of these bombardments as '-'.
Does this mean that they use the normal direct fire stats (seems overpowered)?  Or do they fire with essentially 0's, meaning they can't hurt armor or dug-in infantry outside of causing pinning?

In the overlord book, the ivory X platoons have anti-tank 3 and firepower 6

I don't own a copy of the rule book, it's 75$. The briefing you linked to says the following about the Ivory X Special Rules:

Ivory X Special Rules
You may purchase an Ivory X Staff Team for +25 points. Deploy the Ivory X Staff Team when you would deploy Independent Teams.
Anti-aircraft Artillery Platoons and Towed Tank Destroyer Platoons that have a Command team within 6”/15cm of the Ivory X Staff team can use it as a Staff Team to fire Bombardments.
Anti-aircraft Artillery Platoons and Towed Tank Destroyer Platoons that do not have a Command team within 6”/15cm of the Ivory X Staff Team cannot fire bombardments.
A Bombardment controlled by Ivory X uses all of the American Artillery special rules on page 240 of the rulebook, except for Time On Target.

Without a copy of the rules, it is difficult to say if anything within the rules for American Artillery special rules contradicts what is in the linked briefing.
Luckily, you can gather from the rest of the briefing that the Ivory X bombardments can only be used to pin down enemy units. The historical accounts mention that Ivory X was able to pin down the enemy. This is also supported by the fact that all Ivory X bombardment rows of the chart show '-' for Rate of Fire, Anti-Tank, and Firepower.

Ivory X provided the Indianhead Division with plenty of firepower in the form of .50 cal and 40mm anti-aircraft guns. Their harassing fire helped keep the Germans from moving freely through the outskirts and hills of Brest, allowing the Indianheads to easily move in and outflank the enemy.
Firing Ivory X bombardments   40”/100cm - - -
Firing Ivory X bombardments   48”/120cm - - -
Firing Ivory X bombardments   64”/160cm - - -

The only thing that still confuses me a little about the rules, is regarding Towed Tank Destroyer Platoons. The rules mention that linked Ivory X Tank Destroyers are the only ones eligible to fire a bombardment and only using the Ivory X special rules. Rereading the above Ivory X Special Rules, would lead one to believe that you only have two possible answers to the question. My guess is that the answer is the former, but the use of the word "can" could mean that you have a choice of either pinning down enemies or firing bombardments as a Staff Team.
1) Use the 1 ROF, 2 Anti-Tank, 6 Firepower stats for Staff Team when firing bombardments.
2) Use the - ROF, - Anti-Tank, - Firepower stats for firing bombardments to pin down the enemy (cannot hurt them).

Staff team 16”/40cm 1 2 6 Automatic rifles, Moves as a Heavy Gun team
M18 Hellcat GMC Light Tank 2 0 0 .50 cal AA MG.
M1 76mm gun 32”/80cm 2 12 3+

Towed Tank Destroyer Platoons that begin the game linked to Ivory X do not use the US Tank Destroyers special rules and only deploy the Tank Destroyer Section on the table.
A Towed Tank Destroyer Platoon can only fire a bombardment using the Ivory X special rule.

-1 The American artillery rules relate to special abilities for calling in bombardments.  They also represent about 2 pages of text, so I won't quote them here.  Ivory X is an additional rule not covered by the main book.  I don't want to sounds harsh but if you are not familiar with a rules system you should not answer before doing the research.

@CaulynDarr, I would hope the the rules would be written clearly enough that someone that is unfamiliar with them could come to the same conclusion as an expert. You should have done more research when asking the question to point out clearly the section in the briefing regarding "Ivory X Special Rules". -1 for being unfriendly to someone trying to help.

Your original answer was unhelpful.  You basically said you don't know the rules, but - is sometimes 0 in other unrelated rules systems.  You're new answer is better, but it's clear you are unfamiliar with the artillery rules in FoW and what it means to fire a bombardment with a staff team.  A staff team is a rifle team in addition to being a staff team.  That's why they fave weapon stats, but when the fire a bombardment, they merely allow the artillery battery using them to take advantage of a few special rules.

I'd also like to add that the voting system isn't about being friendly, it's about scoring the objective content and helpfulness of a question or answer.  I found your answer to be un-researched and unhelpful.

I removed the -1 because of the extra effort put into the answer.  I won't up vote or accept until the misunderstanding about how staff teams operate is removed.


text:
In Carcassonne, what is the point of a Bridge in the expansion set?
I understand how to use the Bridges (sort of), but I don't understand the strategy/purpose. In almost every expansion set the special rules or powers of the pieces makes sense to me but why would I play a bridge piece? If you are playing with the King set I understand there is a bonus for the longest road but other than that, what is the point of a bridge?

