text:
Fury of Dracula 3rd ed. - Escape as Bat clarification
In Fury of Dracula 3rd edition, when Dracula plays Escape as Bat combat card, and decides to move to a new location, Dracula clears his current hideout, places a new location card there along with the face-up Escape as Bat card. But what about an encounter card? Does Dracula also place an encounter card on the new location, as he normally does?

No, encounters are placed during the encounter phase of Dracula's turn. Moving by escaping as a bat occurs during dawn or dusk, which is outside this phase so no encounter is placed.
The first space location (where the combat was taking place) is cleared, and then the new location card - without an encounter - replaces the cleared location on the first slot on the trail.


text:
Fury of Dracula 3rd ed. - Fangs point scoring
In Fury of Dracula 3rd edition, does Dracula score 1 point whenever 'Fangs' combat card is resolved, or only if it was resolved with night & mesmerized conditions met? I know the rules just say "when 'Fangs' is resolved", but the reason I'm asking is because of the way the text on the card is printed out, with no empty line above "Then, advance the influence track by 1":

Fantasy Flight clarified this:

The 1 influence point only occurs when it is night and the engaged hunter is mesmerized.

source: https://boardgamegeek.com/article/21076368#21076368

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
What effect do Strionic Resonator and Vorinclex, Voice of Hunger have together?
If I have a Strionic Resonator and a Vorinclex, Voice of Hunger in play under my control, what will happen when I tap a land for mana, or when my opponent taps a land for mana?

You can't use Strionic Resonator when you tap a land for mana. Mana abilities do not use the stack. According to rule 605.1, a mana ability is an activated ability that creates mana, or a triggered ability that triggers off of mana creation and makes more mana itself (such as with Overgrowth or the last ability on Gauntlet of Power). Since Vorinclex's ability is never on the stack, you can't target it.
If you copy the second ability, it won't have any additional effect. The ability doesn't have any targets, it simply affects the same land twice during the next untap step (my comment below indicating that this may not be the case is wrong).

It would be useful to add text to answer OP's second question, as the second triggered ability on Vorinclex is not a mana ability and therefore can be targeted by Strionic Resonator. (Chad's answer includes this but also misses that the first triggered ability is a mana ability.)

I was going too, but I'm not sure Chad's answer is correct. I believe the affected land skips two untap steps. I'll edit that in when I find the correct rule reference.

It would if the untap step were skipped, but that's not what the ability does, it just says that the affected land doesn't untap during that step.

It more or less does nothing. Neither trigger targets, and each triggers separately for each land, so you could only copy a trigger for one land. And as a mana ability, the first trigger doesn't use the stack and can't be targeted anyway. So the only thing you could do with it is make it so that a land that doesn't untap next untap step also doesn't untap next untap step (which is redundant and completely useless unless there's some corner case I'm missing)

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


text:
Do the back side of double-faced cards have a color?
For example, would Ugin, the Spirit Dragon's minus ability affect Westvale Abbey transformed?

−X: Exile each permanent with converted mana cost X or less that's one or more colors.

Yes, they can have a color, and Ormendahl would be exiled.

Do you see the little black dot to the left of "Legendary Creature"?
That dot is called a color indicator, and means that the card is black. The CMC of the back of a double-faced card is the same as the front, which, in this case, is 0.

Here's another example of a black color indicator.


text:
Can you raise the CMC with Geist-Fueled Scarecrow?
Say for example, I cast Sylvan Messenger, normally {3}{G}, but there is also a Geist-Fueled Scarecrow in play - thereby bringing up the cost to {4}{G}.
In response, my opponent casts Horribly Awry. Can Horribly Awry counter my Sylvan Messenger?

related: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/23750/do-effects-that-reduce-a-spells-casting-cost-also-reduce-its-converted-mana-cos

Yes, Horribly Awry will still counter your Sylvan Messenger.  (And so to answer the title question, no you can't raise the CMC of a spell.)  Geist-Fueled Scarecrow adds an additional cost, but this doesn't affect either the mana cost or the converted mana cost of the spell:

202.4. Any additional cost listed in an object’s rules text or imposed by an effect isn’t part of the mana cost. (See rule 601, “Casting Spells.”) Such costs are paid at the same time as the spell’s other costs.


text:
Are tile bonuses counted twice if 2 new words are formed?
An example:
  O
 O?

There is a triple letter tile to the right of the bottom O, indicated with a ?.
If I place an X on it, making the words OX (vertical) and OX (horizontal), do I score 50 points (scoring the tile twice) or 34 (scoring it once)?

Spelling OX or AX (and now ZA or KI/QI thanks to the updates) going multiple directions on any sort of bonus tile is pretty awesome if you can pull it off.  It might not give you as many points as a bingo, but its certainly an attractive option.

This is pretty much how I play. You'd be surprised how well you can do by catching a triple-letter tile twice.

Yes, you score it twice as long as the double/triple letter/word tile was covered up by your current play.
From the rules:

When two or more words are formed in the same play, each is scored. The common letter is counted (with full premium value, if any) for each word. (See Turns 3, 4 and 5 in the Scoring Examples


text:
Handicapping an experienced Agricola player.
One of my friends and I often play Agricola, and he's considerably better than me at it - I'm getting better, but he seems to be advancing at a faster rate, and it's getting to the point that although I like playing the game I'm finding it less fun to be constantly losing.
Are there any good ways of creating some custom/'house' rules to disadvantage him slightly, so that we're a little more even? I don't want to make it impossible for him to win, or to make it too easy for me.
(I know the purists out there will think this abhorrent, but hey, the goal is to have fun right?)

IMO you're not going to learn the game at all if you have a handicap. Remove the handicap and you're back to having no clue.

Play an open game
If your friend is willing, why not play a completely open game?  All players show all of their cards and explain why they're taking each action.  If your friend really is significantly better, you could learn a lot by discovering why he makes certain moves.  Perhaps there's some critical flaw in your strategy that's preventing you from scoring enough points to be competitive.

Suggestion
I'd start you with one to three "traveling worker" tokens.  Once per turn, when it's your turn to place a family member, you can place a traveling worker token instead of a member of your family (ie: You get to occupy and take an extra action.). The traveling worker goes away at the end of the turn you used it.  You never have to feed your traveling worker tokens.  Functionally, traveling workers are members of your family that you can use one time, and you never have to feed.
Why?
Each traveling worker gives you two distinct advantages: It gives you an extra action, and it (may) block an action that your friend could have taken.
Agricola is all about efficient use of actions (and selecting the right things to purchase (and getting good combos)).  Traveling workers give you a little leeway.
Tweaking
Adjust the number of traveling workers you start the game with until the games feel "right".  Given your description, I suspect that two traveling workers will do the trick.
If giving you traveling workers is so powerful that you win all the time, even with just one traveling worker, add a cost in food to using the traveling worker (like one resource unit).

That's just skipping the only involved part of the game though.

Draft Occupations/Minor Improvements
The Family version of Agricola is a game of very low randomness.  If one player is consistently beating another, then the second player will just have to step up their game, there isn't really any satisfactory way around that!  Maybe I am a purist.
However!  The full game, with the occupation and minor improvement cards, allows for games where one player is significantly advantaged over another: some cards, occupations especially, are just better than other cards.
So here's what I'd recommend, to give you a headstart on your opponent: deal two piles of 7 occupations, and then you pick the best one from BOTH piles.  Your opponent picks one from each pile, then back to you, until you have seven each.  Do the same for minor improvements.  (If your opponent really is thrashing you, maybe even pick two at a time instead!)
When you have great cards and your opponent has mediocre ones, it will be much more of an uphill struggle for him to beat you.  And now you are playing a game of Agricola that could have been created by the luck of the draw - you don't have to make a new game that's Agricola in name only, and the purists remain mostly unirked :D

@John - if you do end up following this suggestion, make sure you are able to tell the most powerful Occupations from the chaff.  This old question of mine: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/1414/what-are-the-most-busted-cards-in-agricola may prove to be of some help!

Forbid the strong player from taking the First Player action.
It's not terribly awkward to implement, and if you always get to choose the first action of the round you'll have a really significant advantage. In a multi-player game he could always play last regardless of the start player marker, but that's likely too much of a disadvantage.

How about practicing and getting some revenge?
Steps for Revenge

Visit play-agricola.com.
Play a couple games solo to get the hang of the interface
Advertise in the public chat channel that you are a beginner looking for a game
Play five games or so

I'll bet you can now beat your friend.
It worked for me, and I wasn't even purposely trying to get better.  By exposing yourself to different folks with different strategies, you will escalate your game play rapidly.
You can also learn by watching some games, those folks are really good over there!

If I remember correctly, Agricola scores with victory points. You could simply give yourself a handicap. It may not make you feel much better but it would certainly give you a reachable goal.

I suggest the stronger player secretly applies a handicapping rule to themselves.
The problem with some of the other handicaps (especially the simple victory points handicap) is that it's not a particularly satisfying victory for the weaker player, and can feel patronising.
I suggest rules like:

Never take sheep.
Never take 'Starting player' action.
Don't ploy, sow, or take grain until stage 2.
Never take food. (If taking it for the starting player in the family friendly version, or for day labour, never use that food).
Don't take 'Family growth' until three rounds after it comes out.

The player who is handicapping themself shouldn't announce what their personal handicap is. This prevents the weaker player from banking on the whatever the strategy is. (For example, if they know that the stronger player isn't going to take sheep, they could let the sheep build up, knowing that it's not going to be taken).
The advantage of this handicapping mechanism is it remains a fun challenge for the stronger player. It also can provide insight into alternative strategies. For example when I played a game where I opted not to take sheep, I ended up not taking any animals at all, and I found that it wasn't as bad as I thought (I tied for first place).

