text:
Is it valid to place Draw 4 on a Draw 4, while having the colour set by the first Draw 4?
I was playing Uno and one player placed down a Draw 4 card, and set it to a colour (let's say red). The next player played a Draw 4 card, even though they had the colour specified by the first player (let's say red).
Is that a valid play? So, if I were to challenge the second player, would I win the challenge?

What position were you in relative to the person you believe illegally played Wild Draw 4? Were you next, or was someone else?

Unclear what you're asking. If player 1 plays a Wild Draw 4, player 2 must pick up 4 cards, player 3 is the next to play a card; unless you're playing house rules that instead of picking up 4 cards player 2 could "defend" with a Wild Draw 4, making player 3 pick up 8 cards. Whenever I've played that house rule, player 2's other cards are irrelevant as they have no chance to play them, but being a house rule it could have any sort of caveats of the house's choice. Without clarification of whether player 2 should have been picking up or playing red this question is unclear.

No, it's not valid to do so since according to the Mattel's UNO rules the next player forfeit their turn and MUST draw 4 cards from the pile.
But for the player after the next player (who had to pick up the 4 cards) it's a valid play.
Anything else is just house rules...
From mattel.com: https://service.mattel.com/instruction_sheets/42001pr.pdf

Wild Draw 4 Card - This card allows you to call the next color played and requires the next player to pick 4 cards from the DRAW pile and FORFEIT his/her turn.

Note: The player in turn (after the player who had to draw 4 cards) may play a Wild Draw 4 Card with consideration to the color chosen by the player playing the first Wild Draw 4 Card.
So in that case you could say that a Wild Draw 4 Card could be played on a Wild Draw 4 Card.
Remember that it's only the next player who can make the challenge.

Wild Draw 4 Card - ... Only the person required to draw the 4 cards can make the challenge.

You can put a 4+ On top of a 4+ next player for this example has to pick up 8 cards

Welcome to Board & Card Games! Can you support this answer with a passage from the relevant official rules?

The official rules do not allow for doubling of card effects and that would be a house rule.

Yes it is a valid play because when the next player puts another +4 it becomes +8 and goes to the 3rd person but what is not valid is that if someone has a +4 or wild card you cant choose the same color.

That is not the case in the official rules. Any draw card causes the next player to draw the cards and lose their turn and only in house rules do they get to stack draw cards.

Assuming no house rules are in effect, this answer is wrong on multiple counts. Wild Draw 4's only stack if a WD4 stacking house rule is being used (and they can still be challenged as normal), otherwise the only actions the immediately following player can take are drawing the 4 cards OR challenging the WD4 play. Furthermore, there is no requirement that the color declared when playing a Wild (or Wild Draw 4) card be different from the current color on top of the discard pile.

Based on this meta post I don't see any reason this should be deleted (unless the author decides to based on the feedback).

I have seen several versions of the official rules. Some of them (mainly early versions) specifically allowed playing a draw 4 on a draw 4.

As a Wild Card, it can be played on anything, yeah. The question is about the restriction against playing it when you have a card of the appropriate color in hand. None of the official rules provide relief from those restrictions based on the previous card play being a Wild Draw 4, as far as I know. If there is such an official version of the rules, please cite it.


text:
Does someone really need to play Harry in the Dresden Files Cooperative Card Game?
My boyfriend and I are looking at the Dresden Files cooperative card game, based on the books by Jim Butcher.
However, a serious problem we both have with the idea of the game is that someone must play the eponymous Harry Dresden.  That seems at best boring and at worst really poor game design.  Has anyone played this game without Harry Dresden in play?

I find it a little surprising that you'd want a Dresden game without wanting to play as Harry. That's a little like getting an Iron Man game but not wanting to play as Tony Stark... If you don't like the IP enough to want to play as the titular character, maybe looking at a different game might lead to more fun.

