text:
Game piece storage
I have a number of games that come in large boxes that do not have sectioned compartments for individual pieces. Whenever I take them over to people's houses everything rattles around and gets mixed up, and the first thing I have to do is sort them out.
Does anyone have any recommendation on any cases you can use inside of game boxes to keep the pieces sorted? Obviously different games have somewhat different requirements, but I am looking for broad suggestions.
A few of my friends have suggested trays from tackle boxes might be a good solution, though most of the ones I have looked at do not have any sections large enough for decks of cards, which are a pretty common kind of game piece for many boardgames.

I use small plastic baggies for almost every game I buy. When I open a game, I expect to need a few snack sized, sandwich sized, and tiny hobby-sized baggies. These satisfy my needs for most games.
The exception is BattleLore for which I purchased a couple of small-parts boxes (intended for crafting, I think) from my local Hobby Lobby. They have worked out great. Here's a link to the same (or very similar) item on Amazon.
BGG has many storage solution suggestions, including individual tuckboxes customized on a per-game basis. For example, here's one for Agricola

Bah! Way to post the same answer, but better phrased, 30 seconds before me. GG

Another suggestion for small compartmentalized boxes is a fishing tackle box.

I had never seen tuckboxes before, they seem like a really nice idea. If you have used them, does normal paper actually hold up, or do you recommend heavier stock?

I have never used tuckboxes - I keep thinking I'll dedicate a weekend to tuckboxing my games, but I never do! And my craft-type skills leave a lot to be desired in any case. But everything I've read says you are better off with a stiff cardstock.

For some games (in particular Agricola) the small plastic bag approach takes up too much space as they tend to stay inflated when you close them.  I have found that small-parts boxes work much better in this case.

What are the small part boxes called on Amazon?

I agree, ziplocs work for most, though I do have dedicated wooden bowls to hold my Go stones.

A zip-lock bag can work amazingly well for most situations.

Agreed. I find the snack-sized bags to be the most versatile.

You can get large quantities of the typical small plastic bags for quite cheap: Amazon: small ziploc bags

It depends on the game.
For some games, I use boxes with small spaces to store the contents.
For other games, I made some paper internal to divide the open box into several compartments.

Plastic Battery Cases
For games with lots of little cardboard counters, like Arkham Horror, I bought a bunch of AAA- and AA-battery cases from e-bay. They ship world-wide for about 1-2 USD, and can easily store a lot of counters.
My favorite thing about them is that they also act as trays, so players can take their components for themselves.
This helped a lot with reducing setup time for Arkham Horror. Instead of one person (me) handing out lots of tiny tokens, I just toss the cases on the table and tell everyone to take what they need, while I'm doing the rest of the setup.

I use compartment boxes which are mostly used for organizing small hobby materials.
They come with 5 to 25 compartments and are usually very effective for lots of small pieces.
There are also boxes where you can remove some spacers or move the spacers to make your own sizes of compartments.
box

From a comment (and from my personal experience with "Arkham Horror"...)
Fishing tackle boxes.


text:
What's the difference between ante and blinds?
What is the difference between an "ante" and a "blind" in poker?

Ante and blinds are both forced bets.
Ante is a bet that everyone in the game must make in order to stay at the table. It forces there to always be at least some payout in the pot, increasing the relative value of playing a hand to folding.
Blinds are bets that only one or two players are forced to make, usually a small blind and a big blind, the small blind at half the big blind. They are bet by the two players after the dealer, and thus rotate around as the dealer rotates. The blinds start betting off; bidding starts with the player after the big blind, and players must call or raise the blind bet to stay in the game, otherwise they fold. It puts less in the pot than ante does, thus it does less to incentivize staying in the game, but it still puts enough in that it's worth it for some people to stay in as they do stand to win something, and the players who played the blinds stand to lose them if they simply fold.

Blinds rotate around the table as well - each hand they move one player to the left, typically.  In addition, they typically increase at scheduled intervals during a tournament.

Depending on the structure of the game, there may be 2 equal blinds, or only 1 blind.  Also, you can't say that blinds put more or less in the pot than antes - that depends on the amount of each.

You can say that for a particular value, blinds put in less than ante. A blind of $N puts less into the pot than an ante of $N

Ante is given by all players before cards are dealt. It's effect is to make sure that everyone has some skin in the game, and that people don't instantly fold when dealt less than stellar cards.
Blinds are a different way of dividing up the ante so that only a few player are committed to the game before seeing their cards. They are generally split into big and small blinds. The big blind is the full 'ante' for the round. The small blind is a smaller sum. The blinds are bet before cards are dealt, but after seeing the initial cards, players can either fold, pay so that they have equaled the big blind, or place a higher bet.

Antes and blinds are both collected from players to "seed" the pot with a single bet. But they are collected in different ways.
An ante is collected from EACH player, but represents only a FRACTION of the basic bet. (The sum of the fractions, collected from each player, amount to about one bet.) As such, everyone "pays the same," and no one is at a disadvantage versus anyone else.
A (big) blind is a basic bet collected from ONE player. (A small blind, half the basic bet is sometimes collected from a second player.) They are called "blinds" because these players have to bet "blind" before receiving their cards. The others can look at their cards before deciding to call, raise, or fold to this "forced" bet.
The (big) "blind" bettor is thus placed at a disadvantage, but can reasonably stay in with "any two cards" (if not raised), since s/he bet before receiving cards. This adds an element of randomness to the game. (The small blind can play "loose" for only half a bet.)

When playing with an ante, all players have to give the same amount before they are allowed to see their cards. Thus, everyone has an equal stake in the current hand, and folding is less common in early betting rounds. (It's the "I already paid so I might as well stick around for another card" mentality.) Antes have the benefit of allowing players to sit out any hand (say, to go to the restroom or take a phone call) or even quite the game without any sense of unfairness.
Blinds are unequal forced bets usually imposed on two players per round. After seeing their cards, the remaining players have to call or raise to stay in the hand. Since there is initially an unequal stake in the hand, folding is common. (Why stay in if you haven't put anything in the pot and you have a lousy hand so far?) Also, savvy players can "over-raise" on the blind round to force everyone into folding, thus slowly building wealth by bleeding their opponents of the blinds. And with a blind system, if a player needs to leave the table for some reason, the fairness of the game becomes problematic, as they obviously can't leave when they are up for a blind, but leaving at another time would rob them of a "free" hand. Or does everyone wait however long it takes for that player to return?
(In case you can't tell, I consider blinds to be a blight on the noble game of poker. Antes are much more fair and superior to blinds in almost every way.)

I'm coding a poker tracker right now, and I've found an other subtle difference :
Let's say "ante/SB/BB" are at "10/100/200"
When you've already put a SB (100) and you want to "call" the BB (200) , you will only pay 100 from your stack.
But when you've put an "ante" (10), it's removed from the table before the "PRE-FLOP" bet phase, so "calling" the BB means you pay 200 from your stack, not 190.
At least, this is how it works at Winamax tables.

This is really the key difference. A blind is a forced bet; it counts for the first betting round. An ante is not a bet at all. In fact, it does not matter whether the ante is paid by all players at the table or just by one player (search for "button ante"): The ante is removed before the initial betting phase starts

If you decide to fold does that mean you get your ante back? I am guessing not so in the end in your scenario you are still adding an additional 190 even though technically you put in a fresh 200 when it comes to putting in to match the BB.

If you've put up 10 ante, and someone else has put up 10 ante and 200 BB, then you're 200 short the current bet, so of course you have to put up another 200. It's not clear what difference you're seeing. And it's not clear what you mean by "removed from the table". The ante is still part of the pot.

@Acccumulation The difference becomes very clear if you play with a "button ante", that is, if only one player at the table has to pay a (larger) ante (to avoid dealing with smallish chips that are only used for the ante, and to speed up the game). In contrast to a blind, the ante does not count for the first betting round: Even if only one player paid an ante of 100, this player starts the first betting round from 0, not from 100.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Good set of cards for teaching beginners
We have 1 or 2 new people who are interested in joining our lunch Dominion games where I work.
We'd like to teach them about the various rules unique to each of these sets: Base, Intrigue, Seaside, and Prosperity.
Can anyone recommend a card set that will teach all the important game rules?
Note: We've stopped using Alchemy's potions in our games and instead replace a card's potion cost with a 3-coin cost.

In addition to picking a good "beginner" set of cards--nothing too complicated--I also try to not play too competitively when playing with new players, which generally means buying more actions than I would otherwise or trying a more questionable tactic. New players tend to buy way too many actions, and I'll point out at the end of the first game (once they see how things work) that generally actions are fun, but money is effective.

I would not recommend any one card set to teach all the important rules from each expansion.  That may be too much.
For brand new beginners, I recommend the "Big Money" set from the first game.  I use this before the one recommended by the base set rules ("First Play"?) because it teaches the trade off between money and actions.  First Play is really a preview of all the different card abilities, which may give the erroneous impression that the game is all about actions.
Otherwise, I'd play random sets (with some drafting) from the combined sets and teach the rules as they come up.