Change starting food, giving more food to the inexperienced player and/or less to the experienced player.
Even a difference of a few food can make a big difference in the early game as it's very hard to get a mature production engine going in to the first harvest (buying the clay oven is one of the strongest you can do and it still takes a lot of work to set up).  Giving a new player 4 food means they don't have to worry about food during the first harvest, which may give them a full extra action before then.  Meanwhile, having an experienced player start with 0 or 1 food means that they need to find a lot of food, which could cost them a whole extra action.  Early game actions can have big downstream consequences.

I just came across this thread. I’m shocked that no one suggested the most straightforward handicap, which I’ve used in many of my games: just start the weaker player(s) with more stuff!
For an experienced player vs. a new player, I recommend:

One pasture (single fenced in square)
One field
One of each non-wood resource (including grain and veggie)
4 wood
4 extra food

Give enough so that the weaker player wins. Let them win a game for once! :) Then, start ratcheting down the bonuses at the beginning of the game until it’s balanced.
I strongly disagree with the note above that someone posted re: not learning if you handicap. Starting with extra resources helps players learn what they need to setup their engine. That’s why I recommend both a pasture (for an animal strategy), field + grain/veggie to setup a sowing strategy, and wood+reed for family growth. The player still needs to figure out which strategy to use.
Also, I strongly support balancing the game to make it fun for everyone. There’s no shame in acknowledging a difference in skill. What matters is that everyone has fun, and that the game is balanced for those players.
When my dad first taught me ping pong, he played left handed on his knees. Eventually he switched to his right hand, and eventually stood up. But I doubt I would have enjoyed learning or playing the game with him if he tried his best without a handicap from the beginning. That’s just stupid and unfun. So handicap away! :)

The key to the game is using your card and actions as efficiently as possible. Find what strengths you have in terms of feeding your family and build off that. I find that I always win due to the fact that at the end of the game I have 5 stone huts and 5 children scoring 25 points in itself. Just use your cards at the right time and make sure your getting expansions early in the game. Remember that the more actions you have the more chance of filling your board up and getting a higher score! Anyways good luck to you..

all_licenses: 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/4.0/


text:
Can the owner of the largest army move the robber every turn?
Someone told me that in catan the possessor of the largest army card can move the knight each time it is their turn.  Is this a common house or tournament rule?  I could find no such statement in the rule book.

This is not an official rule; that is why you didn't find it in the rule book.
The reason this isn't a rule is because it would detrimental to the game experience. The player with the 'largest army' has already moved the Robber at least three times and has 2 victory points. Giving the player the power to move the Robber each turn, without a roll or playing a Knight card, allows them to squash the efforts of the other players.
Thusly empowered, the player with the Largest Army could 'attack' the other players who are trying to gather resources. It would be hard to build the Longest Road, or upgrade their villages to Cities for Victory points, the robber keeps shutting down the resource tile you're depending on. From here, the optimal strategy would be to create and maintain the Largest Army, than hold down your opponents while racing for the other eight Victory Points.

No, this is not a rule.
There's no rule I could quote to prove this, but as you say, the rulebook doesn't mention it. The rulebook says when you CAN move the robber (when playing a KnightS/Soldier or when rolling a 7), but doesn't list all the different times that you CAN'T.
It must have just been a house rule; Catan has all sorts of house rules people play in their own groups.

No, Absolutely NOT.
The Longest Road and Largest Army are rewards for achievement, nothing more. Sure, the soldier/knight cards allow you move the robber, but only once when that card is played. You are allowed to continue playing soldier/knight cards after you've achieved largest army. In fact, it's not a bad idea because if you have played 3 and someone comes along and plays 4 then you lose your largest army. As long as you keep playing soldier/knight cards you can continue to move the robber, but never more than once per card.


text:
Can anyone help my identify this card game
It's a game about capitalism and I cannot remember it's name for the life of me

The card game Pit had a version that was released under the name "Billionaire" circa 1984, which is where your card comes from. This image contains the full set of cards including the one you showed.


text:
If the Eyrie does not have enough spare warriors to recruit - does this cause turmoil?
In Root if the Eyrie can't resolve the decree they fall in to turmoil.
In the case that the Eyrie have territory that they can recruit on - but already have all their warriors out (this can especially happen with the charismatic leader) - does this count as a turmoil trigger?

Yes. Rule 7.5.2. If you cannot fully take an action, you immediately fall into turmoil (7.7).

Take into account that the Eyrie is designed so it always eventually falls in turmoil and forces a change of leader.

You say that, but I've seen plenty of games where they never went into turmoil, and even a few where they won without going into turmoil.

Ok, then I'll say it's easy to fall into turmoil but a skilled player can avoid it.

Yes
I don't have a copy of this game, so I can't cite a rule to prove it, but I played it a few weeks ago, and the owner of the game, who also explained it to us, especially pointed out this to the player who played Eyrie, that he should always pay attention on having enough warriors to fulfill the recruiting part of his manifest.

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


text:
What happens if the auction nominator is outbid?
Seeking clarification on this issue:
In Powergrid, at the Auction phase, a player has the choice of passing, or nominating a powerplant for auction.
If they nominate the powerplant for auction, they must put the first bid on it.
If someone subsequently outbids them, what happens?
My understanding, is that the player then nominates a second powerplant (or still has the option of passing?).

Your understanding is exactly correct. From the rules:

When the auctioning player wins the auction and gets the power plant, the next player in turn order takes his turn at offering a power plant for auction, if he has not
   already purchased a power plant this round. If he has, the next player in turn order may start an auction, and so on. When a player other than the player who started
   the auction wins the auction, the auctioning player may choose a new plant to auction from the actual market or pass.


text:
Preventing/minimising damage from beer spills
Spilt some beer on a hand of 7 Wonders cards last night, and it had the potential to completely ruin the cards.
As it was, managed to prevent too much serious damage by carefully sliding the cards apart and drying them off with paper towels.
Am wondering generally for boardgames what the best ways to minimise damage from beer spills are - other than being careful not to spill beer.

I have a simple rule - if you want to put your drink on the table, you are responsible for replacing the game if it's ruined by the drink being spilled (whoever causes the spill).  So if it's out of print, don't do it.  If it's cheap, take the risk.

You could potentially get sleeves for your cards.
In your case it looks like some companies make sleeves specifically for 7 wonders.

In order to protect cards from being damaged in a situation like this you need to take two actions. First and foremost you need to sleeve your cards and generally you can find card sleeves designed for any card game. Second and most importantly you need to be careful with any food/beverages that are going to be in the gaming area. While sleeves may be good at protecting cards they still have openings where liquid and other matter can get in and damage the cards. When this happens you not only have to deal with cleaning the card but most likely have to replace the card sleeve.
In general unless you have a sleeve that can form a water tight seal around the card you will always need to be careful with your food/beverages as the sleeve is just something to help protect.


text:
What do minor improvements and occupations add?
This question isn't about the mechanics or rules of the game, but what dynamics it adds.
After playing several games of the the family friendly version of the Agricola, I played a game of the full version with one other.
What I found was that the minor improvements and occupations acted and somewhat of a distraction and confusion to the game.
Using them definitely adds to the game play time, because there's more time spent examining your cards, etc.
The question is - what do the minor improvement and occupations add, that make them worth playing with, given that they are essentially an optional feature of the game?

At first, the additional complexity definitely feels like a downside. But once you play enough, the decisions present in the family version become much more intuitive and faster. At that point, the additional complexity becomes a good thing: deciding which minor improvements and occupations to use (and when) becomes a big, interesting decision. And it's not just wasted time making decisions; using them well has a large effect on your score. In fact, they can be much more meaningful than the worker placement decisions you might agonize over in the base game.
So in addition to making the game more interesting to play, they'll also make it a more interesting competition. Once everyone's pretty good at the family game, you'll start to lose control of your destiny: everyone will be able to pick their actions and plan fairly well, so it'll get harder to win by virtue of good strategy. But throw the minor improvements and occupations, and suddenly there's again a lot of room for good (or bad) strategic decisions.
On top of that, they also add a lot of variety and replayability. Since you don't see the same set of cards every game, you're forced to adapt your strategy to suit the cards you have, giving you different decisions to make each game, not just more decisions.
So in a way, the things you dislike about them now are some of the good things that they add to the game: they add additional decisions, making for a deeper game. Right now that's a bit overwhelming, and you're not able to take full advantage of it, but if you play enough it'll become a positive, defining part of the game.

This is pretty much what I thought. So the bottom line is, once you're all getting a bit bored of the family game, add some variance and replayability with the full version.

Right, though you don't necessarily have to wait til you're actually bored to add them in. Depending on your preferences, you might well like the full game better even if the family game is still complex enough to be interesting.

For what it's worth, I started playing with them even when the family version was still a bit challenging, and so the full game seemed very difficult. But as long as you're not totally overwhelmed, it's still worth playing like that, because you get a serious challenge, and you learn faster. Jumping straight into the deep end, I suppose.


text:
How do I mitigate 'alpha playing' in Pandemic?
I don't quite like Pandemic for a simple reason.
Basically - because all players have the same knowledge, and same goal,  I don't see the need to have multiple players; one person (the alpha player) can just make all the decisions for everyone.
I think the rules say that you're not allowed to show your cards to each other, but you can just communicate this to each other anyway, and so because this rule is pretty much useless we just play that everybody's cards are visible.
So unlike a co-operative game like Hanabi, where you have assymetrical knowledge, and there are very specific rules about what you can tell your team mates, there's no reason why one person (me!) can't just make all the decisions in Pandemic.
Now of course you can argue that it's 'not in the spirit of the game' and appeal to some kind of social conventions to mitigate this, but this can be  more difficult in practise when you want to win.
Any fun suggestions for mitigating this issue?