The thing I really like about the Dresden Files is the worldbuilding and the supporting characters.  Dresden himself ranges from boring to cringe-inducing, but Molly, Sanya, Mouse, Michael, Thomas, etc really make the series for me.

Fair enough, I've only read the first few books so wasn't too familiar w/ the other characters.

I'm the publisher. You CAN play without Harry's deck, but you run the risk of having an unsolvable board if you do.
Harry's Talent has the ability to rearrange parts of the board in order to move things closer that need to be cleared before other parts of the scenario can be taken on. So on some boards you might not need that — random shuffle being what it is. On others, it's make-or-break. The reason why it's necessary to play Harry might not be in the rules (frankly it's not necessary to explain the why in the rules); the statement "Always include the Harry Dresden deck" however is.

There are also a lot of cards in the various book decks that have an effect specifically on Harry (good or bad), that wouldn't do anything if Harry wasn't in the game.  That would throw off the balance I worked very hard to create.
He is needed for both practical and aesthetic reasons.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Can the last player in a trick win with Change Rage?
In the game Rage, who wins the trick if the very last card played is a Change Rage card?  We're playing as though the person who played the Change Rage card is the winner since they changed the Trump color.
Does anyone have experience with this and if so, how did you determine the winner?

No, the last player cannot win in this way. From the wikipedia link

The 14 Rage cards in the deck have black borders and, with the
  exception of the Wild Rage card, do not count as being of any suit and
therefore cannot win a trick.

Honestly, I'm not really sure where the confusion is. The card changes the trump color. You then evaluate the other cards played on the trick, find the highest card of the new trump (or the highest of the led suit if there are no cards of the new trump), and it wins. The only player that can't possibly win the trick is the one that played the Change Rage.

As far as I can tell, you're handling the scenario correctly.
I wasn't able to find any specific ruling for this. Rules As Written, though:

Change Rage "determines the trump color for this and any further tricks. The previous trump color is no longer valid for this trick."
The highest-number trump card in a trick always wins the trick.
I can't find any exceptions related to either of those two rules.

https://www.manualslib.com/manual/55521/Fundex-Games-Rage.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rage_(trick-taking_card_game)#Bidding

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


text:
What is the formal definition of a TCG?

What is the formal definition of a TCG?

I am wondering this because it seems to be a blurry line between TCGs (Trading Card Games) and CCGs (Collectible Card Games).  Aren't TCGs collectible?

I switched the tag from [game-design] to [terminology], which seems like a better fit, and made a few other changes. Feel free to undo my edits if you like.

With the advent of digital games, there is a bit more of a distinction. Many digital games allow you to build a personal collection, but do not allow you to trade the contents of your collection with other players at all (something that obviously doesn't really make sense in the physical world).
So a digital CCG is generally one where you are not allowed to trade with other players (for example, Hearthstone), while a digital TCG is one where you can trade with other players (for example, Hex: Shards of Fate).

According to Wikipedia, they are one and the same.

A collectible card game (CCG), also called a trading card game (TCG) or customizable card game, is a kind of card game that first emerged in 1993 and consists of specially designed sets of playing cards.

From Wikipedia the definition of a CCG (and hence TCG) is:

Collectible card games (CCG) are generally defined as those where the player acquires cards into a personal collection or library, from which they create customized decks of card within the game's ruleset to challenge other players in matches.

The two terms do indeed have the same definition, but I think there is a bias for which one companies choose. Looking at BoardGameGeek, it seems to me that "Trading Card Games" tend to be aimed at children and "Collectible Card Games" tend to be aimed at adults.

@Thuderforge good points. I believe that TCG is also a bit of an obsolete term. On BGG there are three pages of games tagged with TCG and 21 pages with CCG; many of the TCG games (maybe all) are also tagged with CCG.