I'd suggest avoid extra actions for the first game... Only use Throne Room/Expand if you have no +1 action cards, and don't use any +2 action cards. Combos can be fun, but they can both extend the length of the game, and are harder to grasp for a newbie, often leaving them wondering why their turns are always short and boring while yours take forever.

Obviously no list is "best". I'd say having them read the rules and then play with a veteran (or better, play online with a veteran by their side) is the best way to learn the rules.

Chapel - While not a rule, your friends need to learn about deck management. Mint would be a good substitute here.
Moat - Action/Reaction, defense for Saboteur or useful in combos with City.
Ironworks - a good Intrigue "choice" card. I also had the Island in mind when selecting this.
Saboteur - token attack card. Also chosen with Bridge in mind.
Caravan - Simple duration, pairs well with Throne Room.
Island - of the three "mats", this one has least room for error/misinterpretation by new players.
City - might as well teach them that letting the veteran get all 10 of these is a bad idea!
Quarry/Bridge - for learning about the changing values of cards (esp. with Ironworks and Saboteur in the mix).
Tactician - for combos, also to teach them to know what cards say (e.g. "If you discarded at least one card...")!
Throne Room - debatable. I'm big into combos :)

Added: If you're playing with Prosperity a lot, then I would replace City, Quarry/Bridge, Throne Room with Venture, Bank, Grand Market.

Is this set something you've done with new players?

@Pat: Not to my knowledge. We usually veto cards that might make a first play overly painful (eg Black Market) rather than handpick sets.

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


text:
When you use Chancellor to discard your deck, do you gain a gold for each Tunnel discarded?
When you play Chancellor and choose to move your discard pile into your deck, do you gain a Gold for each Tunnel moved into your discard pile?
From the wording of Chancellor, I would assume no because it doesn't mention that you're discarding those cards, but I don't have access to the rules at the moment to see if either base or Hinterlands rules cover this.

If you're interested in setting up a mass-Tunnel chain, consider using a Golem, which can discard the entire deck AND discard pile with sufficiently few non-Golem action cards in your deck.

@Johno: Hmm, that makes me wonder what other cards are worded that way.  In theory, for a low-money deck, Adventurer may work.  However, starting with 7 Coppers makes this one harder to pull off.

Adventurer would also work, but is a little tougher, as you say. Another good tactic is using cards that discard your hand when your hand is full of Tunnels. For instance, Scouts can pull Tunnels from your deck if they're nearby, then a well-placed Minion or Tactician can cash them all in. I once played a Tactician on a post-Tactician 10-card hand because it had three or four Tunnels in it!

@Johno: Of course, Cartographer is better at it, as you can discard them directly (plus you draw one card first).  Then again, that's why Cartographer costs 5 instead of 4.

Absolutely, Cartographer's a great Tunnel partner (which I totally forgot about :P)

No
Per the Hinterland Rules, Chancellor does not trigger Tunnel

This ability does not function if cards are put into your discard pile without being discarded, .... when your deck is put into your discard pile, such as with Chancellor

No.
Per Dominion base Rules:

"Discard" – unless otherwise specified, discarded cards are from the player’s
  hand. When a player discards a card, he places the discarded card face-up
  onto his Discard pile. When discarding several cards at once, the player
  need not show all cards he is discarding to his opponents, but player may
  need to show how many cards he is discarding (for example, when
  playing the Cellar). The top card of a player’s Discard pile is always visible

So, you are not discarding the Tunnels in your deck when you activate the Chancellor: you are simply moving them in the Discard pile.

Just to clear any possible confusion, it is possible to discard cards from your deck instead of from your hand. Spy is one of many cards that can do this. But Chancellor doesn't discard any cards, it just moves cards into the discard pile.

Yes, but in that case it explicitly uses the word discard thus falling in the "unless otherwise specified" case of the discard definition. Anyway, good point in making it clearer.

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


text:
What are the mechanical differences between Doom and Descent from Fantasy Flight Games?
I know that FFG's Descent and Doom board games use roughly the same mechanics, but my understanding is that there are numerous small differences that lead people to prefer Descent over Doom.
Beyond the differences in theme, what are the mechanical differences between these two games?

One significant difference that leads me to prefer Descent over DOOM is Ammo.
In DOOM, Ammo is "full of fail".  Ammo scarcity is a thematic element that happens to be implemented in an abstract way that is often flat out not fun.
The breadth of characters and skill and item combinations make Descent really come to life compared to the relatively lackluster variety in DOOM.
The surge mechanism in Descent is really novel and can give you a lot of interesting tactical options in battles.  DOOM has no analogue.

There are several other rules differences of note:  (1) Melee attacks matter more; ranged attacks are split into ranged and magical.  Most characters specialise in one of these three types, which have different skill decks.  (2) Armour is less effective, subtracting from damage instead of dividing it as Doom does.  (3) Balance is more in favour of the heroes; Descent is much more even out of the box than Doom.  (4) With the expansions, the Overlord has more tactical options to choose from.  (5) Heroes can more easily retreat to heal/regroup.

I think this BGG forum topic is a great comparison of those two games.

As mentioned in this meta thread http://meta.boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/53/links-to-boardgamegeek-or-other-sites simply linking to another site does not make a very good answer. Could you expand on your answer by at least including a quote from the linked to discussion, or by providing a summary of what it says?

Do you think that copy/pasting content from BGG or another site is better then providing a link to original site? The link I've provided is the direct answer to the question asked.

I prefer the answers here, as that protects this site from link rot.  It also allows us to freely edit the answer if needed later on.  Obviously we want to respect whatever rights the original text is protected with as well.

Games of Descent take MUCH longer! This may be because of the added complexity of a 'role-playing' style game I guess.
Base mechanics of both games are mostly the same, so if you need to pick one, go with the one which has the theme that suits you best (fantasy dungeon-crawling or sci-fi/horror shooting).

Descent actually has more character progression.  You gain more equipment than just guns as you advance.


text:
In Small World, with berserk, do you roll reinforcement die before you nominate how many troops you're attacking with?
I.e., Do you:

Roll reinforcement die, and add troops to make the short fall?
Declare the number of troops you're using, and use the reinforcement die in an attempt to bolster your numbers?

The rules say:

Roll the die first; select the Region you wish to conquer; then place the required number of Race tokens (minus the die results) there.

Since you roll the die even before you decide what to attack, it would seem very unlikely that you'd need to determine the number of attackers beforehand. This is further bolstered by a thread at the BoardGameGeek forums where a lot of Small World rules clarifications posted by the game developers are gathered. This is what it says about Berserk:

You may roll the die once per attack. First, you roll the die. Then you choose an adjacent territory. Then, you deploy your tokens. (emphasis added - ErikP)
About the final roll, there is a very important sentence in the rulebook, in the "Berserk" section: "If you do not have enough tokens left, this is your final conquest attempt for the turn." This sentence means that there is no "end-turn" die. For each conquest you roll the die and select your region: if you do not have enough tokens left, then your turn is over. You are not allowed to re-roll the die.

The reinforcement die with Berserk provides a "discount" on the number required to take a given territory. It's just like a reinforcement roll at the end of a regular turn. That means you must be able to take the territory with your available troops plus 3.
Example:
You've got 5 counters and you want to take a territory that's got 2 counters on it and a mountain. That's 5:
 - 2 for any space
 - 2 for the counters
 - 1 for the mountain
You roll 2 reinforcements. You take the territory with 3 counters. That leaves you 2 counters. If you now wanted to take an identical territory, it would be your final attack, because you would now be making an ordinary reinforcement roll at the end of your turn - because you couldn't take the territory if the reinforcements fail you.


text:
Where can I find a list of all the cards in Elder Sign?
I'm looking for a breakdown of the common item, unique item and spell cards so I know what my chances are when buying certain cards. I've done a bit of googling and have not come up with anything.

Why don't you just look at the cards next time you're setting up the game??

I think it would help to give a more specific example of what you are looking for when you say "Know what my chances are".

@bwarner, I only played the game once long ago, so I didn't know he meant something than what he said. Could you fix the question, please?

Someone over on boardgame geek added a list of all cards for all expansions since I originally asked the question and did my search.

Board game geek has Elder Sign listed. One of files in the game listing should have the information that you're looking for. I'll point out that the game also has a number of expansion packs.

Hi Max! Thanks for attempting to help out on an old, unanswered question. However, your answer doesn't really provide any extra direction. If you look on the site, find the desired content and provide a link, that would be much more useful!

I was trying to teach you how to fish. :-( BGG has more information about any sort of game than any other site on the web.

You're not wrong, but the purpose of the site is to collect questions with useful answers that will help anyone looking at the same issue (an encyclopaedia rather than a forum). Unfortunately "the information should be on another site if you search for it" doesn't match what we think of as a good answer, even if it might be a more useful activity for some people.