You might find this question interesting: What makes a cooperative game require multiple players?

Same problem here and I seriously suggest you follow the rules in regards to those cards. It won't 'solve' the problem, but it does make a huge difference. Well... except if your alpha player has perfect memory xD But as long as the conversation keeps going it prevents people from getting left out, beyond that it's about the players and social playing style.

I play with my wife with open cards. Just like in real life, we often argue about which is the best course of action. We can advise each other, but at the end, each player decides for him/herself, so we can have the fun of blaming each other if anything fails :)

Of course this can happen, but the expectation is that all the players help contribute to finding solutions to the current problems.  While you might see one path, someone else might see another, that happens to be better.  Having multiple people working on the same problem from different perspectives generally provides better results.  Kind of like crowd sourcing.
I tend to like games where I win or lose entirely by my performance, but I play games with people that like cooperative games like pandemic and Legendary. When we win it usually takes all of us thinking through the possible scenarios and agreeing on a course of action.
In your situation, if you tend to be the direction of all the movements, then I would suggest people don't share their cards by default, giving them an angle to make suggestions from.


text:
What's the point of having ports as a territory?
Clearly ports as a game concept are required as a way of mustering ships, but my question is what their value for being a territory in themselves is, as opposed to simply allowing the player to muster into the adjacent sea territory.
As I understand it, any territory that has port, can muster ships either in to the port, or into the adjacent sea territory.
However, if the ships are in the port:

They can't support, raid, or consolidate.
The port can't be attacked, only the land territory can be.
The can't help defend if the land territory is being used.

It seems that the only reason ports exist as a territory at all, is for the scenario where the adjacent sea territory is already occupied by another player. The port territory then allows a place for the port owner to muster into, and then on the following turn drive that other player out of the sea territory.
Am I right in understanding that this is the sole useful purpose for ports? Why else would you elect to put ships in ports?

As you deduced, the huge advantage is that it gives you a safe harbour to muster ships into, which is invaluable when all adjacent sea areas are occupied. Relatedly, they also give your ships a safe place to retreat to when your sea areas are attacked, so you don't risk losing routed ships that you would presumably prefer to keep in order to take them back.
I'm assuming you're playing AGoT 2nd Edition here, because in the 1st Edition (unexpansioned), there were no ports, and that became a very real problem in a number of the games that I played, and a huge strategic concern in the rest: Losing control of your sea territories could be devastating, especially for island nations such as Pyke or Dragonstone. Even for cities on the continent, the power of ships — from support to ship-transport (and obviously preventing your opponents from the same) — was a major consideration, and if you were by bad luck or worse strategy driven out of the sea entirely and then blocked, you were in very real trouble that could be very difficult if not impossible to recover from.
The introduction of ports with the Clash of Kings expansion (and its default inclusion in the second edition) was, in my opinion, the most important single upgrade to the base game.
As for what else you can and cannot do in a port, your list is somewhat misleading (see page 25 of the rules): Ships in port can support and raid, but only on the adjacent sea area. Even consolidating isn't off the table entirely, it's merely contingent on the adjacent sea area not being under enemy control. Not to mention that your ships can do all this from a territory that's safe from direct attack.
So even if they're not quite as useful as a ship that's actually, y'know, out to sea, they're not really all that useless either.


text:
Can a double jump move backwards in Checkers/Draughts?
In Checkers, can a non-kinged piece jump backwards as the second jump in a double jump?

In several computer versions of the game (as well as how i learned to play in real life), you are allowed to jump backwards if and only if the piece is a king at the time of jumping.  In particular, if the piece begins as a non-king, makes a jump and is promoted, it may make a second jump backwards if eligible.

This depends on the variation you're playing. A lot of variations allow capturing backwards with regular pieces (called men). The English variation is probably the most common that doesn't allow backwards capturing. By the international rules, capturing backwards is allowed (and mandatory if it results in the largest capture group).
There's an extensive list on Wikipedia, describing which variations allow backwards capturing by men, and which don't.

We grew up playing that the only time a non-king piece could go backwards is if the play was a multi-piece knockout and the the first opponet piece jumped was not a backward jump. So, if it was a three jump knockout, the first jump had to be forward but the 2nd or 3rd could be backwards

This answer does not add anything that was not already in another answer.

@MikeR There are a couple of things wrong with your comment. First is this answer talks about allowing backwards jumps as a house rule when the accepted answer mentions official rules for a backwards jump. Second you should never assume who voted on a post. I have made no votes on this question at all and did not provide the downvote for this answer that was someone else. Third you should never instruct (or even recommend) someone on what to do with their votes.

@JoeW.  My apologies, comment retracted.  My concern was that a new user had been instantly downvoted when it didn't seem warranted, and that it might drive the new user away from the site.  I should have learned from past experiences not to get involved in things like this.  I attempted to remove my vote from this answer as well but am not allowed to.

Welcome to the site, user15052! I like the idea behind this variation, and it's different from the ones covered in my answer. Thanks!


text:
Cornucopia: Can Horn of Plenty be used together with normal treasure cards?
I recently bought Dominion: Cornucopia and we played our first game yesterday. Something that confused me was the Horn of Plenty card which has a treasure value equal to the number of different card titles you have in play at that moment.
From the rule book I understood that if you'd first use other treasure cards to buy a card from the stock and then play Horn of Plenty(assuming you'd have more than one buy action), Horn of Plenty would take into account the treasure cards.
But in case I'd have only one buy option, am I allowed to play Horn of Plenty together with other treasure cards and let them count towards the total of Horn of Plenty?

Horn of plenty doesn't give you money, it lets you gain a card costing up to the number of different named cards you have in play.

This means you should always play it after your other treasures, you then gain a card from Horn of Plenty. Afterwards you then do your buys as normal. Horn of Plenty doesn't use up a buy or any coins. If you don't want to buy anything afterwards, you don't have to. Playing treasures gains you coin to spend, it doesn't obligate you to buy something with them!

Note that you have to play all treasures before buying any cards. You cannot play some treasures, then buy a card, then play Horn of Plenty. Also, there are some reasons you may wish to play treasures AFTER playing Horn of Plenty (like Bank).

@GendoIkari It helps to point out why this is important, such as when a player is buying a Mint (which trashes all treasure cards currently in play).


text:
Square cards larger than 70mm (2¾″)
Many board games use square cards that are 70mm × 70mm, about 2¾″.
Are there any that use larger square cards?  If so, what's the largest square card that is in use?
I'm mainly interested if there are any square cards larger than 70mm. I'm working on a game that needs square cards, and 70mm isn't big enough. The company I'm at wants to use sizes of cards that are already in use, where possible.
The reason the cards need to be large is because people are putting tokens on top of them when they're in play, not because they have to display much information.

This kind of question is very hard to answer for sure. There could always be some game with strange cards that the answerer isn't aware of. Can you try and clarify what exactly you want, and why you want to know this? For example, are you interested in the largest common size, for cost or compatibility reasons perhaps?

I'm mainly interested if there are any square cards larger than 70mm.  The reason I'm asking: I'm working on a game that needs square cards, and 70mm isn't big enough.  The company I'm at wants to use sizes of cards that are already in use, where possible.

Great. That helps enormously.

If you cannot fit all the information in space that others found sufficient, your game is probably too complicated, and the cards try to do too much for the players to really keep in their heads.

Ther reason these cards need to be large is because people are putting tokens on top of them when they're in play, not because they have too much information on them.

What about using tokens of different sizes? The small cube counts as one. You can swap out 5 small cubes for a medium sized cube. 5 mediums make a large one. Just like money: no need for a large purse if you exchange your quarters for a dollar bill...

Four quarters may equal a dollar bill, but an apple and two triremes can't be added together very well.

Is it possible for you to consider cardboard tiles instead of cards? I've surely seen tiles bigger than 70mmx70mm. The Game Crafter prints decks of square 3.5"x3.5" cards.

For this game, there are a great many possible squares, with only a few in use at any time.  Tiles ended up adding too much volume to the product.

What about multiple cards? One for apples, one for Triremes and a third for money?

@Anzeo, the square grid of the game is very important.  Each square may have apples, triremes, and money on it.  To break up that square into three different cards would be hard to reconcile with the square grid nature.

@Joe - sounds like you may need to reengineer the game format :)

@warren, no need for that -- this game's about to go to print with large square cards.

I believe that Jungle Speed uses 80x80mm cards with rounded corners.


text:
Can one caravan touch one oasis at multiple adjacent spaces?
In Through the Desert:
Is a player's caravan permitted to occupy multiple spaces next to a single oasis, in effect blocking other players from accessing the oasis?

The rules imply that this is permitted.
The section Linking Oases in the rules from FFG (see page 4, left column) includes the clarification

If a player places another camel of the same caravan adjacent to the same oasis, he does not claim another oasis scoring marker.

Were such a placement not permitted, it would make no sense to specify it doesn't score additional points.
The rules are however clear that in all cases, camel placement must obey the normal rules i.e.

you must add them adjacent to a camel in the caravan you control; your extra camels will spread around the oasis from where the first camel reached it.
you can't add a camel that links caravans of the same colour belonging to different players; you must maintain the caravan separation if another player has already reached the oasis with that colour too.


text:
Bang! New Identity Health
According to the Bang! High Noon Card "New Identity":

At the beginning of their turn, each player looks at the character he is using to keep track of his life points. He may switch to the new identity for the rest of the game, starting with 2 life points.