I was just looking at the games that had either "Trading Card Game" or "Collectible Card Game" in their title. I would expect that BoardGameGeek would tag such games as both, since as you said, they have the same definition.


text:
How to tell whether a Pokémon Card is fake or not
Recently, I have obtained many Pokémon cards, but I do not know how to tell if they are real. For example, some seem more shiny on the back then others, and there seem to be many typos like Caterpie EX for Charizard EX. Any ways of differentiating?

The best way to tell a real Pokémon card from a fake one is to compare it to one you know for sure is real
The YouTube web series "Bootleg Zone" did an episode on bootleg Pokémon cards and compared them to real ones. Consider this picture of a Professor Oak card. One of the English ones is fake and the other is real. Can you tell which one?

The middle one is the bootleg, but it's a pretty good imitation. By comparing it to the real one, you'll notice that the color is off a bit, but without knowing the correct shade, you can't tell. The bootleg also has some blurry text at the bottom, but that's tough to spot.
Of course, sometimes it's painfully obvious to any Pokémon fan.

I especially love how Gyardos is a Fire Horse Pokémon, and that these are rare 2nd Edition cards!
The full video shows lots of other examples, but the difference between a real card and a bootleg really ranges between "blatantly obvious mistake" or "almost imperceptible difference from the original". Some examples of tells were:

Slight miscolorations
Blurry text
Text in a different font
Text with different line breaks
A different card feel (paper quality, etc)
A different style of holographic film, especially one that goes all the way to the edge of the card (most holographic real cards are only on the Pokémon portrait)
A different card size
Being part of a set that it wasn't originally part of (e.g. a card with the Neo Genesis icon when it was really part of the Jungle set)
Blatantly wrong information (e.g. Bellsprout evolving into Mewtwo)

In most of these cases, comparing it to a real card is the best way to tell if it's fake. There is the official Pokémon Trading Card Database, which will help you spot any text or stat differences, but isn't great for differentiating colors (since your monitor may not precisely match the colors a printed card would appear in your room), and of course it can't help you with determining the feel of the card.
That said, if you got a pack of cards and some of them have obvious typos, I'd be surprised if the rest were legitimate.

Since I am at school, I do not have access to YouTube. Could you do a list of anything in the video that is useful? Thanks

@simplest_mathematics You are playing with Pokémon cards at school? They were banned when I was in school! ;-) There isn't really any telltale sign that something is fake (otherwise, someone would make a fake without that sign). The best fakes seem to only have subtle differences like a slight miscoloration, which I covered in my answer, or a different feel. Both of those can only be compared by having the real cards available.

@ikegami, as the others said, feel free! [Personally, I was going to ask the question myself, but you can have it! ;-)  ]

@Thunderforge , yes, you ARE CORRrect! We ARE Now allowed to play cards at scHOOL! wE Even have our own club for it! Sorry for the faulty CAPS LOCKS! Was fine a moment ago...

Should I ask the same for yugioh as well?

@simplest_mathematics I don't think that this question should be modified to be about both Pokémon and Yu-Gi-Oh, if that's what you mean. Editing questions after they have been accepted is usually frowned upon, and besides, it would probably be "too broad" if it is about every TCG under the sun.

@Thunderforge, I mean in another question. (When I have thoroughly searched it...)

@simplest_mathematics I don't think there is any issue with you asking another question about how to identify Yu-Gi-Oh! bootleg cards.

The first two differences don't guarantee a card is fake, while they can help towards proving it, printers aren't perfect and there are times where the ink will run or be off at some point during or between print runs.

A different style of holographic film, especially one that goes all the way to the edge of the card (most holographic real cards are only on the Pokémon portrait)  What about Reverse Holo Cards?

@Malachi Thaf’s why I said “most holographic real cards are only on the Pokémon portrait”. If it was never officially released as a Reverse Holo and you see one that looks like one, then it’s a bootleg.

You may want to keep in mind that just because something fits some of the criteria for a fake card doesn't mean it is a fake, it could be a misprint.
some of the things that @Thunderforge listed can be the result of a misprint, in which case the card may be worth some money because these are very rare.
But a lot of things are blatant signs of forgery.