I had checked. I knew the file was there for the base game. I didn't check all the expansions.


text:
Chess client for e-(g)mail
I'm looking for something that would let me store the board setup and move the pieces manually so that I can play with a friend via email/msn. It doesn't have to handle mailing or anything for me as long as I can move the pieces around :)

Your title is deceptive, if it doesn't have to handle e-mail, aren't you just looking for a web-client?

Well preferably it'll handle it by email obviously but as a second hand choice I'm fine with anything that can just remember the layout of the chess board. The game either way will be played via email regardless of weather we are sending move or the "client" handles it for us. End of the day the app/client/webpage I want to find is a helper for chess games via email.

GamesByMail
Scott Michtell just introduced me to GamesByMail to play Axis & Allies, and I noticed that it has chess as well.
All you need is an e-mail address to create a small profile, same thing for your opponent, and you're ready to play.  You should get e-mail reminders when it is your turn.
I haven't tried chess there yet, but if it's anything like A&A was, you should be in good shape.

Currently trying it out, just need my opponent to make a move and see how goes.

There are many options for online chess.
A very simple site I use is itsyourturn.com.
You get email reminders and it just does what you need if you want play chess with a friend.
For more advanced options look at freechess.org. There are several different clients for it.

Time for Chess*?
It also has a great iPhone optimised site.
a.k.a. Red Hot Pawn ;)

+1 I used to use RedHotPawn for correspondence games, before I learned that I'm too impatient for that :)

Redhotpawn is great!


text:
Good produce/consume strategy in RftG
I've been playing Race for the Galaxy with a friend of mine for quite a while, and I've noticed the game seems to be going more and more in favor of a blitzkrieg strategy of conquering as many planets as possible as quickly as possible. Is there a valid produce/consume strategy to counteract this? It seems like it takes far longer to develop a good economy, and even at 2x VP the combat-oriented player still has the advantage of early gains made in prestige, granting them VP and a card every turn.

Take a look at this question: Winning race for the galaxy without 6 cost developments. There are lots of good tips for successful produce/consume.

are you using the advanced two player rules?

+1'd because I had exactly the same initial response to RftG.  I wanted there to be a clever way to use my actions more efficiently than my opponents; but in practice, just building lots of stuff as quickly as possible seemed to be a better route to victory.  I'm sure it's actually more subtle than that, but that was definitely my first reaction.

One problem you may be facing is that you're trying to play this game strategically.  RftG is must more tactical than, say, Puerto Rico, since your choices of developments and planets is determined by the luck of the draw than being available for purchase.  If you 'set out' to do a produce consume before the game's begun you're putting yourself at a severe disadvantage.
A second thing that may be going wrong is that an engine strategy has a key point where you need to stop building the engine and start running it.  If you feel like you need too much time to build the engine up, perhaps you're building too big of an engine.  Aim for a smaller engine, and then work it that extra couple of times.  You'd be surprised at much even a 20% more 'efficient' engine costs.  Often it's two or more extra produce/consume cycles.

It's true. You can't have a strategy in RftG. It's all about playing the hand that you are dealt.


text:
In Monopoly Deal, can you pay with houses or hotels?
Can you pay with houses or hotels or do they remain with you forever?

From the Monopoly Deal FAQ (scroll down to near the end):

Q - WHICH CARDS CAN I USE TO PAY OTHER PLAYERS? (E.G. FOR RENT, BIRTHDAYS ETC.)
A - You can choose to pay:

from your Bank (with money or Action cards that you've Banked as money),
with Property cards, or
with a combination of both.

Remember, you can only pay with cards that are on the table in front of you, never with cards from your hand.

You cannot pay with Houses or Hotels you have on properties because they are not in your bank nor are they Property cards themselves.  If you had Banked them, you could use them to pay for things.

However, if a player charges you money and you decide to pay with some of the property from your completed set that includes a House and/or Hotel, the House or Hotel must be placed on the table next to your property section until you complete another set and it can be placed on top. You can also pay with your house or hotel card if you choose.

source :http://monopolydealrules.com/index.php?page=house#top

whoa... .we've been moving the houses with the property. Good lord those rules are written poorly and incompletely.

Note that link is a fan compilation of rule Q&As, not an official rules page. So while I do appreciate the answers on that page, I think its entirely reasonable to disagree on corner cases like this as long as your play group establishes the details ahead of time.

I’m pretty sure you can pay with hotels/houses since they have an amount on them in the corner! We played a tutorial game here: https://www.100kelvins.com/blog/how-to-play-monopoly-deal-card-game/


text:
When on New Caprica, can a crisis effect move a player from Detention to the Medical Center?
When on New Caprica in the Pegasus expansion, can a crisis effect move a player from Detention to the Medical Center?  The Cylon players allowed it in the individual instance to try and keep the game running and fun, but we had some doubts about whether or not it is legal to be forced out of Detention simply by a crisis forcing the current player to move someone on New Caprica to the Medical Center.

I'de say no.  Even thought the rules don't spell it out explicitly I think it's clear enough.
First, detention and the bring are treated to be the same thing, especially for player powers.
Second, according to the FAQ (page 2, bottom of the first column) nothing can move a player out of the brig except a successful skill check for the brig location action.  So by extension this applies to the detention center.
Third, thematically it didn't happen (spoiler follows).

 When Tigh was in the detention center and Cavil ripped his eye out, he left him there.  Even when he kicked the snot out of him as well he left them there.  He totally should have gone to the medical tent but didn't.

Thank ya--the FAQ listed there had the full answer in it:  Q: Do forced-movement effects such as Louanne “Kat”
Katraine’s “Stim Junkie” ability or the effects of crisis
cards that force a player to move to Sickbay affect
characters in the “Brig” or “Detention” locations?
A: No.

I remember seeing an FAQ somewhere that addressed this. No effect can move a player from detention/the brig short of a political card providing the means for it, or passing the skill check. That's it.


text:
Do you have to select a zombie before you roll a d6 for Shamble?
One of the zombie cards, known as 'Shamble', has the following card text:

Play this card to move a Zombie D6 spaces instead of its normal move.
"Look out!"

Do you pick the zombie, then roll to see how far it moves?  Or do you roll a d6, and then pick a zombie to move that many spaces?

According to the game designer's response to the question on Board Game Geek, you should pick the zombie before rolling.

When playing Shamble you should choose the Zombie and then roll to see how far they get to move.


text:
Can models give up their Vengeance move to recover from Knocked Down?
I have a unit of Troll Fennblades.  On my opponent's turn, they are attacked, and many are killed.  Some make a Tough roll, though, and so are merely Knocked Down.  In my next Maintenance Phase, all of the Fennblades are entitled to Vengeance, which allows them to advance 3" and attack.  Can they give up that 3" move to remove Knocked Down?

According to Privateer Press Infernals:

No. While knocked down, a model cannot advance. A model cannot
  sacrifice movement/action to stand until the start of its activation,
  which is well after the Maintenance and Control phases.


text:
Can you purchase a ship to win your final Fame Point?
In Xia: Legends of a Drift System, there are many ways to gain Fame.  One of them is to purchase it, at the cost of 5,000 credits per fame point.  However, the rulebook explicitly states that you cannot purchase your final fame point in this manner.  Another way to gain fame is to purchase a new ship.
Is there anything preventing a player from purchasing a new ship for 5,000 credits and receiving his final Fame point in this manner?

Yes, you can win by purchasing a ship (upgrade to a higher tier). As you stated, the only method of gaining points that you are forbidden to use to win the game is buying 1 point for 5,000 credits. Other than that, anything goes


text:
Can you store cargo on your outfit's "unused" spaces?
In Xia: Legends of a Drift System, you can upgrade your ship with outfits.  These outfits take up several spaces in your cargo hold.  Many of the spaces on the outfits have game-significant features, such as arming points.  However, some of these spaces are effectively blank.  Is it legal to store cargo on top of these spaces in the outfits, or are they considered to be filled space?

You cannot store cargo on the unused spaces of an outfit. The unused spaces are there to add complexity to the placement of your outfits and to also have a place for you to put damage on an outfit without it being disabled


text:
Does "'Collapsing Parallel Worlds" remove Locations that are in play?
The crisis 'Collapsing Parallel World's forces one of the players to exchange their deck and discard pile for a new 10 card deck.  Do they lose the Locations they have in play?

The Crisis only affects cards in your deck or discard pile. Cards left in play (such as locations), and cards in your hand, are neither, so they are not affected.
This is corroborated by this Board Game Geek thread:

This was asked earlier on here and I believe Matt [Hyra, creator of the game] answered it with yes they keep their hand and locations just the discard and deck piles go.

Unfortunately, I have been unable to find the original reference.


text:
Anastasia "Dee" Dualla Once-Per-Game Ability Timing
The text on Anastasia "Dee" Dualla's once per game says:

Once per game, before making a Skill check, look at the top 3 cards of any Skill deck (even outside your Skill set), and add all of them to either the Skill check or your hand.

When is that ability meant to be played in timing?  Before Investigative Committee?  Before Reckless?  Before any players play any cards?  Before Dee plays any cards?  When is it too late to trigger her power in a given skill check?