Does this mean that if you switch to the new identity, you start off with 2 health and that is the maximum for that identity? Or can you use beer/whiskey/etc. to increase your new identity's health up to the maximum on the character card?

Its the High Noon expansion not High Moon.

consider it fixed!

No, that means when you switch to the other character your health is set at 2 points and on your turn you can gain the missing health back. Which means that if you are switching to a character that has 4 bullets normally you can then play a whiskey to go back up to 4 bullets in health. Also if you are the sheriff in this game you could follow up with a beer and be back up to 5 health with the +1 health bonus for being sheriff.
What the setting to two life does is impose a penalty for switching if you are above 2 live or a small bonus for switching if you are at 1 life.


text:
Rules for kings to take pieces
In traditional draughts, the rules written on our copy of the game say a king can take in any direction even if there are empty spaces between the king and the piece it will take.
Is this right? Even if it is, I don't fully understand the rules.

For example, if the diagonal has b - - w - - w - and the black piece is a king, can the king jump over both white pieces and take them?
Also, can a king take a piece then change direction and take another one?

Some more Internet research suggests that this variant is actually called International Draughts with flying kings, despite what it says on our box.

Yes, a king can do that, but he has to land in between two pieces. If the diagonal had been b - - w w - - -, he wouldn't have been able to capture the pieces.
And yes, a king can change direction, but again, he has to land on the field where he changes direction. A player must capture as many pieces as possible.
There are many variants of draughts, as evidenced by the WikiPedia article. Pick one you like, or make up your own.

So in my example he could only have changed direction from this position - - - w b - w - ? Once you are in a corner there is no other direction to go in.  Can we choose when he changes direction or is there some rule that says he must choose the direction that maximises the number of pieces he takes?

As Wikipedia already details, there are many different draughts variants, but there are two common rules and one exotic rule according to which kings can capture.

Long-ranged kings. This is the most common rule, which applies to e.g. the International/Brazilian/Canadian, Russian, Spanish and Czech draughts variants and to Pool checkers in the USA. A king can "scan" across empty squares for capture victims, and it can also "slide" through empty squares directly behind a jumped piece. Each of these potential "landing" squares can be used as the starting point for "scanning" for the next victim, which can be in a direction orthogonal to the current direction.
Short-ranged kings. This applies to American checkers and Italian draughts. A king can only capture a piece when it is directly adjacent to it, and it has to "land" directly behind a jumped piece from which it can continue jumping other pieces, including in a direction orthogonal to the current direction.
Exotic kings. The prime example is Thai draughts, where the king can "scan" across empty squares for capture victims, but where it has to "land" directly behind a jumped piece, and can only "scan" for its next victim from that same landing square.

For almost all draughts variants, the jumped pieces are only removed from the board when the king is on its destination square. Furthermore, it is not allowed to jump the same piece more than once during a capture sequence. Changing directions in a capture sequence is therefore only by 90 degrees left or right.
For Thai draughts, however, each jumped victim is immediately removed from the board, after which the king can continue capturing more victims, including in the direction it came from (i.e. 180 degrees turned).

Introduction
When it comes to checkers, four basic families of checkers are recognized. The fifth one combines two families. Examples of the families and movement and capturing are included

Turkish (Turkish, Greek, etc) [Orthogonal and sideways] [No backcapturing]
International (Interational, Brazillian, Russian, Pool, etc.) [Diagonal] [Backcapturing]
Spanish (Spanish, Argentinian, Czech, etc.) [Diagonal] [No backcapturing]
American/British and Italian [Diagonal] [*No backcapturing]
International+Turkish (Frisian, Armenian, etc.) [Diagonal and orthogonal]
[Backcapturing allowed for Frisian] [No backcapturing for Armenian, the basic variant]

In the checkers variant you have just referred to (International), the orthogonal directions in movement or capturing are not used, therefore, only the diagonal directions for movement and capturing are included.
Now let's go back to your questions again
Your Q:-[on our copy of the game say a king can take in any direction even if there are empty spaces between the king and the piece it will take.]
Answer: - Yes, he can
Explanation :-In all of these checkers families, the king can take in any direction and there must be space between it and the piece. From that space, it can choose to go further in the capturing process if in front of it is a new victim to be captured.
Your Q: - [Also, can a king take a piece then change direction and take another one?]
Answer: - Yes he can change any direction when he captures
Elaboration :-
In Family (1) Turkish, a king can change the direction when he captures orthogonally for example N to S or sideways E to W. Something to bear in mind is that within a multicapture, turning 180 degrees between two captures is not allowed
Note: - The flying king can choose to slide  to any empty area after the captured piece except in Greek checkers where the king is subject to king Halt , that is it must stop directly after the captured pieces
In Family (2)International , a king can change the direction when he captures diagonally for example SE to NE or NW or for example from NE to SE or SW
Note :- The flying king can choose to slide to any empty area after the captured piece
In Family (3) Spanish, a king can change the direction when he captures diagonally for example SE to NE or NW or for example from NE to SE or SW.
Note:- In Argentinian or Thai, the flying king is subject to king halt, that is it must stop directly after the captured pieces. Note that in Thai, a king could immediately reverse direction in a capture
In Family (4) American, a king can change the direction when he captures diagonally for example SE to NE or NW or for example from NE to SE or SW.
Note:- In American or Italian checkers, the king isn’t of the type flying king. It is a short-range king where it directly stops after the captured piece. It can’t slide to any empty area on the board.
In Family (5) Inter+Turk, it depends on the checkers variant in terms of movement. For example, in Armenian, men move like Turkish with an additional privilege, diagonal movement.
In Frisian checkers, men move diagonally in 2 directions(NE,NW) but capture in 8 directions, 4 diagonally (NE,NW,SE,SW) and two orthogonal (S,N) and two sideways (E W). The Frisian king moves in 4 directions and captures in 8 directions as well
Also, the concept of quantity is very important in checkers. Some checkers variants allow maximum capture of pieces as in Turkish or International.
Others dont allow that. They allow you to capture any sequence as long as all possible captures are made as in American or Pool. In both cases Kings abide these rules.
Moreover, whether pieces are removed immediately (during the capture) or after the whole move is very crucial in capturing.

Flying kings are used in International Draughts but are not used in American Checkers.  International Draughts is usually played on a 10x10 board, with American Checkers on an 8x8 board.

This does not answer the question about the rules


text:
Where can i sell my CCG cards?
i have a lot of star trek 1E through to voyager, Vampire the masquerade, Shadowfist, jedi knights, rage, Battletech, alien vs predator CCG cards i'm trying to sell but have no idea where to sell them, anyone able to help me please? They're taking up space that i don't have to spare. In all it's probably around 20 to 25k cards all up....

Related: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/13907/how-should-i-group-rare-magic-cards-when-selling-them-online

I have found a thread  explaining where to sell magic the gathering cards but no threads on where to sell my other cards

The problem with all collectibles is you need to find a collector that would be interested in them. I would suggest Ebay.

Also related: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/11312/where-can-i-find-price-lists-for-star-trek-ccg-cards/12732#12732


text:
In Jenga, how do we define the "highest completed layer"?
The rules that come with my copy of Jenga state that on each turn, a player should "remove a block from anywhere below the highest completed layer."
I played Jenga for the first time in years yesterday and one of the players involved insisted on what sounded to me like an unusual interpretation of this rule. They asserted that blocks always had to be selected from a level that is lower than the top level of the original tower, not whatever the highest level is currently.
I'm curious if others interpret this rule in this way. To my reading, the "highest completed layer" is the highest layer that currently contains three blocks. It seems to me that if the rule were dependent on remembering the height of the original tower, there would be some easy way to remember where that was.

Possible duplicate of What is the tallest Jenga tower ever created?

@ToonKrijthe I don't think this question is a dupe. Your dupe target is about the highest Jenga tower ever built. This question appears to be about how to interpret the rules term "highest completed layer" and where a player is allowed to pull a block from.

The rules as of 2018 don't refer to the "highest completed layer", but older versions and variants (like Jenga Quake) do refer to it.
The highest completed layer is the highest layer that has had all three blocks placed on it. Recall that when you remove a block, you must place it on the top level until it has three blocks. After three blocks are placed, the next block is placed on the next level.
The current iteration of the rules corroborate this by referring to "the one below an incomplete top level" where older rules would say "the highest completed layer" (emphasis mine).

Moving in the game Jenga consists of:
1) taking one block on a turn from any level of the tower (except the one below an incomplete top level), and
2) placing it on the topmost level in order to complete it.

@ikegami I'm not seeing the semantic difference between the two.

It's not possible to remove blocks from the highest complete layer, so it's not possible to remove them from the highest completed layer, anyway. Semantic or not, any difference doesn't matter.

The rules as quoted seem inaccurate. Read literally, you should be able to take a block from the very top level, whether that top level is incomplete or complete.

@GendoIkari Yes, it does look like the rules would allow for taking from the top level. But since the game would stalemate if players just took a block from the top level and put it back, I'm sure that isn't the intention.


text:
What are some cards that allow for returning Monsters to my hand?
I'm looking for cards that allow me to return one or more Monster Cards from my own side of the field to my hand repeatedly. By repeatedly, I mean that they can be used several times per turn, including with some workaround. An example of what cards fit my needs is Genex Ally Birdman, who returns one face-up Monster Card to Special Summon itself, then if I somehow get it back into my hand, I can use it again (and yes, I'm aware it banishes itself, there are still ways to get it back).
What I'm not looking for:

Trap Cards. I need cards that work immediately.
Cards that return any number of Monster Cards once. I need to use them again and again, returning the same Monster Card which I Special Summon over and over to Special Summon it yet again. Returning all at once doesn't help unless I can do it as often as I like.
Cards that return a specific Monster Card. I need to return generic Monster Cards.