Card Size is Different
Paper Quality difference and Paper Thickness, but this depends on the set too I think, because they may change the paper stock that they use depending on cost of materials

you can also ask a Pokemon Professor, they may have insight into fake cards entering the market and be able to give you pointers in spotting fakes.
you can find a Pokemon Professor just about anywhere that there is a tournament or a league scheduled.


text:
How to differentiate real Yu-Gi-Oh! cards from fakes
Simply, how do I tell the differences between real and fake Yu-Gi-Oh! cards? The cards I have seem to be legit, but it's either all legit or all counterfeit. Any tips?

I'd recommend buying a few legit boosters from a reputable local game store, so you know what "real" cards look/feel like.  If you're just playing with friends at your house, real/fake shouldn't matter (as much).

@John, it turns out my friend had some! But they looks so fake... Extreme discoloration, Typos, there is fake written all over it. Rank 7 Number 39: Utopia, and _Rank nine Super Dreadnought Cannon Gustav Mac? Yeah! with sarcasm

The Yu-Gi-Oh! wikia lists the most common tells
There is an article on the Yu-Gi-Oh! wikia that lists the most common tells with counterfeit cards. Without duplicating the whole list, a couple of the major ones appear to be:

The Eye of Anubis Hologram is missing
Incorrect card format (e.g. Levels on a Spell/Trap card)
Misspellings
Passcode text in the bottom left corner missing (although some legitimate cards are missing it too)
An unusual glossiness or feel

You can also detect counterfeit sets of cards by:

An incorrect cover card
An entire deck within a deck tin (since real deck tins only included booster packs or promo cards)
An unusual ratio of monsters to spell/trap cards (e.g. 1 trap card and 15 monsters)

There was a lawsuit where a legitimate company sold counterfeit cards
In 2008, Konami filed a lawsuit against Vintage Sports Cards. They were legally allowed to resell Yu-Gi-Oh! cards in boxes where booster packs were sold alongside three Ultra-Rare cards. Unfortunately, some of those Ultra-Rare cards were counterfeit. From an article about it:

The counterfeit “rare” cards, which are clearly visible in the Vintage Sports packaging, use a different paper type and protective varnish than those used in real Yu-Gi-Oh! cards and the holographic security foil also differs from that used on the real Konami cards.


text:
Does the Machine Gun also affect the player using it?
The description of the Machine Gun card says: "Your attack will affect all characters in your attack range."
Does this mean that the player himself gets damaged as well? That wouldn't make much sense logically from a machine gun, but the rules seem pretty clear about it.

Pretty sure the Machine Gun doesn't affect the player using it, but reading the manual I don't see any rules that say you can't attack yourself.

Also note that the entire section in the rules is called "Attack other player(s)", though from then on it talks about attacking "a" player. I also think you don't shoot yourself but can't prove it.

No the machine gun does not attack you as well. When you attack you can only attack other players and it specifies that in the rules. The only time you can do damage to yourself is on weird woods and when a card says you can target any player with damage.
The problem with being able to damage yourself with the machine gun is that there are roles that want to die first and being able to damage yourself like that would make it to easy to win.
Rules

Attack other player(s)


text:
Can Romanians be placed in Finland in Stalingrad?
In Avalon Hill’s classic game Stalingrad, may Romainan units be placed in Finland at the start of the game as part of the 8 Combat factors that can be placed in Finland by the Germans?

After looking around through other AH Stalingrad rules (later editions and addenda), I found that Romanians can indeed be placed in Finland at game’s beginning.
Rules state that a maximum of 8 German and or Romanian Combat factors can be placed in Finland as part of the 8 axis points that may be allocated there.  So you could have 4 German and 4 Romanian Combat factors or 2 German and 6 Romanian and so on.


text:
What's the most valuable Avalon Hill wargame?
From a collector's point of view, what is the most valuable wargame published by Avalon Hill?
I'm not interested so much in prices as in knowing if there's a "Holy Grail" in Avalon Hill's wargames catalog before the Hasbro purchase.
I looked in eBay listings and BoardGameGeek, but not being all wargames available for sale, it's hard to get the whole picture.