Their primary purpose of bridges is to be able to play a tile that you normally could not because of a road.
You have more options to finish a construction, sabotaging with roads/farms becomes significantly harder.
Second, bridges strongly affect farms. As Nick already pointed out, farms turn out to be massively larger. It's not at all uncommon to have a single, huge farmland that spans the entire map, minus the tiny farms at the edges sealed off by towns obviously.
On the other hand, invading an already occupied farmland becomes a lot easier than before.
For example (assuming only base set + first expansion), without bridges, the only way to cross a street in order to invade a farm was with the cloister + single road tile. For that purpose, the Bridges & Castles expansion not only adds bridges, but also several tiles with broken roads to accomplish the same thing.

Interestingly I've got the official carcossonne on an Android device and farms don't continue under the bridge on there...

@Ian That's a bug or a wrongly implemented rule though. I have that expansion at home, and the rules explicitly state that bridges do not split farms.

The bridges help to significantly expand farmland, as farms continue underneath the bridges.  Using them, you can make really quite massive farms, which means a truck load of points at game end.


text:
Where can I find what LCG's exist?
I know of four Living Card Games:

Warhammer
Call of Cthulhu
game of Thrones
Lord of the rings

Is there somewhere that maintains a canonical list of all LCG's?

Welcome to the site. At Boardgames.SE, we prefer questions that do not encourage lists. These questions tend to have multiple answers, and are not a good fit the Q&A voting system. Your question is "probably" not overly broad, and might just have 1 definitive answer, because of a technicality due to the LCG trademark that you might not have been aware of. Although, I might be wrong and you are really only asking about the LCG model. Some more detail in your question might help for us to better answer it, or narrow it's scope.

I have reworded the question so that it does not trip our list "filter" IMHO.

Warhammer is technically called Warharmmer: Invasion. It is no longer being added to by FFG.

Since Living Card Game is a trademark of Fantasy Flight Games, you should just be able to check their product page and find out.
You are missing:

Android: Netrunner the Card Game
Star Wars: The Card Game

If you are asking if there are any expandable card games, where there isn't any randomness in the cards you get with each expansion (I.E. This is unlike Magic: the Gathering's Trading/Collectible Card game model, with booster packs that are random so you have no idea what you are getting), then it would be difficult to track. There have been other games using the LCG model, but cannot use the term for Trademark infringement reasons.

Summoner Wars by Plaid Hat Games
Killer Bunnies by Playroom Entertainment

Ok awesome. I was asking about the trademark of FFG

You forgot the new game Warhammer 40,000: Conquest.


text:
Can you place units in an Industrial Complex the turn you place it?
Me and my friends were playing Axis and Allies: spring 1942 and one player placed an industrial complex on a country and then placed their units there, in the same turn. We looked through the entire rule book and we couldn't find it. We looked under the section for placing units and the appendix for Industrial Complex. Are you allowed to to this in Axis and Allies?

No, you cannot use industrial complexes you captured or purchased this turn. You must have missed it, top of page 22.

Phase 5: Mobilize New Units
Move the newly purchased units from the mobilization zone on the game board to eligible spaces you have controlled since the start of your turn, with the following exceptions (below). You cannot use industrial complexes that you captured or purchased this turn.

And, to my knowledge, this rule is in effect in all Axis and Allies variants.

Hey I just wanted to add to this question to say that I have an older version of Axis and Allies purchased back in the 80s.  In my version, it is NOT clear on whether you can place new units in the same space as a newly purchased factory.
In fact, here is the exact quote from my version of the rulebook:
'IMPORTANT: you cannot place newly purchased items on industrial complexes that you just captured.'
Here is another quote from Action Sequence 5:
' You cannot place units in a just-captured territory that has an industrial complex on it - you must wait until your next turn to place units there.'
Notice that it DOES NOT mention anything about newly PURCHASED factories, just capturing existing ones.
I have played for years with this rule and it has made for some very interesting games in the first few turns, when everyone is buying up the 3 or 4 extra factories to start a new offensive somewhere strange on the map.
They must have changed this in later versions of the game.  I had no idea until I visited this site.

I think the answer is at the beginning of the rule book.
Step one is order units. Step two is repair and pay for said units. So, if a factory is fully damaged, you can repair it, but you can't place it until the next turn.

Just to amplify the rules cited in a previous answer, on any given turn, you can BUILD an industrial complex, or you can build UNITS on a completed one. But you can't do BOTH on the same turn in the same place. It's unreasonable to expect this in any game.
And you have to own the complex at the beginning of your turn to build. If it fell into enemy hands, and you recaptured it, you can't build units there either. (That is, you can't "recapture" and "build" on the same turn in the same place.)

There's nothing in the rules to suggest that you can't build a complex in one space and build units at another complex in a different space, all on the same turn, which is what you seem to be suggesting here.