Also, Monsters that must be Normal Summoned are of limited use unless their effect can be used as often as I like. Swap Frog comes to mind, but he's more or less useless because he returns either himself or exactly one Monster and that's it.
For some context, and to make it easier to evaluate whether your idea fits the requirements, here's the intended in-game purpose of this: I want to re-use cards like Spell Striker, Black Luster Soldier - Envoy of the Beginning or Trap Eater in order to banish all Spells/Monsters from my GY/eat all the Traps.

I feel that with such many requirements such card is unlikely to exist. At least not one that you can use over, and over and over again on the same turn, because that would be really unbalancing to the game (possibly even forbidden eventually)... I'll try to search for options for you

Well I'd say Penguin Soldier falls into your "what I'm not looking for", but as you mentioned SwapFrog it just came to my mind, that I used to have two penguin soldiers sending back each other and a second card.
Your very specific need might not be satisfied by it, but it actually sounds like there is no 'perfect' card for you?

A complete list of such cards would be to extensive (and prone to change) to place in an answer here. However, I suggest you take a look at All the cards that return a card(s) from the field to the hand from YuGiOh Wikia, which contains the complete list of such cards.
Some of them will surely meet your criteria.

Now, based on my own memory and experience I have some options to suggest:

Mist Valley Shaman: It's great because each turn you can use it's effect of returning. It's also wind, which combos great your Genex Ally Birdman will gain ATK when using it's effect.

Once per turn, you can return 1 other monster you control to the hand, to have this card gain 500 ATK until the End Phase.

Other cards from the Mist Valley archetype have similar effects, like Mist Valley Thunder Lord, which get the same ATK and is even able to active it's effect as quick-effect (meaning also during your opponent's turn):

Once per turn, you can select 1 card you control. Return it to the hand, and this card gains 500 ATK until the End Phase. This effect can be activated during either player's turn.

I'm confused. In your comment to the question, you say such cards might not even exist, yet here you say a list of them would be too extensive. I did check that list on Wikia, and was exhausted quickly after sifting through dozens of cards that only very loosely have anything to do with returning cards to the hand. The point of this question is to get help from people who are actively aware of such cards without having to look through a complete list of every card that even mentions returning to the hand.

@scenia yes, I am an active YGO player, thus why I inculded such exhaustive link. I also included cards that I have direct experience with, and that fit OPs description. I said it was hard... but I proved myself wrong :)

This wouldn't work if you have a specific archetype you want to use, but the U.A. archetype fits your needs pretty well. The monsters special summon themselves by returning one other U.A. monster to the hand. This effect allows you to summon your offensive U.A. monsters on your turn to attack, and summon your defensive U.A. monsters after your battle phase to defend against your opponent.


text:
Best game for two couples, median age 20?
I'm looking for some nonstandard board games that don't take more than two hours to complete and don't take less than thirty minutes. By nonstandard I mean other than monopoly, risk and cluedo.
I've been doing a lot of research on the internet the past two days and I've narrowed it down to four games which I think might fit the bill - Dominion, Agricola, Puerto Rico and Settlers of Catan.
The primary idea is for me and my best friend to play this with our girlfriends, so the game shouldn't be too aggressive, but I also have to keep in mind that my friend is a huge Total War fan.
Now, I have almost 0 experience with real board games, and I'm pretty sure the other three have absolutely no experience, but all four of us are very enthusiastic about starting.
Personally, I feel Agricola might be the best for us, but I'm currently collecting opinions from all around, and I would like to hear the pros and cons of these four games (as well as any other you think might fit the bill), in regards to our gaming group. Replayability should be the highest concern.

Welcome to B&CG.SE. Unfortunately, game recommendation questions are off-topic for this Q&A site. It might be possible to make your question into an objective question (I.e. Can Puerto Rico be played without aggressive tactics?), but you will need to rework the question substantially (what do you mean by "aggressive" and "replayability", and how should we weight the two?) Most games are replayable (Risk Legacy withstanding), and of the 4 only Dominion can have near zero aggressiveness.

I'm guessing by aggressiveness you essentially mean competitiveness: does the game incentivize doing things which not only help you but also hurt other players? That's a fairly objective question.

I would not recommend Puerto Rico for "one time" groups like couples. (See my answer to this question.) http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/1946/how-difficult-is-puerto-rico-to-learn-for-first-time-players Agricola may be a better choice.

For what it's worth, it always takes us more than 2 hours to play a 2 player game of Agricola...  Your mileage may vary.

No one can really answer your question directly, but I can give an overview of the four different games and their play styles.
Agricola

Complex rules and might be a bit heavy for a non-gamer initially.
About building a farm.  Everyone likes building a farm.
"Aggressive" play comes from resource denial
Most games will take 30 minutes per player to play.  During learning it'll probably take an extra 15+ minutes per player.
Lots of setup/packup work is required.
Plays best with 4 players.
Highly replayable and highly addictive.

Dominion

Rules are relatively simple.
Very little aggressive play.
Player interaction with each other is limited.
The game plays as a deck building game.
Most games will come in under half an hour.  Some cards will extend this but never more than an hour.
Plays best with 2 players.
There are a lot of worthless cards/card combos, which limits the combinations of possible games more than it seems initially.
Lots of replayability, but expansions are highly recommended to open up the possibilities.

Puerto Rico

Rules are moderately difficult - easier than Agricola, more difficult than Dominion.
Play is generally not aggressive, but has a high degree of player interaction.
Game time is rarely more than 1.5h.
Plays best with 4 players.
Moderate amount of setup/packup work.
Base game is slightly imbalanced, favouring players who start with corn.  This won't have too much of an impact though.

Settlers of Catan

Famous mainly as a "gateway game" into Euro-style games.
Lots more luck involved than the other three games.
Some games will last over 2 hours, depending on luck factors and how decisive each player is.
Plays best with 3-4 players.
Rules are relatively simple to learn.
Dice use will make new players feel more comfortable.
Pretty quick setup/packup time.
Probably has the least long term replayability.  Certainly without the expansions this one will not amuse as long as any of the other games.

My recommendation is actually Puerto Rico, based on what you have described.  I would then recommend Agricola after you have played Puerto Rico a few times and have mastered the mechanics.  I still regularly play both games despite having played them hundreds of times.  I very rarely play settlers and occasionally play dominion.  Dominion's a game I play to fill in half an hour to an hour of time. YMMV.
Certainly if you do not wish to buy expansions the best choices are Puerto Rico or Agricola.  Settlers becomes a lot more fun with the Seafarers expansion and Dominion really opens up as soon as you get at least one expansion.

I enjoy getting downvoted for providing detailed answers to questions.  Obviously someone is a fan of Settlers.

Thanks, this is exactly what I needed. While I'm sorry for posting an offtopic question (which I realized after seeing the comments), I did get the answer I was looking for, so thank you.
I got three more recommendations from friends for Puerto Rico and I got it today. Seems like I made the right choice.

Have fun and don't forget to post any questions on this site :-)

@Stephen, I suspect you got your downvote for encouraging bad questions. B&CG doesn't handle game-recommendation questions, so answering them is poor form: it means that you can ask game-recommendation questions here and get good answers, despite the policy. The meta is here: http://meta.boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/663/game-recommendation-questions-are-banned


text:
Identifying a version of Cards Against Humanity
I have an unopened box of Cards Against Humanity that I was gifted a few years ago. I would like to sell it.
As there are different versions, I would need to be able to say which it is. How can I find out without removing the plastic wrapping?

You should post a picture of what you have otherwise we can't help.

I was hoping this question could be more generically useful, with answers like "look here for the version number". If they're just an arcane system where you need the individual box and an almanac (wouldn't put it past them), fair enough- I'll post when I get the chance.

Your question is about identifying your version and not identifying a version in general. If you want a generic answer you should edit your question to say that.

Wait, just to clarify. If I were to ask "How can I tell which set this Magic: The Gathering card is from", you would need a picture of the card to be able to answer "the set icon is on the centre right"?

Yes, if you are asking about a specific card you should include a picture. However if you are asking about how to identify what set any card is from that is a different question and does not require a picture. The difference is in identifying something specific and how to identify something in general.

You can verify your version if you look at the back of the box in the lower right corner, it's the little number inside the circle. This also applies to expansions


text:
Unsporting trades in the end-game of settlers of Catan
Oftentimes in a big game of Settlers of Catan (4 or more players) it comes down to two or three players battling for the winning point and one or two players who have too few points to offer any realistic chance of victory.
Rather than just watch, the losing players are free to make overly generous trades to control who wins in a weird inversion of control.
Is this a natural side effect of the games? Is this just a manifestation of be nice to people on the way up?
I find this really frustrating as more than once I've ended up losing because I've annoyed someone in a previous game. Am I just being a poor sport?
The only way I can think to avoid this style of play is to run a league setup such than even if a player isn't going to win, it's worth them trying to get an extra few more points.

Not sure whether to mark this as a duplicate or not, but Is Kingmaking a Fixable Problem is definitely related.

I personally think that, if I'm not winning a game, the ability to influence who does win helps a lot to keep the end of the game interesting. Though I usually do it while still trying to maximize my position at the end.

For me personally, I just let my friends know that Kingmaking is in my opinion poor sportsmanship, and it makes the games less enjoyable; thus I am less likely to want to play games with a person that is known to do it.

@HNJSlater Your last question, about your actions in previous games making players mad at you (and affecting the current game) would make an excellent separate question. Would you consider editing it out of this question and asking a new question with it? (And welcome to Board & Card Games!)