This is surprisingly the first question we've had about pricing for board games. I'm unsure if it should be on-topic, so I've opened a meta discussion about it.

I asked about pricing to narrow the question by giving an objective guideline to answer. I'm mostly interested in the "Holy Grail" part, but that's kind of subjective.

Well "the most valuable, economically speaking" is asking for economic value -- which means price, hence the pricing tag. You're also discussing eBay Listings, and BoardGameGeek information on what's for sale. I'm not sure what else a "most valuable" "Holy Grail" could be referring to.

@doppelgreener, fair enough, keep the tag. Can you add an "avalon-hill" tag too? Please :)

@Rodia Added. :D

@doppelgreener Great! :D I wanted to hit 150 rep so bad, just to add that tag. You sir are a gentleman and a scholar, and all my Sengir vampires are yours.

We've already had a meta discussion where the consensus was that there should not be an "avalon-hill" tag. Please do not re-add it.

@Thunderforge Discussion is open again. Check the comments to this answer.

A quick ebay search suggests Longest Day might be the answer...

Prices vary somewhat naturally, especially if you find a motivated seller, or desparate buyer!  In general, prices are pretty stable and slowly creep up over time.  A reprint can drop prices quickly, but most of the below have difficult rights situations and are unlikely to see full reprints (AoR had a foreign release a while ago).
Games are valuable if they are still played, or weren't printed in enough quantity, preferably both....
Currently, my top 5:

$500 - Star Wars: The Queen's Gambit
$300 - Advanced Civilization
$250 - Axis & Allis Anniversary Edition
$200 - Dune
$150 - Age of Renaissance

The highest voted answer on the meta question about pricing questions indicates that they are on topic, but the community should downvote the answer if it doesn't include information about how they arrived at that price. Could you please add that to your answer?

Of course, it all depends upon definitions...  This article claims that to go "all in" on Advanced Squad Leader, you need to drop $3200.  But, presumably you meant "a single box"?
If you use EBay as a way to track prices, as of today, there's a $1K price on Advanced Civilization, and the second highest at $600 is ... Queen's Gambit.  Those are asking prices, not sale prices.
BoardGame Geek's list of most expensive games available for purchase today, none of them are AH, but based on the lack of hits on EBay, one can assume it's not a particularly liquid market.
Finally, my original answer to this question, quoted this article to give answer of:  "Star Wars: The Queen's Gambit"

Star Wars: The Queen’s Gambit: Play as either the trade federation or
  the Naboo as you reenact the four-fold climax of Star Wars: The
  Phantom Menace.
Why it’s rare: It’s great, highly complex, and happens to come with
  155 individual pieces, a 3D Theed palace, 16 dice, and 180 cards. Sure
  it was released in the comparatively recent year 2000, but prying one
  of these suckers from the hands of another Star Wars fan will still
  cost you.
Price: $300-$1000

You caught me on this one, I should have made clear that I meant Avalon Hill wargames before the company was purchased by Hasbro. Should I edit the question?

@Rodia If that's what you're interested in, then yes, I think you should add that.  All that said, I'm a bit surprised none of the older Avalon Hill games made that list....  I love those old games, and they are hard to find, and always seem to be very expensive...

Starting in I guess the mid-1980's, I played a ton of board war games and had a decent collection. I can remember Avalon Hill catalogs from that time, and often the catalogs were printed some years before I eventually purchased the game.
I was always curious what the most expensive thing was in the catalog. The highest price that I recall for a new-in-box game was $85 for The Longest Day, in a catalog dated, I believe, 1985.
I purchased a copy in the early 1990's, and I eventually sold it in 2015 for around $200 (open, excellent condition, unpunched).