@ChrisDodd: I edited to say that you can't do it in the SAME place, Is it Ok now?

Better, but doesn't really add anything to the existing answer.  The key point is that if you don't own an industrial complex in a space at the start of your turn, you can't build there at the end of the turn.  Things you do in your turn can't change that, and the quoted rule says that pretty clearly.


text:
Items already in possession of another character
What happens if a player should gain an item but that item already is used by another character?
For example, if the Spy comes into play (because your old character is dead/insane), she possesses a .45.  If you defeat a maniac, you gain the axe.  What happens if those item are already in play in another player's hand?

Page 6 of the reference guide says

If the specified card cannot is not found while searching, he does not gain a card. For instance, if other investigators or defeated investigators possess all copies of the card or all copies of the card have been returned to the game box.

so the ruling is that you simply do not gain the card

Using the rule that if a rule can be interpreted in several ways, the right one is the least helpful to the players.  Therefore the character neither gains no starts with said item.

That is correct.


text:
Road movement by tanks in Memoir '44
In Memoir '44 the rules specify that Tanks can move one extra hex (4 hexes instead of 3) if they remain on road hexes for their entire move.
My question is: What effect does this have on their ability to fire? Can tanks that remain on, and move only along, road hexes move 4 hexes and still fire, or are they limited to only 3 hexes of movement if they wish to fire? My son and I have been unable to resolve this from the rules.
For non-Memoir '44 players: For other units (ie infantry) the ability to fire after movement is determined by the extent of movement.

Armor can move 4 hexes and still battle at full strength.
From p. 5 of the Terrain Pack rules:

Armor may move 4 hexes on a road and still battle.

The main rulebook makes it clear that Armor's battle strength is unaffected by its movement (p. 9):

[Armor] always combats at 3 dice.

P. 15-16 of the FAQ has a concise summary of the effects of Roads on all units, which might be of interest if you have questions about other units.

Armor - 4 hexes and battle


text:
Is the Road Building Development card applicable for ships in Catan Seafarers?
In the Seafarer's Expansion for Settlers of Catan, is the Road Building Development card applicable for ships?

Yes, the Road Building Development Card can be used for ships or roads.
From the Seafarers rules, page 5.

When playing the “Road Building” Development Card in a game of Seafarers, you have the option of building 2 roads, 2 ships, or
  1 ship and 1 road.

The "Road Building" progress card in Cities & Knights explicitly states that, when playing with Seafarers, you can play either 2 roads, 2 ships, or 1 of each.


text:
What happens if one of a spell's targets goes away before the spell resolves?
During the prerelease my opponent casts Rites of Reaping to give his creature +3/+3 and my creature -3/-3. In response I sacrifice my creature with the Golgari Guildmage.
From my understanding the card is similar to Switcheroo where if the second target is no longer existing the spell will fizzle.

Rites of Reaping will not fizzle, because some of its targets are still valid. The spell will only be countered if all of its targets are illegal. Instead, the spell does as much as possible, which is to give +3/+3 to his creature. This is defined by 608.2b.
Your probably came to the wrong conclusion because your understanding of what happens with Switcheroo is incorrect. It won't be countered (fizzle) if only one of the targeted creatures disappears. However, it won't have any effect either. An exchange requires something to be received and something to be given, so it cannot happen if one of the two targets is illegal.

608.2b If the spell or ability specifies targets, it checks whether the targets are still legal. A target that’s no longer in the zone it was in when it was targeted is illegal. Other changes to the game state may cause a target to no longer be legal; for example, its characteristics may have changed or an effect may have changed the text of the spell. If the source of an ability has left the zone it was in, its last known information is used during this process. The spell or ability is countered if all its targets, for every instance of the word “target,” are now illegal. If the spell or ability is not countered, it will resolve normally. However, if any of its targets are illegal, the part of the spell or ability’s effect for which it is an illegal target can’t perform any actions on that target, make another object or player perform any actions on that target, or make that target perform any actions. The effect may still determine information about illegal targets, though, and other parts of the effect for which those targets are not illegal may still affect them.

Added explanation of what happens with Switcheroo.

How about the effect of primal command? On EDH I played Primal Command search for creature and destroy target land which opponent destroyed that land. Then he states the spell has fizzled and I wont be able to search for a creature.

@wesdfgfgd - He was correct. Having removed all the targets of your Primal Command before resolution, he causes it to fizzle. (Note that the "search for a creature part" doesn't have a target.)

(Primal Command doesn't destroy lands. I'm going to assume you really are talking about Primal Command, but that you're refering to moving a card to the library.) The chosen modes only have one target, the permanent to move to the library. If that target became illegal, being the only target, the spell fizzles.

Oh yes I meant put it back on top his deck.