One thing to consider is that if a player is losing badly enough and has a reason to keep you from winning you might want to re-evaluate your play style so that they don't want to keep you from winning.

@JoeW: consider a player who says "I will king-make against anyone who obstructs me in the early game". If people re-evaluate their playing style so that this player doesn't want to keep them from winning (i.e., if they avoid obstructing that player early in the game), then that player gets an advantage from making the threat. It doesn't seem sensible to intentionally reward such threats :-) I'd consider the threat completely legitimate in Diplomacy, and an intended part of the game, but I'm not so sure about Settlers.

... so in general if someone's holding grudges against me from game to game, then it could be that they consider a series of games in the same way, and are using their influence on the end-game to strengthen their position in future games by following through on the "consequences" (i.e. punishment) of opposing them. It's quite likely that at least one of the two of us is being needlessly obnoxious but even if so it's probably not clear to the players which it is (or if it's both).

make it clear to people that you don#t have fun of someone acts as kingmaker. if they continue, either stop playing with them or accept that its their form of "fun". I play regularly, and in hundreds of games have never once had the problem of kingmaking with someone. Choose wisely with whom to play.

This situation is called The Kingmaker Scenario.  It is an effect that is largely seen as being undesirable in games, yet at the same time is also considered somewhat inevitable in games with 3 or more sides in a Free-For-All situation to at least some extent.  Game designers are always trying to find ways to fight against this effect, and there are a number of ways to reduce the effect that Kingmaker has on the game when designing a game - here are a few examples:

Completely eliminate a player from the game after they are behind by a certain threshold
Create a "comeback mechanic" that allows a player to fight back against the feedback loop holding them in a low position
Using concealed information to make it more difficult to determine the values involved in the victory conditions

When dealing with a pre-made game like Settlers of Catan and not with a game of your own creation, your options are limited - you can either create house rules of some form, or simply accept that aspect of the game.  It may be best to try and find what others have done to solve the same situation for the same game - if it is widely considered to be a problem by other players, than there may be popular and well-tested house rules that already exist.  On the other hand, if there are not, it may be a sign that regular players do not consider it to be a major factor in play.

Good answer. Multiplayer dynamics are a tough thing, and while ameritrash games ebrace the in-game politics and kingmaking, Euros usually try to fight it, but its not easy. For example, concealed information does not solve the problem. If a player simply has a perception he is behind, he may alter his play. Strong comeback and balancing mechanics make players try to lay low and only pounce at the win in the last turns, in order to enjoy the boost for being low and avoid leaderbashing. Player elimination is a problem with games that are 30+ minutes. Kingmaking is a difficult problem to solve!

How about leagues? Keeping track of total victory points would lead to players always working towards getting more VP even if they can't win. But does that break the dynamics? Encourage players to go for the safe points and let someone else win?

@HNJSlater If people are allowed to do whatever they please in the rules, you have to count on them making any of the legal choices, and that includes having vendettas against other people.

As a house rule or "meta" you need to decide between:

the "loser" will play for 2nd place, 3rd place, and so on, if they believe they can't win. If all else fails, they will try to get the most points they can. (Technically this is probabilistic: better to take slim odds for first than settle for a guaranteed second.)
kingmaking is allowed, which gives the game a more cutthroat flavor. But you need to be honest about this and accept it and the competitive feeling that comes with it.

Settlers of Catan encourages kingmaking and headbutting. Almost every action can be interfered with negatively by another player. Even playing the "gentle" way it still feels more competitive than other competitive games.
If this is tiring, there's zillions of other board games that are alike in theming, complexity, analysis, game length, etc., but have the players compete in parallel most of the time with less opportunities to directly interfere. Don't "fix" Settlers. The problem is fixed by diversifying the games you play.

You seem to be using "vindication" to mean "vindictiveness".

@Acccumulation fixed and yes that is a documented grammar issue of mine :P

Kingmaking is a dynamic which means the leaders of the game should be making un-even trades to the people in last place to help them along. If you help a person in last place build some additional settlements they will still be trying to win the game, rather than bored with no hope of victory in sight.
What is a rational trade when you have no chance of winning? Ending the game as soon as possible is pretty rational when you are so far behind you have no chance to come back. If you want to avoid this, don't let people fall so far behind. You can do this by trading at only marginal benefit to yourself and large benefit to them. Normally you would only swap 1:1 if its going to let you gain a VP next turn, but if someone is miles behind, you might swap 1:1 with someone just to gain a slightly better hand, or even 2:1 to avoid having 8 cards for the robber.

I cant really see how this adresses the issue. One player doing bad-for-himself trades with the worst players just cripples his efforts to win. Any opponent fighting for first place and NOT doing such a thing should automatically win, not having an additional resource burden. That way YOU would be the kingmaker, in a way.

I'm not saying to do trades which are bad for you, but normally there are many trades offered which are slightly good for one player, and very good for another. If you do those trades with players in lower positions, then you will benefit and you won't leave disgruntled people stuck on 3 settlements.

"kingmaking" is a feature of a number of board games, including Setters of Catan. More to the point, it is an important concept in "real life."
That is, even if you are losing, and have no chance win, the determination of the actual winner often does matter, especially after the game/election/whatever ends. One winner will be greatly preferred to another (at least by the "loser").
Perhaps players can "formalize" this by having "house rules" that give "second prize" or something to the "kingmaker. In "Diplomacy," for instance, the winner needs to have 18 (out of 34) supply centers, but one version of house rules says that any group of three or fewer (a minority of seven) can declare themselves "co-winners" by reaching 18. One player with two supply centers managed to be included in a "winner's circle" with two other players totalling 16.
Even when they don't get first prize, playing kingmaker is an important skill (and play "with" a kingmaker an equally important one). One real life "kingmaker" game was the 1824 Presidential election, where John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson were the front runners, with Daniel Webster and Henry Clay running far behind. Clay threw his support behind Adams (enabling him to surpass Jackson) and was rewarded with the Secretary of State.

We solve this problem by keeping a running score. Individual games don't matter as much as the entire session.
For example, consider a session of three players where player one has won three games, player two zero games, and player three one game. If I am player two and I become kingmaker, I would help player three. This is because if player one wins, he will have a 4-0 lead on me, while if player three wins, I will trail the leader by 3-0.
Kingmaking is part of the game, and it is inevitable in Settlers of Catan. Few people like to lose, and those who hate losing would prefer the winner to be the person they consider the least threat to their status.

This solves most of the problem, but of course it can still happen in the first game, or whenever else it's tied.

It can also still happen if the kingmaker falls way behind in the overall score.

To reduce kingmaking, one suggestion is that when a player gets to 8 victory points, assuming you are playing to 10, only the resources they gain from the first trade of their roll may be played. Any resources gained from subsequent trade should be placed in front of them and not able to be used until their next roll. Also, set trade limits of 1:1, 2:1 or 3:2 and require the trader to use a port if they own one first. We have seen too many times in our games where 2 players gang up on the leader (which is fine) to prevent them from winning, only to have them keep giving the #2 player more resources to actually win. This ruins the game's objective that all players should be playing to win IMHO, not who the eventual winner *should be.

Play a strategy that ensures you get most of the development cards.  Make sure you have all the sheep, ore and wheat you need and focus on blocking these resources for other players throughout the game.
You will control the robber, so the kingmaker at least can't use that tool.  Furthermore, your opponent can't target you with the robber.
So when you're at, say 8/8 with another player (the competitor) and the kingmaker player is identified, target the kingmaker with the robber instead of the competitor.  The kingmaker has limited resources anyway, so take them off her so she has little or nothing to give away.  You will have a better-than-even chance of winning (due to having the stolen cards and your competitor not having those cards) instead of advantage going to your competitor and even if you lose, you will have the satisfaction of frustrating the kingmaker.

This doesn't do anything to solve kingmaking and it won't work at all if you are unable to get development cards. I really don't see how this answers the question.

It certainly does work and if your focus exclusively on hexes with sheep, ore and wheat, how is anyone going to stop you getting dev cards?

I never said it couldn't work. All I said was this answer only applies if you can get a certain strategy to work which could be hard if others are trying for the same. Having to rely on something that others can also do and prevent you from doing isn't going to work all of the time.

Sure, there are some board setups that won't support it easily.  I usually try to do something with the harbours to compensate.  Most of the time it can be accommodated.  I've yet to come across anyone else trying something similar.  They're usually too set on their lumber and brick and trading addictions.

I think you're answering the question from the wrong side. The question is asking how to change the game or otherwise encourage the players in the kingmaking positions to avoid spiteful play. Your post about how to play while winning doesn't actually address the problem in the question.

Sorry, I'm used to participating in stack overflow, where the group IQ is a lot higher.  I will try to use simpler language in future.  I literally provided a strategy to counteract king making, one I use regularly.  I get that some people don't like the strategy, but pretending it doesn't directly answer the question just doesn't wash.


text:
Soviet space exploration board game (now with pictures)
I have an archaeological question :). I used to have this space exploration board game that my father bought in the USSR in the 80s. I can't remember its name and I've been trying to find it on Russian websites for several days now, but it seems to be rather obscure and rare. I remember it had a board put together from several separate cardboard pieces (not foldable as usual). There were pictures of various Soviet space probes and satellites printed around the board. The main theme, if I recall correctly, was to put your satellites around major planets. The dominant color on the board was dark blue, with pictures of planets and stars. I have already checked that it was NOT any of the following:

Большое космическое путешествие (Great cosmic voyage)
Риск (Risk)
Космос (Cosmos)
В космос (Into the cosmos)
Приключения на Луне (Adventures on the Moon)

Any help in identifying this game will be greatly appreciated.
EDIT:
I remember one more thing, although not that relevant. The player's pieces look a bit like these, although slightly more slender and reminiscent of a space rocket.