The official sequence of events for resolving a Skill Check:

Read Card
Play Two Cards from Destiny Deck
Play Skills
Shuffle and Divide Cards
Total Strength
Determine Result

I've generally interpreted the "before making a skill check" phrase to mean the time between steps 1 and 3 (when the Destiny Deck cards come out usually isn't important). So things like Investigative Committee, Reckless and Dee's ability should ideally be used during this time. However, things sometimes happen a little fast and people start throwing in cards before someone has a chance to announce an action. We're usually pretty lenient and let people do things after step 3 starts if it doesn't seem like they're gaming.
I don't think there's any specific sequence between Investigative Committee, Reckless, Dee's ability, and the like. I think they could happen in any order. Generally we play it kind of loose and the first person to act goes first; normally it doesn't matter. Ideally, everyone that has something to do should indicate that they do. According to the rules, it's up to the currently player to decide the order.


text:
How does the Amazons "+4 When Attacking" power work?
So I got a copy of Small World, and in our first game, the "Amazons" came up early.  According to the rules, they get "+4 when attacking".  What exactly does that mean?  We argued it out and what we eventually decided it meant was

At the beginning of each of the Amazon player's turns, they receive 4 extra tokens.  When they end their "conquering regions" step, they remove 4 tokens of their choice from the board, then go on to compute VP.

But we're not at all confident in our interpretation.

Excerpt from the rule book itself:

Amazons
Four of your Amazon tokens may only be
used for conquest, not for defense, as
indicated by the +4 on the banner itself. So
you start your initial turn with 10 Amazon
tokens (plus any additional ones that may
be granted to you by the Special Power associated with the
Amazons, depending on your combo). At the end of each of
your Troop Redeployments (see Troop Redeployment, p. 5),
remove four tokens from the map, making sure to leave at least
one Amazon token in each of your Regions if possible, and only
take these four tokens back in hand to redeploy on the map
once you Ready your Troops (see Ready your Troops, p. 6) at
the start of your next turn.

Sounds right to me.  Compare and contrast to the Ratmen, who get 8 men both "on attack" and "on defense", as it were.  The Amazons are balanced with that race by getting 2 more men (women?) to attack with... but 2 fewer to defend with.
When I started thinking about it that way, it became obviously right that the Amazons should attack with 10 but only defend with 6: the numbers match up nicely!

That's how it worked in the one game I've played.  At the time I felt like it was incorrect in some subtle way, but since it was my first and only game so far, I'm not sure either.


text:
Hound of Tindalos tiebreaker?
The Hound of Tindalos says that it automatically moves to the closest investigator.  Which investigator does it target in the case of two equidistant investigators in different locations?

Per the FAQ:

Q: Who determines where a Hound of Tindalos moves if two investigators are tied in being nearest to the hound?
A: As per the rules governing flying monsters, the hound will go after the investigator with the lower Sneak value. In case of a tie, the first player chooses.


text:
Is the Deputy Card an Item?
Does the "Deputy of Arkham" card count as an item, for the purposes of counting up your total items when forced to lose half your items?

No, it does not count as an item
The Rules, page 16 note on the middle of the right hand column:

Important: When adding up items before discarding
them, count all Common Items, Unique Items, and
Spells. In addition, the Deputy’s Revolver and the Patrol
Wagon both count as items. Allies, Skills, and other
cards do not count towards this total.

Since "Deputy of Arkham" falls under "other cards", it does not count when adding up items.


text:
Is there a "Campaign Mode" set of rules available for Arkham Horror?
Are there any rules (official or otherwise) that would govern trying to string together multiple games of Arkham Horror into some sort of a campaign structure?  The idea would be for the investigators to retain some of their capabilities from game to game, and the game itself would have to ramp up in difficulty in some manner to compensate.

This may not be exactly what you're looking for, but check out the Scenarios FFG created for League play (here's a link to information about them on the Arkham Horror Wiki).  They do ramp up in difficulty, and the Spanish league scenarios have a continuing story.
I'm sure you could easily adapt things so that your characters grow and develop through the games, perhaps by adjusting some of the stats or giving bonuses based on how the investigators "performed" in the previous scenario?

There is a Campaign mode on the board game geek website http://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/27501/arkham-horror-campaign-rules but as I read them I am trying to think of a way to set it so that the board don't get cleared between every round, to were the gates and the monsters stay on the board or something but when me and my friends tried it the second set you felt already doomed since we ended up starting with like 5 or 6 gates already open to where 1 or 2 would wake the ancient one right off the start not fun

You may want to check out Arkham Investigations on some alternate rules on creating "modules" for Arkham.
http://arkhaminvestigations.barkingdoginteractive.com/
I think each module is self-contained, but you may want to pull some ideas from here on ramping up the difficulty.

It wouldn't really make sense to keep the gates on the board since they would be tied to the threat of an oncoming great old one. Presumably your characters would have had some downtime between one game in the campaign and the next.
I imagine it would be like seasons in an ongoing tv-show.
However, one could always make a roll for each gate to close some of the gates between games. Or giving each of the characters 1 chance to close each gate, going into it fully restored before starting the next game. This gives the opportunity to reduce the initial threat while making a fair deal of sense theme-wise.


text:
Can a Barrel block Gatling?
Can a barrel (or the character whose power emulates a barrel) be used to attempt to mitigate the Bang! effect from a Gatling card?

"Any card with a Missed! symbol can be
  used to cancel the effect of a card
  with a BANG! symbol",

says the  "Remember" section of the latest version of the rules.
Gatling has a BANG! symbol, barrel has a Missed! symbol.  They're a match made in heaven, or at least Boot Hill.

I don't see why not. The Gatling just applies a Bang! to all other players. So, from each other player's perspective, it shouldn't be treated any differently than if a Bang! card had been played against them directly, in which case the Barrel (or character ability) would be perfectly fine.


text:
When turning in a mission, do you have to be on the mission hex to complete a mission, or is anywhere in the system acceptable?
In Xia, Legends of a Drift System, one can receive missions to go to certain locations and do such things as conduct negotiations or pick up contraband.  In order to achieve this step of this mission, is it necessary to go to that system's "mission" location, or is it sufficient to enter that system's tile?

Yes, you must go to the mission point (!) to complete a mission.
Source: http://www.faroffgames.com/images/games/xia-legends-of-a-drift-system/Xia_Rulebook.pdf
Look at the top left section of page 14

Also, look at the card: it will say something like "Delivery: TK-429 (!)". The (!) is the symbol for the mission hex, so that's where you need to go to finish the mission.


text:
Can the Swamp Rat's special ability be used to end combat?
In Xia: Legends of a Drift System, one of the ships, named "Swamp Rat", has a special ability that allows it to trigger one of it's own outfits as a defense to an incoming attack.  If the outfit triggered is an Engine, and the resulting movement breaks the line-of-sight of the incoming attack, does the attack resolve normally, or has the movement prevented it?

The swamp rat's ability allows it to place a damage marker on an outfit instead of an armed marker to perform an action but only when that action is valid. The engine cannot be used to make a move action when defending against an attack. Therefore you cannot use the swamp rat's ability to move to escape combat. You could, however, use it to power the shields one more time.


text:
What happens when you roll "Off the top" of a result table?
For example, on the Pegasus' various weapon stations, there is a result chart printed on the board.  It covers the possibilities of getting a die result of 1-8, on an 8-sided die.  But now suppose someone had played a Strategic Planning or Calculations card, adding +2 or +1 to the die roll, such that the die comes up a 9 or a 10.  What is the result?  The chart does not seem to cover this situation.  A similar situation arises on New Caprica with the human vs Cylon conflict rules.

This question has now officially been answered in the latest FAQ:

Q: Can the result of a die roll be modified to be more than an
  “8”?
A: No. After all modifications to a die roll have been calculated,
  any number greater than an “8” is treated as an “8.”

Why not add this to your approved answer above?

@Pat I questioned the appropriateness of that. Appending it to the original answer didn't seem quite right, because it kind of makes the whole answer moot (My speculation is now irrelevant as an official answer has been given, and it does contradict my answer in that the result should not be greater than 8, it should be 8.) Replacing my original answer with this didn't seem quite right either as it is a different answer. Dunno, what do you think?

I've thrown it up for discussion on meta.

I switched the accepted answer to this one, since its more chapter-and-verse, and since its the same guy's answer, it has no reputation consequences :)

Treat any result higher than an 8 as an 8.

Do you know if there's any official guidance on this, or is this just the 'standard' house rule to cover an ambiguous situation?

Standard house rules.  I can't think of any alternative that would be rational other than treating the top of the list as the best possible result.  It is kind of like dealing with partial success skill checks: if you meet the top number you get the best result.

The actual issue arose in response to a 'covert' cylon player using calculations to boost the die roll over the chart.  The logic was "there's no result for a 9, so the roll has no result".  We're establishing a house rule for next game, but it'd have been nice to have some rule documentation "on point".