While interesting data I am not sure how the price of a game you sold 4 years ago helps determine the most valuable one today.

Perhaps it was colloquial, but the question specifically referred to the AH catalog.

That is true but a single game does not give much insight into an entire catalog of games, especially with other example games listed as more valuable.

Although I cannot tell  you the most expensive AH game, I have a large collection of vintage AH games, and the price of them in general continues to rise. Patton's Best is selling for 100-160 dollars, and just a few years ago, a copy would sell for 20-25 dollars. The best way to get a handle on the most expensive AH wargames is to type into Ebay Avalon Hill Wargames, and look at the prices of what is listed. It changes periodically.  For some other companies, some games sell for 500 dollars if you can even find a copy listed.

The prices listed on any selling platform are usually (and definitely are on ebay) asking prices, which are not, or not directly, indicative of value, which is something that should be considered. Supply and demand is a thing, but it works on a greater scale than any one person asking a certain price for an item.

I agree.  I just made a general comment from watching the prices of what I have wanted to buy, and have been tracking to see what I could possibly sell elements of my collection for.  The "holy grail" of games, especially Avalon Hill, could be pretty complex. But I bet it changes from time to time.

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


text:
What does the skull mean on the wheel of heal points?
What does the skull mean on your point card in the heal points?  It goes to 12 and then the next is a skull.

You've turned it too far! You can't have more than 10 life without special abilities, and you can't have more than 12 with.

The skull is actually indicating 0 Life Points (i.e. you are dead and eliminated from the game). This is made more explicit in the Fifth Anniversary Edition rules:

In other words, the skull is one lower than 1 Life Point rather than one higher than 12. The fact that the skull and 12 are next to each other is only because this is a round wheel.


text:
Who takes the trick in All Five (variant of All Fours) if the 10 and Ace are played from the trump suit?
Who takes the trick in All Five (a variant of All Fours) if the 10 and Ace are played from the trump suit?
The Ace has 4 pts but the 10 has 10 points. The rules say that the Ace is the highest ranking card. I am confused.

Can you clarify what game you are asking about? I tried to find a game called "all five" and kept getting results for five card stud. A link to Wikipedia might help.

@Rainbolt I think I found it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Fours#All_Fives

Going by Gendolkari's link it sounds like you are asking if you go by the points a card is worth or the rank of the card when taking tricks, is this correct?

Rank matters during play; points during scoring. So during play the ace is the best and will take the trick, but during scoring it's more important to have collected the 10 than to have collected the ace. This non-alignment of rank and score can make the strategy more interesting - if ace were highest scoring, you could just play the ace and you'd collect all those points for sure, but collecting tons of points off of a lowly ten takes much more skill.


text:
What is the African board game in this picture?
What is the name of the board game in the picture below?
Any article/document about the game would be very appreciated.

I'm pretty sure it's ZAMMA:
I'm seeing the 9 x 9 board there, and two different types of pieces equivalent to black and white.  Also, I'm no expert, but that scene does look a bit North African to me.
From this page: "When played in the Sahara, the men are represented by short sticks, whilst the women are pieces of camel dung."  That certainly looks like what's going on in the picture, unpleasant though it sounds!  I don't think camel dung meeples will catch on outside Africa...

@John The content from the old page was available on archive.org still, and there was a new page with exactly the same content.


text:
In Race for the Galaxy on 6-cost development cards, does a player receive VPs for all of the categories they have satisfied, or just one?
My family and I are confused about the wording in the instructions. Perhaps my question is best asked with an example:
I have the Alien Tech Institute card, which has three parts:

3 VPs for each alien tech production world
2 VPs for alien technology windfall worlds
2 VPs for other "alien" cards, including this one.

If I end the game with 1 alien production card, and 2 alien windfall cards, would I receive VPs for both categories that I satisfy (in this case 7 total), or just the windfall category, which would give me a total of 4 VPs total?