Ok, after a visit to my grandmother I was able to unearth the box with the game. To my delight it was almost completely intact. It's called "Путешествие в космос" ("A trip to space"). It's really hard to find anything related to this game on Google - all the results refer to a newer game by the same title. I'll post some more details, including a scan of the manual and photos of the board, later today or maybe tomorrow.
EDIT:
Ok, while waiting for the BoardGameGeek submission to be accepted, I decided to post the photos now for everyone to see. Enjoy!!!
If someone would be interested in the English translation of the manual, let me know.
EDIT 2:
The submission to BoardGameGeek has finally been accepted. You can view it here. Have fun!!!
Box

Manual Cover

Manual Text

Board Front (Upper Left)

Board Front (Upper Right)

Board Front (Lower Right)

Board Front (Lower Left)

Board Back (Lower Left)

Board Back (Lower Right)

Board Back (Upper Right)

Board Back (Upper Left)

You should submit it to boardgamegeek as well - the more games in the DB there, the better.

Thanks for the suggestion @CharlesBoyung, I definitely will :)

@WojciechGac, once you've submitted it to boardgamegeek, post a link to it here for all us curious people.

Ok, I submitted the game and am now waiting for the submission to be moderated.

Do you know how long it usually takes for a submission to be verified? It's still in the submission queue and I don't know what to expect.

Any update on the BGG submission?
It took a couple of days for my game to be approved, and it's a modern/English game!

@TheChaz2.0, so far nothing new on the submission.


text:
Is it possible to determine the exact probability of getting a card in a pack?
I am building a draft cube and cannot decide how many of a certain card I should put into it. Is there anyway to know exactly how likely a specific card is so that I can attempt to duplicate the probability Wizards gave it when designing the set?

Cards are printed on four different sheets: Basic Land, Common, Uncommon, and Rare. (Mythics are printed on the Rare sheet.)
The number of times a card is printed on the sheet determines how rare it is relative to other cards on the same sheet. For most sets (Alliances and afterward, plus Ice Age), all cards of the same rarity level are printed the same number of times. Within each set, every card with the same rarity has the same probability distribution*.
Older sets only had two print sheets (Common and Uncommon) and varied the number of times any given card was printed on it; this is where you get rarity codes like C5 and U2 – the card was printed 5 times on the Common sheet, or 2 times on the Uncommon sheet. "Rares" in this era didn't really exist, but all of the U1 cards are considered rare today. Because of this rarity distribution, it was actually possible for certain cards on the Common sheet to be more rare than certain cards on the Uncommon sheet, if the Common was printed very few times (eg, C1) and the Uncommon was printed many times (eg, U4).
When designing packs*, a nonfoil Mythic rare appears in approximately 1 in 8 packs. I believe the actual ratio is something between 7 and 8 which varies by set, but 8 is a good approximation.
Foil cards have the same rarity distributions as their nonfoil counterparts, but they are printed on foil sheets and their appearance in a pack is not dependent on sheet distribution but rather on card packing*. Approximately 1 in 6 packs contains a foil card.
Some sets throw the above numbers slightly out of whack with special packing parameters*. Modern Masters contains a foil instead of a basic land, for example. Dragon's Maze contains a Gate, shockland, or Maze End instead of a basic land. Innistrad replaces a regular common with a dual-faced card of any rarity. The "Alara Premium Foil Booster" contains 15 foils from the block. And so on.

* Note: How the sheets are divided up and packaged is not necessarily the same as how they're printed, changes on an almost set-by-set basis, and is not published information.

All of this is great information but seems to mean that I can't know exactly. Particularly when the card I'm searching for is from a set that throws the numbers "out of whack". The card in question at the moment is both rare and a Conspiracy card (Worldknit).

Conspiracy guarantees you one draft-matters card (instead of a basic land), but beyond that I believe the rarity distribution is normal.

For normal cards I think it is the standard distribution but the conspiracy types follow strange rules. Each time I've gotten Worldknit the pack also had another rare.

Of course it did. Conspiracies replace the basic land, not the rare

Oh, you must mean draft matters or conspiracy cards. I can't think of any conspiracy cards that actually effect the draft itself.


text:
How does Gideon, Champion of Justice's ability work?
Say I use Gideon, Champion of Justice's second ability to turn him into a creature:

0: Until end of turn, Gideon, Champion of Justice becomes a Human Soldier creature with power and toughness each equal to the number of loyalty counters on him and gains indestructible. He's still a planeswalker. Prevent all damage that would be dealt to him this turn.

Is he now a creature with the ability of "this creature's power and toughness are equal to the number of loyalty counters on it" or is he assigned a power and toughness as it becomes a creature? The reason I'm asking are to know if I can either change the number of counters on him somehow to pump him up (if it's an ability), or duplicate him somehow when he is a creature (if it's a fixed at time of activation).

A ruling on the gatherer page for Gideon says

Gideon, Champion of Justice's power and toughness are set to the number of loyalty counters on him when his second ability resolves. They won't change later in the turn if the number of loyalty counters on him changes.

So, he is assigned a power and toughness when the ability resolves, and it doesn't change.
If you copy Gideon in this state, the copy is just a Planeswalker. The effect that makes Gideon a creature doesn't get copied.

So perhaps this might be enough to constitute another question but if I copied it with say a Mercurial Pretender (which is a copy as it enters the battlefield) it will enter the battlefield as a new (non-creature) planeswalker with the initial 4 counters. At which point the "legendary" rule will kick in and I will have to choose one to keep? (making it a pretty useless move).

The next time any player would gain priority after it enters. See rule 704.5j. Basically, before anyone has a chance to do anything.

@Fr33dan It's not necessarily useless. You will be able to attack with the first, then copy it and activate the copy's +1 loyalty ability. So you might be able to both damage your opponent (or get them to block and lose a creature) and end up with a Gideon with more loyalty than you started with.

@Jefromi I don't understand how that could work. Activating a +1 Loyalty ability is done only when you could play a sorcery. He's still a planeswalker and retains his types when he becomes a creature (see the Gatherer page: He remains a planeswalker with the planeswalker type Gideon.) So that means when the copy ability resolves, the planeswalker rule kicks in next time you get priority as a state-based effect. There would be no opportunity to put the loyalty ability on the stack.

@ghoppe I think the point is that if you play the copy, then let the original die, and then use the +1 ability, the copy will have more counters than the original had.

@murgatroid99 Ah, I read "copy it and activate the ability" literally.

@ghoppe I did say "activate the copy's +1 loyalty ability" - sorry, I skipped over the "keep the new one" bit.


text:
Generator Servent with Nemesis of Mortals
Nemesis of Mortals says:

Nemesis of Mortals costs 1 less to cast for each creature card in your graveyard.

and Generator Servant says:

Tap, Sacrifice Generator Servant: Add 2 to your mana pool. If that mana is spent on a creature spell, it gains haste until end of turn.

Say I have 3 creature cards in my graveyard and a Generator Servant on the field without summoning sickness. I wish to use the mana from the Generator Servant to summon the Nemesis of Mortals so that it will have haste. However when I sacrifice the Generator Servant I will have 4 creatures in the graveyard and Nemesis of Mortals no longer needs generic mana to summon.
Do I determine the cost of the spell before or after I generate the mana?

Do I determine the cost of the spell before or after I generate the mana?

Either! You can generate mana at any time during your main step, before starting to cast a spell. However, you can also generate it during the spell-casting process:

601.2e The player determines the total cost of the spell. Usually this is just the mana cost. Some spells have additional or alternative costs. Some effects may increase or reduce the cost to pay, or may provide other alternative costs. Costs may include paying mana, tapping permanents, sacrificing permanents, discarding cards, and so on. The total cost is the mana cost or alternative cost (as determined in rule 601.2b), plus all additional costs and cost increases, and minus all cost reductions. If the mana component of the total cost is reduced to nothing by cost reduction effects, it is considered to be {0}. It can't be reduced to less than {0}. Once the total cost is determined, any effects that directly affect the total cost are applied. Then the resulting total cost becomes "locked in." If effects would change the total cost after this time, they have no effect.
601.2f If the total cost includes a mana payment, the player then has a chance to activate mana abilities (see rule 605, "Mana Abilities"). Mana abilities must be activated before costs are paid.

So in this case, you could determine the total cost (which would include 1 generic mana), then activate Generator Servant in order to produce mana, thus spending 1 of those 2 mana on the Nemesis of Mortals
And to show that Generator Servant's ability is indeed a mana ability:

406.1. A mana ability is either (a) an activated ability without a target that could put mana into a player’s mana pool when it resolves or (b) a triggered ability without a target that triggers from a mana ability and could produce additional mana. A mana ability can generate other effects at the same time it produces mana.

I guess this is one of the reasons mana abilities don't use the stack.

@Fr33dan See also: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/13062/why-do-mana-abilities-not-go-on-the-stack

ack! You beat me to linking to my own answer!

You can sac the Generator Servant at any time during your main phase, the mana it produces only leaves your mana pool if you either use it, or go to the next step in your turn.
Between sacrificing the Generator Servant and casting the Nemesis of Mortals you can do all kind of fun things, like play a land or whatever.
Edit: Gendolkari has the better (and faster) answer :-(

This is true, but the OP's goal is actually to determine the cost before sacrificing it, so that they're able to spend the mana it creates, thus granting the Nemesis haste.

I was not trying to imply that was impossible.