Looked through the rules and found nothing on point.
However, at the BSG Forums, it is commonplace to see folks treating a roll higher than 8 as an 8.  There doesn't appear to be any dissent.  I didn't see anyone disagreeing or challenging that assertion.
Here is one example:

Save nukes for when you really need them. Don't be afraid of throwing out a strategic planning card to thin some Raiders out too if possible.


text:
Paying Costs you Cannot Afford
Sometimes you get a crisis card that has a choice, such as "-1 Food OR Current Player Discards 3 Cards".  In situations where you cannot afford the cost of the latter, are you forced into the former?  For example, if the current player has no hand, are you required to lose 1 food?

No, in these cases you are welcome to choose the "discard 3 cards" option and merrily not do anything.
These effects of Crises are not really COSTS per se - in most games costs are non-optional, so your reasoning about being forced to do the other choice makes some sense if you think of these as costs.
But they really aren't costs, they're just the effects of that Crisis, and you're welcome to choose the one that impacts you the least, and execute as much of it as you're able to.

The rules (http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/ffg_content/Battlestar_Galactica/bsg_rulebook_web.pdf) explicitly state this on page 30 under "Card clarifications"...

In the rules of the game they have a clarification which specifies this.

When a player makes a choice on a
  Crisis Card, he can always choose the
  top or bottom section of the card,
  regardless of whether he will be able
  to fulfill the game text listed
  (unless the card specifically
  restricts this)

The reason here is that this happens. Without an option, if you were forced to discard 3 cards and only had 2 it is obvious what would occur. The choice makes this issue confusing, which is why the rules have a specific clarification.
This is one of those rare "good" things for the humans.


text:
Political Prowess someone else's activation?
In Battlestar Galactica, there is a card (Political Prowess) whose text reads thusly:

Play before making a skill check triggered by a location.  Do not make the skill check; instead, it automatically passes or fails (your choice).

Another player is in the Brig.  He wishes to escape, so he attempts to activate the location.   Can I use this card to force him to autofail the check and remain in captivity?

I believe anyone can play Political Prowess before a location-based skill check, not just the current player. If not, the card doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Why would anyone activate a location and then use this card to fail the skill check? Even if the player were a Cylon, is there any location in the game which has a negative consequence for failing the check?

Offhand, the only skill check locations on the board are for 1) Vote in new president.  2) Brig target player.  3) Execute target player.  4) Escape the brig.  In each of these, the consequence for failure is "no effect".  So I can't imagine many situations where someone would activate a location with intent of triggering a failure;  it'd be better for you to just do something else (barring some meta-goal of forcing the other players to waste cards on a check, but Political Prowess would prevent that as well...)

@GWLlosa Right, so the ability to force your own check to fail seems rather pointless. So either the intent was to allow it to work on anyone's skill check, or the author's were just being complete to account for future locations that might have a negative consequence. I'd go with the former.

Interesting point.  Maybe this does work on any location-based skill check, then.

@GWLosa's logic is flawless.  On the other hand, the card is hardly weak if that ability is useless...

The core question here seems to be: does "make a skill check" refer only to yourself, or just refer to executing a skill check regardless of who triggered it?
My gut feeling is that this phrasing usually means you can only use this on skill checks YOU triggered at a location.  The person taking the action is "making the skill check".
For one thing, this card would be extremely powerful (for cases like the one you describe) if it could be used on anybody's skill check any time.

The counterpoint to that is that since a skill check involves all players at the table, then each player can be said to be "making that skill check", thereby creating an opening for playing the card....

That's definitely true... I'm like 60% confident in my interpretation but totally see where you're coming from.

I can see both sides.  We've played it lilserf's way so far; seeing as it can definitely auto-force success at Brig, Admiral's or Airlock, it's hardly a weak card.

True, the "or failure" could be purely for completeness' sake, with the power coming from the forced success.

Political Prowess is not an Action card, what means that it can be used at any moment. You can use it in the Brig situation described in your question. Likely, you can use this card to:

Brig someone automatically in the Admiral Quarters location.
Change the President title in the Administration location.

This can be a powerful card if used at the right moment (for humans or unrevelead cylons). Not least, this card have strentgh 6.


text:
Aftermarket Cases for Board Games
So I've picked up the Battlestar Galactica: Exodus expansion, and now have the base game, the pegasus expansion, and the exodus expansion.  It has reached the point where it is near impossible to fit all of the components/cards/boards/pieces in the actual box, whilst retaining any semblance of organization.  Does anyone have any recommendations on the best way to build a custom case for this game?  It would have to fit the main board, the New Caprica board, the Pegasus board, the Cylon fleet board.  Ideally, it would have a means to store the 6 different small-sized card decks for the skill cards seperately so that they could be easily stored and retrieved.  Also, if it had small trays for segregating the various ship types (raptor/viper/mk7 viper/raider/heavy raider/basestar/civilian ship) and all the various tokens (damage/trauma/ally/etc) that would be great.  It'd also have to have space for the hundreds of crisis cards, the loyalty cards, the new caprica crisis cards, the super crisis cards, the secret agenda cards, the trial cards, etc.  These tend to be more standard-sized cards, being slightly slimmer than Magic cards but about as tall.
My initial impulse is some kind of modified tackle box.  Are there any better solutions?

I was able to fit all three into one of the boxes, just barely. It did require removing the insert, but it fit.

In general I try to do as little box customizing as possible, but here's some tips I've developed for storage:
Check out the fishing section of your local department store. Not for whole tackle boxes, though. You want the little plastic divided trays. There's a lot of different sizes available and most brands even have repositionable dividers for further customization.
So that takes care of the organization. And by the way, even if everything does fit back in the original box, I recommend getting these trays to organize bitsy games.
For storage, if you can't fit it into the original box (and if you're using a few tackle box trays you probably won't be able to) then you need a new box.
There are a lot of plastic tubs you can get (think halfway between a rubbermaid leftovers box for the fridge and a giant put-it-in-the-basement-and-forget-about-it box). Some places even have decent looking storage solutions. I was at walmart the other day and they have canvas-covered storage boxes in a variety of sizes that could be repurposed into game storage.
I don't really decorate my storage boxes, but if you wanted to there's plenty of images available for download from boardgamegeek.com for the particular game you're storing. You can print them out on full-page stickers and cut them out with an X-acto for an easy way to label what's in each storage box you make.
Here's a picture of what I did for Dungeon Lords:

Luckily the box was big enough that everything fits back into it. You can see the tray has moveable dividers; some of them are in place for smaller bits, some are removed so I can fit the decks of cards in. You can also see there that I decided to use one big bag for all of the wooden bits. They could be broken out by type, but they're easily divided up come game-time.
Hope this helps!

Man, I totally need a storage solution for Dungeon Lords!  It takes a LONG time to set up from everything just being mixed up in the box.  Upvoted you for giving me some impetus to solving that particular problem :D

I use the same answer for Dungeon Lords as for other games - plastic baggies. I have a baggie for adventurers (it's easy to keep the silver / gold backed ones in separate piles in a snack sized bag), a baggie for rooms, for monsters, for tunnels. The cards are either in one baggie or two, I can't remember right now. It's a great, flexible solution that costs very little and works for a huge number of games. Setup is fast and teardown is easy.

I second the baggies idea. If you've got a source for free or cheap baggies in a variety of sizes, go for it. I use them for lots of games too. Choosing a tackle box tray is more of an aesthetic choice for me; I think it just looks better and is more organized. It's also good for pieces you have to pick out individually rather than dumping out and using all of.


text:
Does pKreoss' Purification spell clear out Cloud Effects like Murder of Crows?
Does pKreoss' Purification spell (which causes Upkeep Spells, Continuous Effects, and Animi to expire) remove Murder of Crows from the table?  If so, at what distance?  Does the cloud have to be entirely within range?  Does the center of the cloud have to be in range?  Does the edge of the cloud have to be in range?  Or does the caster who is upkeeping the cloud have to be in range?

Murder of Crows is an upkeep spell, so it would be removed.
It would be removed if any part of the Murder of Crows AoE was within range of Purification.  Like with a model, something is within if any part of it is within.  If you used purification to take Arcane Shield off an Iron clad, you would only need to make sure the edge of the Ironclad's base was within the spell's effect.  It would be the same with any other "thing" that was getting dispelled.


text:
Do the UFOs over the continents get removed when they raise the terror level?
Each round, during the Timed Phase, UFOs can wind up overflying various continental landmasses.  Each UFO that is not shot down by the intrepid forces directed by the Commander raises the terror level.  Do these UFOs then get removed, or do they persist (potentially raising the terror level again) into future turns?

The UFOs will remain over the continent, provided the continent's panic level has not reached orange (panic).  Once the panic level reaches orange, all UFOs over that continent are moved to orbit.
According to the electronic rules (Download the app -> Menu -> Rules -> UFOS) or the Rules Reference p11:

If a continent has fallen into panic when updating the panic levels in the app, all UFOs in that continent are added to orbit.

Also as it has in the electronic FAQ (app -> Menu -> FAQ):

Q: Do UFOs remain on the board after increasing panic?
  A: Yes, UFOs remain on the board until destroyed.

Please add links to these electronic sources if possible. (+1 anyway - looks like a thorough answer)

Thank you for the suggestion.  Hopefully it is easier to find now.

Thanks! I've reformatted your links and quotes - feel free to change it back if you don't like it.

They persist into future turns and can raise the terror level again.
In terms of strategy, one of the key cards is the one that lets you use satellites to pull UFOs into orbit.  It is far more efficient to pull most of the UFOs into orbit, and fight them with a bunch of satellites, rather than trying to spread interceptors out over all the continents.  Not only can a few satellites handle a large number of UFOs, but if they are lost, you only lose them for one turn and then automatically get them back.  You shouldn't have UFOs piling up over the continents until you're getting ready to do the final mission.


text:
Fluxx - When should I carry out actions / use keepers?
At the start of a turn before drawing cards? Or at the end?
(Zombie Fluxx in this case, but common to all variants of Fluxx I think?)

You always draw cards before playing cards.
EDIT:
The general turn outline is:

Draw cards (in following the current draw rule)
Play cards (in following the current play rule)
Discard cards (to follow the 'card limit' rule, if applicable)

So, to confirm, If I want to, say, kill a zombie with a weapon, I have to do that the Play cards section (within the limits?). I can't do it after playing, for example, 4 cards I've just drawn?

@Jon: I've only played Zombie fluxx once, so I'm a little unsure of exact details.  However, I'm not sure what you mean by "after playing, 4 cards I've just drawn".  Drawing comes before playing.

Zombie Fluxx allows you to kill Zombies during your turn, after your draw.  If you look at the rulebook there is a panel which starts "It's your turn.  Start by drawing 2 cards."  During the course of that example turn several zombies are killed by dint of the Zombie Season new rule and various Weapon keepers... but these are all completely free actions.  After that the player still has 2 plays (Draw 2 and Play 2 are in effect) to do other cool stuff.
Killing zombies, easy when you know how!


text:
Fluxx - What counts as a 'play'?
When the current rules in play are along the lines of 'Play 4', does that include any cards you have already played as the result of other actions / playing your Keepers, or do they have to be fresh cards from your hand?
If I have 2 action cards and 2 keepers in my hand and I have to play 4, do I have to also play the keepers in front of me? (I've interpreted the rules as such in this case)
(Zombie Fluxx in this case, but common to all variants of Fluxx I think?)

One thing that may be worth clarifying (for new players) is that, if you've played one card already this turn and your second play is "Play 4", you don't play four more cards; you play two more cards.
Likewise, if you start your turn with "Play 4" in effect and your third play is "Play 2", you don't play any more cards; you have already played more than your currently allotted number of cards for the turn.
Playing cards as part of an action doesn't count towards your Play 4 limit, though.  For instance "Draw 3 and play 2 of them" counts as one of your four plays for the turn, not two or three.
Playing a Keeper or a Goal does very much count as playing a card.  Creepers don't, of course, but they're a well-documented special case.

Yes, putting a keeper on the table in front of you counts as a play, but having a keeper on the table that you previously played is not a play.  (I'm not sure I understand your first paragraph, so I'm trying to answer what I think you're asking)
If the current rule is "play 4" you do have to play cards from your hand (including rules, actions, and keepers) until either:

You run out of cards
You play a rule card that changes the play # rule
You have played 4 cards

Cards already played this turn count toward the total.

@Neal: yes, cards played do count as cards played.

Putting a keeper in front of you counts as playing it, so yes, in your example you would have to play all 4 cards.


text:
Paper thickness (weight) to use for card tabs/dividers?
I'm planning on building a custom storage solution for my Dominion cards (to fit the expansions in the main box with the base set).  For part of this, I will need to cut some tabs similar to the ones in this photo.  What weight of paper should I look for?  I assume the thicker the better, but if the best a store has is, say, 60# paper, should I hold out for something better at another place?  Are there other issues to consider with this?

The main consideration in my experience (many, many Magic cards) is that the thickness/weight of the paper doesn't matter as much as the stiffness and the smoothness of it.  you'll want something that slides out easily, so the cards can be retrieved without losing the divider in the box.  The stiffness is important because anything too flexible will tend to fray the tab portion.  Since dominion is a standard card size, I'd highly suggest plastic dividers, which can be obtained for as little as $0.10 each at various stores.


text:
Dominion - Defeating the Alchemist

I have a friend who loves this card.  I know that every time it's on the table, he will load up on them, and chain long turns that take ages.  It's even more powerful when Scout and/or Apothecary are available, too.
Obviously, I should be able to defeat this strategy by 1) beating him to it (which winds up being more of a luck thing), or 2) augmenting it with a particular card he may not have noticed on the table.  But to me, that makes all Alchemist games very monotonous.
I realize that sometimes an Alchemist deck is just the best strategy, but I also know that this shouldn't always be the case.  What are the weaknesses of this strategy?  Are there sorts of cards I should look for to play an alternate strategy that can still win out over an Alchemist-heavy deck?

Are you sure you're playing this correctly?  I believe that you don't discard the card from play until your turn ends, so you'll only get to use him once per turn (per alchemist card).

If you can get 5 on top of your deck you'll draw 10 cards every time, virtually guarantee you get a Potion, and repeat this eeeeevery turn.

Man, I dislike this card; it's so overwhelming most of the time it shows up that it makes me wonder if it was actually playtested.  My group nerfs it such that you need one Potion PER Alchemist card you're returning to the top of the deck.

In the short term, cards that make him discard cards are the best way to go.  Minion is the best because it makes him discard all of them:

Other cards that help in the short term:

(sadly, Ghost Ship does not)
In the long run, there are several strategies:

If Embargo is in play, Embargo Alchemist early on.

Destroy his cards using Saboteur or Swindler.

Destroy or steal his money using Thief or Pirate Ship.  Note: These two cards will also flip his top two cards even if they aren't money.

Give him Curses, or use Ambassador to give him unhelpful cards.

One last note: Each time he buys an Alchemist, he's buying another action card.  If he's buying action cards, he's not buying money cards.  As bad as it sounds, Alchemist-heavy can often be defeated by Big Money decks, even if they have 5 Alchemists in their hand (and thus essentially start with 10 cards).
Also, make sure he isn't putting the Alchemists on top during turns he doesn't have a Potion in play.
Edit:
It's been a while, but one thing I noticed I forgot to mention when I answered this in 2010: Alchemist is only +1 Action, which means unless they have a +2 Action card somewhere, they only have one action at the end of the chain.

I didn't even think about Minion in this context. Brutal.

@Andrew: I've tried this strategy before, and the Minion thing was one of the things that stopped it.  Not drawing a Potion when I needed it was another.  Having said that... Alchemist and Apothecary work together fairly well... a little too well.

I'm being slow - how does Minion especially mess up an Alchemist strategy?  (I only have Dominion and Intrigue so I'm easily baffled by the newer cards ;)

@thesunneversets:  Alchemist's power is that, if you had a Potion in play, you may put it back on top of your deck at the end of your turn (before the draw phase).  Thus your draw it again for the next hand.  Discarding your hand with Minion forces anyone with more than 4 cards to discard their hand as well... which includes up to 5 Alchemists they played in their previous hand.

@thesunneversets: The person playing the Alchemists wouldn't be the one playing the Minion.  The person playing against them would be.  The clean-up phase always consists of discarding all cards you have in play, then drawing 5 cards.  Since discarding happens first, the Alchemists would be put on top of the deck, then drawn.  So the person playing Minion would force the other player to discard the hand containing the Alchemists.

@Powerlord: Thanks, I just realized that (of course) you redraw your Alchemists at the end of your turn.  I was stuck in a mindset of "draw new cards at beginning of turn" - too much Magic the Gathering, probably!  I shall upvote your answer as a reward for putting up with my stupid questions :D

@thesunneversets: That is something that takes getting used to, but it makes sense when you consider how many attack cards say "discard down to 3" (Militia (B), Ghost Ship (S) (putting them on top of the deck), Goons (P)) or "discard two cards" (Torturer)

Swindler has limited use as a counter to Alchemist.  Unless there's another $3+Potion card in the game or until all the Alchemists are gone, all you're doing is replacing it with another Alchemist.  And once an Alchemist deck hits critical mass, you're just picking off his 6th Alchemist; the other 5 are already in his hand.  Sound advice otherwise, especially regarding Minion; that little devil will stop an Alchemist engine COLD.

@BlairHippo: The advice to destroy his/her cards was actually referring to the money cards they need to buy things plus the Potions, as the Alchemists will be in their hands already if their strategy is working.

Possession is great for making Alchemist fizzle. Attacks like Militia, Goons or Torturer would also help significantly, as would anything that would help you cram Curses, Estates and Coppers into his deck. If he's managing to get five Alchemists going, Masquerade could be fun, although by that time it may be too late.