You missed the concern in the asker's question: you can do all kinds of fun things once you sac the Generator Servant, but then Nemesis of Mortals won't cost untyped mana and Generator Servant's mana won't be able to be used in summoning it.


text:
When is my last opportunity to turn a manifested Kytheon face up and still cause his trigger?
I have 3 creatures that have attacked, one of which is a manifested Kytheon, Hero of Akros. Assuming he will survive combat, when is my last opportunity to "un-manifest" him from a 2/2 and still receive his planeswalker flip trigger? Can I do it after damage, or do I have to do it after blocks, or even as far back as before I declare attackers?

Sorry for misreading the question. I missed the word "manifested".

I would posit after damage, as clearly he needs to be flipped up before combat ends. I do know flipping a manifested creature up occurs outside the stack, but I don't know if that means you're allowed to do it then or not. Hopefully someone with more familiarity with the rules will be able to answer it fully.

@RobertWertz You do still have to have priority to turn something face up; not using the stack just means it happens right away with no chance to respond to it, which isn't important here.

The only restriction is that you have to do it before the End of Combat step, so you can do it after damage is dealt.
When Kytheon's ability says "if Kytheon, Hero of Akros attacked..." it means "if this creature attacked...". Specifically, rule 201.4 says

Text that refers to the object it's on by name means just that particular object and not any other objects with that name, regardless of any name changes caused by game effects.

and rule 701.31a says

"Manifest [a card]" means "Put [that card] onto the battlefield face down." That permanent is a 2/2 creature with no text, no name, no subtypes, and no mana cost. That permanent is a manifested permanent as long as it's face down. The effect defining its characteristics works any time the card is face down and ends when it's turned face up.

The point here is that Manifest is an effect that changes the creature's characteristics, including its name, but it's still the object that "Kytheon, Hero of Akros" refers to.
Rule 110.6 says

A permanent's status is its physical state. There are four status categories, each of which has two possible values: tapped/untapped, flipped/unflipped, face up/face down, and phased in/phased out. Each permanent always has one of these values for each of these categories.

and rule 701.31b says

Any time you have priority, you may turn a manifested permanent you control face up. This is a special action that doesn't use the stack (see rule 115.2b). To do this, show all players that the card representing that permanent is a creature card and what its mana cost is, pay that cost, then turn the permanent face up. The effect defining its characteristics while it was face down ends, and it regains its normal characteristics. If the card representing that permanent isn't a creature card or doesn't have a mana cost, it can't be turned face up this way.

As both of these indicate, when a manifested creature is turned face up, it is the same object that it was when it was face down.
Finally, rule 511.1, the rule describing the End of Combat step says

First, all "at end of combat" abilities trigger and go on the stack.

Therefore, as long as Kytheon's ability exists when the End of Combat step starts, and you met the requirements, it will trigger and Kytheon will flip. The last time you gain priority before the End of Combat step is during the Combat Damage step, after damage is dealt, so that is your last opportunity to turn Kytheon face up and have the ability trigger.

You have to manifest Kytheon before combat, otherwise he will not count as having attacked.

711.2. Each face of a double-faced card has its own set of characteristics.
711.2a In every zone other than the battlefield, and also on the battlefield with its front face up, a double-faced card has only the characteristics of the front face.

Kytheon generates a delayed triggered ability if he actually is Kytheon at start of combat. That delayed ability triggers at end of combat. If Kytheon was a 2/2 at start of combat, no delayed trigger is generated, even if he turns into Kytheon before end of combat.

"As long as Kytheon is a 2/2 card, he does not count as Kytheon" Agreed. "It will also not trigger if you manifest it after combat starts but before end of combat." I disagree with this part. The ability only checks at the end of combat, and as long as it's a face up that is in the attacking side of the combat phase, why would it not count?

Given the rules I cited in my answer, I am pretty convinced at this point that this answer is incorrect. And "Kytheon generates a delayed triggered ability" is just not true.

For this to be true I think it'd have to be worded something like "Whenever Kytheon, Hero of Akros and at least two other creatures attack, at the end of combat, exile Kytheon, then return him to the battlefield transformed under his owner's control."


text:
What happens when I use Feast on the Fallen on Bloodcrazed Hoplite?
Me and a friend were playing magic, and I cast the enchantment Feast on the Fallen, I dealt 3 damage with Jagwasp Swarm. Then at the beginning of his upkeep I put 2 +1/+1 counters on Bloodcrazed Hoplite saying its heroic ability allows it to get a second counter because it's being target by a spell that I control.

:( dang... that sucks.

It does, but the silver lining is that aura's do trigger heroic despite the lack of the word "target" on the card.


text:
Do spells targeting Daring Thief follow it after control is exchanged?
Suppose I have Daring Thief out. My opponent attempts to kill it via Doom Blade or another kill spell. In response I untap Daring Thief with Thassa's Ire, and attempt to gain control of, say, my opponent's 4/4 token. There are no responses, and the exchange happens. I now control a 4/4 token, and my opponent controls Daring Thief.
Does Doom Blade "follow" Daring Thief and kill it on my opponent's side of the board?

Yes, if you exchange control of Daring Thief with another creature while a spell targeting Daring Thief is on the stack, the spell will still be targeting the Daring Thief when the exchange completes. The Thief is still the same object when the exchange happens, it just has a different controller.

Yes.
You might be thinking of the following rule:

400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence. There are seven exceptions to this rule:

There is only one battlefield, not one per player.

400.1. A zone is a place where objects can be during a game. There are normally seven zones: library, hand, battlefield, graveyard, stack, exile, and command. Some older cards also use the ante zone. Each player has his or her own library, hand, and graveyard. The other zones are shared by all players.

As such, Daring Thief never changed zone, so 400.7 does not apply, so Doom Blade never lost sight of it. Doom Blade doesn't care who controls its target, so it gets destroyed.


text:
Resolving triggered abilities
I control the following two enchantments: Bottomless Pit and Necrogen Mists. At the beginning of my opponent's upkeep do I get to choose which one of the triggered abilities that goes on the stack first or will my opponent make that choice?

Since you control the source of both triggered abilities, you choose the order they are put on the stack (and then they resolve in reverse order). If your opponent also has abilities triggering at the same time, he will do the same. The active player (the player whose turn it is) puts their triggers on the stack first, followed by the triggers of all of the other players in turn order. (Thus, the active player's triggers resolve last.)
This applies to any situation where multiple triggers would be placed on the stack at the same time.
It's important to know where the trigger is actually coming from. For example, you can control Pendrell Mists, but on your opponent's upkeep the triggers that are put on the stack are actually coming from his creatures, not your enchantment, because Pendrell Mists is granting an ability to the creatures, rather than having a trigger itself.


text:
If I rebound Seasons Past what happens?
Narset Transcendent can give any sorcery or instant rebound.
Seasons Past says "put on bottom of owners library".
What happens if I rebound Seasons Past and then cast it?

If you give Seasons Past rebound it will still be placed on the bottom of your library. It will not be exiled and thus can not be cast during your next upkeep.
The rule for rebound says (emphasis mine):

702.87a Rebound appears on some instants and sorceries. It represents a static ability that functions while the spell is on the stack and may create a delayed triggered ability. “Rebound” means “If this spell was cast from your hand, instead of putting it into your graveyard as it resolves, exile it and, at the beginning of your next upkeep, you may cast this card from exile without paying its mana cost.

"Instead of" creates replacement effect that exiles the card in place of it going to the graveyard. Since Seasons Past is never put into the graveyard that event won't be replaced.


text:
Do creatures from outside the game go to the graveyard?
Okay, so I was looking through some eldrazi to purchase and I came across Spawnsire of Ulamog.

I want to purchase it for my deck but I want to know how it works before I buy it. My question is, when you bring creatures from outside the game to the battlefield with this ability, when/if those creatures die, where do they go? Do they hit the graveyard or get removed from play?

Once a card has been brought into the game, it is treated like any card you have started the game with.
The game rules make no distinction between cards from your deck and those that have been brought into the game after the game has started, they function exactly the same. Therefore, any card you bring into the game with  Spawnsire will do whatever it usually does, including going to the graveyard if the game rules require it.
The only difference is that you have to remove those cards from your deck before the next game starts, but that's a matter of tournament rules rather than game/match rules.

Cool, thank you, it's been some time since I've played :D


text:
Can I remove a creature someone's sacrificing for an Emerge cost?
Here's a problem having to do with the proper resolution of the stack. My friend played Decimator of the Provinces for its emerge cost by sacrificing his Hooded Hydra. In response I played Disperse targeting his Hooded Hydra. This way he wouldn't have enough mana to play his Decimator of the Provinces.
Is that how it would resolve? And if so does the Decimator of Provinces return to his hand or go to his graveyard?

Unfortunately, you can't prevent him from saccing his Hooded Hydra.  What happens is this:

Friend declares he's going to cast Decimater
Friend determines the cost (in this case, Emerge)
Friend pays the cost, including sacrificing Hooded Hydra
Decimater goes on the stack
Decimater's cast trigger goes on the stack
Players now get priority, starting with your friend.

And so if you want to do something like this, the best you can do is casting Disperse before they ever have a chance to cast their emerge creature, perhaps on your turn or during their upkeep. Might come up if you've seen their hand, or just have a good read on their deck.

Emerge is an Alternative Cost so it is...

A cost a spell may have that its controller can pay rather than paying
  its mana cost.

All this said it still is a cost and uses the same rules for paying cost that the regular casting of spells do. This includes all cost must be paid for before the spell is cast and priority can change.
So your opponent will sacrifice as a cost of emerge and only after all cost have been paid can your opponent pass priority, when this happen the creature he sacrificed will already be in the graveyard and unable to be targeted with any spell or ability.
As the old MTG adage go... "You cannot respond to costs."
You can find all the pertinent rules to this question here and also here