If you're playing without Colonies, then Alchemist is often a weak card. The opportunity cost of buying the 2 Potions the strategy needs is quite big and a non-Potion strategy will be able to build an insurmountable lead in victory points if there are no +Buy cards on the board for the Alchemist strategy to catch up.
Just buy a single Smithy/Masquerade/Envoy+treasures and expect to beat the Alchemist player 8 games out of ten...

Powerlord's answer is quite good.  I'd add Masquerade to his list of effective counters, particularly if you can combo it with Goons or Militia.  (But then again, comboing Masquerade with either of those is ALWAYS a good time.  :-)  )
When playing in Isotropic, I usually beeline for Alchemist when it's available.  Usually the other player does the same thing; I rarely lose when he doesn't, but it DOES happen, even when none of Powerlord's anti-Alchemist cards are in play.  If you've got a set lacking any +buys and that has other powerful cards, you can defeat the Alchemist if you can get to the Provinces before his deck hits critical mass.  In a 2-player game with no extra buys, an early two-Province edge can be damn near insurmountable.
On the other hand, if you don't get that edge, once he goes critical he'll be drawing his entire deck every turn.  Alchemist is one of the few cards in the game I regard as simply broken.


text:
What are the standard rules of etiquette for Rummy?
Most card games have a fairly common etiquette.  One rule for Rummy I know of is that you should announce any intention to adjust the visible cards before touching them, to indicate you are not taking one.
What are the other common rules of etiquette for Rummy?


text:
Descent: Can you get rid of cursed items?
In Descent there are various cursed items, which we always played as bind on pickup?
Is this the case?  Can you wield any other weapon while you have a cursed item?  How do you work around this completely making useless a character that gets an item it can't use well (a mage with a two handed sword).

I don't recall there being any rules for auto-equipping cursed items; you can elect to use it if you want to, but you don't have to.
You get a curse token for equipping a cursed item, and while you can remove the cursed item as normal, you do not lose the curse token for un-equipping the item (so if you re-equip it later, you get another curse token).
In your example, if the mage can simply choose not to equip the weapon.
Now, Dark Relics, on the other hand, must be equipped when found, and the only normal way to remove them is to die.  Fun fun...

This is correct; you never have to use a cursed item.  The point is that the cursed items are generally significantly better than non-cursed items in the same deck; several are well worth the risk in the right circumstances.

You can drop them at any time or sell them when you are at a the market.
The curse applies when they are equipped and the curse can be removed by dying or by buying the voodoo doll for 200 gold in the store.  It came with one of the expansions and removes 3 status marks, which includes the curse marker.


text:
What is the term for a stalemate in Checkers?
What is the term for a stalemate in Checkers?  What are the official conditions for a "no winner game"?

Small nitpickery: the correct term is 'draw' in Chess and Checkers.  'Stalemate' refers to a particular kind of draw in chess - namely, when a player is unable to move - that's all but impossible to achieve in Checkers.

According to the American Checker Federation (see rule 12), a tie game is called a draw.  The conditions for a draw are similar to the 50-move rule in chess.  Basically, one player asks the other to prove he can win (or get closer to winning) in the next 40 moves or the game ends in a draw.  I imagine this would only really occur in high level play, perhaps by several kinged pieces moving endlessly around the board with neither side gaining an advantage.
A condition like a stalemate in chess (where a player has no legal move to make) results in a loss for the player whose turn it is to move.

There is no such term, because there is no such thing as a stalemate in checkers. It is always possible for at least one player to win, although in some cases that would require extraordinarily poor play by the other player.
EDIT to reply to comment:
I know this is really getting into semantics, but the question is about terminology. Your position seems to be that "stalemate" and "draw" are synonymous. I believe "stalemate" is merely the specific case where a player must move but cannot make a legal move, resulting in a draw. The very rule you cited states that, in checkers, if one player cannot make a legal move, the other player wins. By definition, that's not a draw, so in my mind, that's not a stalemate.

From Wikipedia -"A player wins by capturing all of the opposing player's pieces or by leaving the opposing player with no legal moves. The game ends in a draw, if neither side can force a win."

@Pat, please see my edit.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/perry_g/2064013288/ Looks like a stalemate to me.  There are several other stalemated checkers images on google as well.

@Pat, that's not a stalemate.  It's a loss for the player who has to move next (but can't, obviously).

@kristo - -1 for my reading comprehension!  Good catch.


text:
Axis and Allies - Is there a best country?
I've been told by several people that different countries are statistically better choices for Axis and Allies?
Is there any evidence that one or more countries have a significant advantage?

Ross: Can you clarify this question? Generally, the game is played until either the Axis or Allies win (either by capturing two capitals of via an Axis economic victory), but there is a variant where the game does not end until there is one country left standing, meaning if the Allies win then the US/UK/Russia keep warring until there is just one person left. Is your question, "What is the best country when playing a death match to the end" or is it, "What is the best country to play to have the best chance at outperforming my team mate(s), just for fun"?

I interpreted this as 'Statistically, do some countries perform better than others'?  I think you can answer this (qualitatively) without committing to DM or not, but ultimately, there is no black & white answer.  The game is too complex for that, methinks.

@DaveParillo: The question still seems a bit odd because if one side wins it doesn't much matter how each country did individually. I've won several games as Allies where Russia was either totally annihilated or was hanging on by a thread. Does that mean the US or UK was "better"? Russia had a very important job - use its infantry to soak up German and Japanese soliders and hold on until the US can reinforce Europe - but that doesn't necessarily mean the US is a better country to play (unless, as I commented earlier, you are playing for a single winner).

@Scott - concur, which is why I upvoted your comment - your points are spot on & the question could be improved with some clarification.  That said, I tried to answer what I thought was the spirit of the question, even if the game isn't really about a single country.

This question should break down to a particular (or each) A&A version. Anniversary and Classic for instance are statistically oposite in terms of who usually wins

Statistically, I think the Axis get the short end.  I tried finding some web site specifically discussing stats on various countries, but came up empty, so you'll have to settle for qualitative data from me at least.
I havn't played this game in years, but I always like playing Russia.  I would say Russia is the best in terms of fun to play, but it's not the strongest.  Overall, A&A is an economic game & the Allies have the advantage.  So from that perspective, the US & UK might be considered 'best countries', if there is such a thing.
If you like playing the Axis side, I would rank Germany as having a small advantage on the first turn, but it erodes quickly. If you haven't wiped out the British fleet early in the game and made solid progress into Africa by the time the Americans start showing up, well... lets just say a bunker suicide might not sound so bad after all.
A risky strategy has Germany taking Leningrad early.  If you can hold it at the beginning of your turn, the game is basically over. You have to have plenty of luck on your side.  A safer approach is to go for Africa & have Japan invade Asia
UK, US & Russia are all good late game countries.  If you can keep a UK fleet alive through the early phases of the game, you can effectively pin Germany down in Europe build up major industry in India.  Early in the game, the UK is mostly a punching bag.
As Russia, you can prevent an early assault by massing infantry on you borders, especially against Germany. You make attacks against you prohibitively expensive, but you are free to send waves of infantry into Germany if you see any weakness there.
Links:

http://www.criticalgamers.com/archives/board-games/strategies_for_wwii.php
http://www.axisandallies.org/taxonomy/term/27

Answering the question with AAMC bid statistics
Others have explained why the Axis have a significant disadvantage in the 2nd Edition rules. I'll attempt to provide hard evidence and quantify this advantage. The popular play-by-email (PBEM) site Axis and Allies Members Club (which I have no affiliation with and which I hadn't logged onto in years until I did some research for this post) keeps statistics on the games played by its members.
There's such a strong belief that the game is unbalanced in favor of the allies that the club has introduced a concept known as bidding to even out the game. Before the game starts, each player bids for how many extra IPCs they would need to be given to play the Axis. Then are then allowed to use this money to purchase and place additional units on the board prior to the start of the game.
Bidding can either be hidden (both bids placed in secret and low bid plays the Axis) or open, where players bid each other down over multiple rounds until someone calls uncle (like the old game show Name that Tune).
I haven't played in years and looked up my old game logs. I had about a 0.500 win percentage with an average bid of about 12. There is a (fairly vapid) thread on the AAMC message boards asking what bids are running now, the consensus seems to be the low 20s. Lastly, I logged on and checked the game logs for the club's top ranked player. The average bid over his last 20 games was something like 22. The difference in the bids is explained because I always played no first turn Russian attack, which is evidently worth about 10 IPCs to the Axis (because they can save the units in Finland, or at least the fighter).
So, among the very seasoned 2nd edition players over at AAMC, the consensus is that it's not fair to take the Axis unless the Allies spot them the equivalent of more than 7 infantry on the first turn to be placed anywhere on the game board.
That's a fairly insane unbalance in the game. I believe the only reason it didn't tank the game completely is because although the Allied advantage is large it is also hard to capitalize on if you're inexperienced: the Allies require more finesse to play (flawless execution of strategies like shuck-shuck), often much more than the novice A&A player has.

Nice.  I didn't know there was a pbem site.

If the "difference" between the two sides is only about 7 infantry (or a bomber and transport), the game makers did a good job of balancing it. After all, there was "no comparison" in the real world version.

@Tom Au: agree, and it's especially elegant that the game can be re-balanced again so easily with the almost trivial addition of a bidding mechanic.

I'd "fix" the game by allowing Germany to start its Finland and Ukraine fighters in East Europe, and Japan's Manchuria fighter in Kwantung. As you pointed out, there's 10 IPCs right there. The remaining "deficit" of four infantry (or one fighter) isn't large, and is relatively easy to fix.

At the start of the game, the Allies have a significant advantage over the Axis due a variety of reasons, including:

Their combined economic power
The fact that there are three Allies playing against two Axis
US's economic strength and the fact that its richest territories are virtually safe from attack due to their distance from the European and Asian theaters

Because the Allies have the best chance to win at the start of the game, it would seem to follow that the "best country" would be one of the Allies. Of the three, the US has the most enviable position - they have the strongest economy and their homeland is far away from the Axis powers. Yes, Japan can sink America's Pacific fleet and take Hawaii or Alaska if they so desire, but unless the American player is really green, there's no way Japan should take Eastern or Western US. Therefore, I'd rate the US as the "best country."
That aside, Germany has the strongest position of any one country at the start. They have a good ratio of infantry to tanks to fighters and bombers for offensive maneuvering, and they control the very rich European heartland. Unfortunately, their naval strength is in the Mediterranean and the German player must decide whether to leave them there to reinforce Africa or whether to move them to aid in delaying the Allies controlling the Atlantic. Also, because Russia gets to go first they can greatly reinforce their Western front, thereby slowing any German advance toward Moscow, giving the UK and US an opportunity to build, supply, control the Atlantic, and reinforce Russia via Finland.
All said, I'd rank the countries as follows from strongest to weakest:

US
UK
Japan
Germany
Russia

I actually rate Japan higher than Germany because traditional Allies strategy is to have the US abandon the Pacific and focus 100% on supplying troops to Russia and aiding UK in taking and holding Africa and, ideally, Western Europe. In that scenario, the Axis's chance for victory hinge on Japan. If Russia is to fall, it's usually ideal for Japan to take out Russia's capital rather than Germany, since it's not uncommon for Germany to be under siege by that point in the game. With too little IPC and with the US and UK in Europe, Germany's possession of Russia does it little good. Conversely, if Japan holds Russia she can build tanks and infantry to reinforce Europe, hold southern Asia, or breeze through Africa, depending on what's needed.

Like your analysis, but you really think the Allies have the advantage on the first few turns? What if you play with the 'Russia can't attack on the first turn' option?

@DaveParillo: Dave, the Axis have the advantage the first few turns - more specifically, Germany does, Japan takes a couple turns to get her troops into Asia proper. The Allies advantage is the US. Once the US economic war machine gets humming and starts dumping 10 infantry each turn into Finland or Africa, the war is all but done. (And for the record, I always play with the "Russia can't attack on first turn" option - to allow it makes the game even more lopsided!)

I agree with you.  Maybe there needs to be a question 'Axis & Allies - is there a most ''fun'' country?

this is in reference to your original post here. I think that the allies are too far away to be significant. It takes at least 2 turns for the U.S. to do anything significant either in Europe or Africa... I think the game is balanced. Germany and Japan have enough money and they are close enough to battle, thus making it more challenging for Russia and the U.K. to hold on until the U.S. enters in a powerful way.

@RPRATHER3 - but the thing is, the game is not balanced, and there is statistical proof to back up that claims. See Adam's post at http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/177/axis-and-allies-is-there-a-best-country/2269#2269

In the 50th anniversary edition you have two starting layout to chose from. The other answers seem to discuss mostly what is called the 1941 start in 50th ann. ed.
We found that in the 1942 layout, Germany starts out MUCH stronger and is often able to wipe out Russia if they are not careful enough.

It depends on how you define "best" country.
If you mean, "easiest country to play," probably U.S.A.
If you mean "most multifacted," perhaps Japan.
If you mean "most vulnerable," and like the adrenalin of an early brush with "death," before coming back from behind, then Russia.
If you mean "most challenging" (in terms of difficulty of finding a clear strategy), I think the U.K.
If you mean "king of the hill" that (almost) everyone wants to knock down, then Germany.

I think that it depends on the version you are playing and strategies each player attempts. The UK is always spread out and therefore is relatively easy to destroy or make useless, but in an Anglo-friendly atmosphere can attack almost anywhere. Statistically, the USA obviously has a superior economy and can basically choose an enemy to destroy, but has few units, especially near to action. Russia is mostly average in all aspects, but are often forced into bad situations. Japan has a very poor economy to try and take all of Asia, but initially have a large force, especially navy, so can possibly remedy their IPC problem. Germany, meanwhile, has a large starting force, esp. ground forces, and a formidible economy, so are arguably the best.

Best for what? I think people have replied nicely in terms of strategies, but there is also whether or not you like to play that kind of strategy. America, though not the hardest, is boring to play to me. Japan, kind of boring, too. But it really depends on how you like to play!

I think the implication was best to win with.

As often as I play this game, there seems to be one single truth that emerges. There is no "one country" that is better than another.
The game is solely based on who you're playing, their skill level, the luck of the dice, and your own strategy. I have been playing this game for a number of years (roughly 7) and I have seen every outcome of the game. I usually play total domination, that is, you must conquer two enemy capitals. I've played the 'monetary victory' and the 'victory city' victories, but I enjoy playing until there is nothing else to do.
I have seen Russia conquer Berlin and Tokyo. I have seen U.K. take Tokyo, and I have seen Japan conquer the U.S. I have also seen Germany conquer Russia in 2 turns and then focus on London and take it within two more rounds.
Like I said, it all depends on the above things. My best friend and I play about once a week and every time there are different results. I win, he wins, we call a tie, whatever. We always randomly pick our countries and everything.
If you honestly think about it, the Russians have a lot of ground units, the Germans have tons of ground and air units. The U.K. has the most annoying position in the game while Japan has the best navy to start. The U.S. has too much money and is too far from the fight to immediately do anything. That's just my opinion though...
My favorite country, as well as my best country, is Japan... hands down.

Do you think your answer would change, or substantially modified in any way, by what version of the game you're playing?

Adam- I don't think it matters what version you play. I have the original and Europe and Pacific and the two revisions inbetween and it is still the same: it matters who you play, their strategy, your strategy, and the dice.

Personally I like Italy- 2nd edition AAE40 or AAG40- because everyone tends to disregard them since they start so weak.  If they can build up a large enough navy, then they're certainly a force to be reckoned with- and Africa is basically easy pickings for Italy.  I've captured London as Italy, I've even sent ships and troops over to help the Japanese with India and ANZAC when playing Global.

It mainly relies on what Japan  does in the case of playing the UK, I am in a game now where I'm the UK, so I can tell that if Japan rushes India it is hard to play, but if they relent, then you need to build a factory there and make as many tanks as possible. For me infantry is mainly useless for attack, but I mainly play Spring 1942 edition.

It is possible (although you need luck on your side) for Germany to take the UK capital on their first turn....
Ultimately, each country has its own strategy, so my thinking is that it ultimately comes down to choice and style of play. I personally like going Russia for the additional challenge...


text:
Strategies for Bob Jenkins
I'm playing Arkham Horror for the first time and I randomly drew Bob Jenkins as my investigator. With some of the other players' characters, their "purpose" is pretty clear. There's the guy with high fight who starts with a sweet weapon, the guy with high lore and tons of spells, etc. With Bob, I'm not seeing a clear path to how I can best contribute. What type of strategies or tactics should I be employing to make the best use of my turn?

Bob Jenkins is:

Rich!  $9 -> Go shopping for Unique Items
Has stuff: 2 common and 2 uniques, hopefully he starts with some good stuff
Well rounded: 4 Sanity and 6 Stamina is a great split.  Enough Sanity to allow missing a horror check or two, and enough stamina to get down and dirty.
Reasonably fast - speeds 4 and 5 are not out of the question.  Bob can get from place to place quickly.
Has a strong will, minimum 3
Can hopefully compensate for his somewhat poor fight skill with some good items

When playing Bob, you should be aggressive.  Bob has the stats and should have the items to allow him to survive most bad things.  If you get lucky and start with an Elder Sign, go off world as quick as you can.  If not, see if you can buy an Elder Sign, or start grabbing clue tokens.  Favor the locations where common items are found to take advantage of the Shrewd Dealer ability.  Bob may not be the best investigator at any particular thing, but odds are, he is the second best at most things in a normal group.  Use him to fill in for whatever your team is lacking.
According to the Arkham Horror Statistics Report, Bob has the 7th highest winning percentage (out of 48 characters) in October 2010.  For November, he has moved to 6th.

I think I got a bad initial draw for the random items. Everything is a tome that requires a Lore (-1) check. I'll just have to head over and get more unique items.

@Jonathan - Tomes aren't that great for Bob.  You can always meet up with a fellow investigator with a higher lore and give them the tomes.  If they can give you a nice weapon at the same time, then everyone gets better.