As a side note I will mention that if the 6s are read correctly, no one card will score twice for the same 6

This is very interesting, and we have not been playing it this way. Can you describe where in the instructions this is?

Every 6 where a card may come up twice is written as "2 for every X having quality Y. 1 for every other X"

You would get all of them that you satisfy.
While the rules don't actually clarify this (that I could see), the entire point of playing them is to earn extra victory points for how you've setup your tableux, like focusing on alien tech in the case you pointed out.

You would get 7 points for your alien worlds.  The scoring is cumulative.

Hi rrenauld, I read your other posts about this game, and I appreciate you taking the time to respond! +1 upvote.

You would get at least 9 points: 3 for your production world, 4 for your windfall worlds, 2 for Alien Tech Institute itself. (Assuming all the above are in your tableau and not still in your hand.)


text:
How much damage do my other Goblins deal if my Goblin Chieftain dies during the first strike step?
I was playing against my son tonight and an issue came up that we disagreed on. We looked in the rules, but that just made things murkier for us.
I attacked with Goblin Chieftain (2/2), Goblin Fireslinger (1/1) and Blisterstick Shaman (2/1). My Goblin Chieftain gave +1/+1 to the other two creatures.
My son chose to defend with Elite Inquisitor (2/2 with First Strike) and block the Chieftain.
So, the question is, do my two remaining creatures deal 3 damage to him or 5?
My son argues that since the Chieftain died, the other two creatures no longer have the +1/+1 effect. I thought that damage in battle was resolved before that would happen.

If the Inquisitor hadn't had First Strike you would have been dealt 5 damage (in case that isn't already clear from the answer posted!)

Thanks @thesunneversets, for the clarification. Makes total sense now.

An aside: I feel weird correcting things like this, as I look like a pedant ;) — but target has a very specific meaning in Magic. Your son blocked the Chieftain, he didn't target it.

Also, props to your son on responding the best he could (given what we know of the game state that turn).

Thanks @ghoppe. I agree that it's very important to get the terms right. If we don't, then we'll never be able to get any questions answered.

First of all, Goblin Chieftain does not give any kind of counters.  It just modifies the P/T of goblins while it is on the battlefield.
Secondly, First Strike creates two combat damage steps.  One in which only Elite Inquisitor (and any other potential First Striker) deals it's combat damage.  In your scenario, this will kill the Goblin Chieftain.  In the second combat damage step, non-First Strike creatures deal their damage.  Since the Chieftain is no longer there, they do not get the +1/+1.
You will deal 3 damage.

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

Thanks @OrigamiRobot. So, since the +1/+1 is not a counter, then Proliferate will not work on those cards either? Also, we've been struggling with what to call the +1/+1. Is it called an ability? I've seen the term "activated ability" thrown around, but my impression was that was an ability that had a cost (something followed by a colon) associated with it.

@BrendonCheves Yes, an activated ability has a cost. The chieftain has a static ability: “Other Goblin creatures you control get +1/+1 and have haste.” See section 112 of the Comprehensive Rules if you want all the nitty-gritty. Also, you are correct, it's not a counter, so Proliferate will not add any counters.

IIRC the +1/+1 itself is an effect. As ghoppe said, the Goblin Chieftain has an ability; in this particular case it's a static ability, because it is something that applies continuously as long as the Chieftain is in play. One effect of that ability is that all other Goblins you control get +1/+1. And another effect is that they all have haste.

Thanks to all of you! I just went over all of these details with both of my boys. Time to play some more Magic!

@BrendonCheves There are three general types of abilities: Activated, Static and Triggered. An activated ability is usually written cost:effect - Goblin Fireslinger has an activated ability. A triggered ability is usually written when [X], [y] - Blisterstick Shaman has a triggered ability. The third ability is static, it just affects the field simply by being there, like Goblin Chieftain.

authors: Георгий Колесников


text:
Must all three men be on the back line at once in Little Wars' "Blow to the rear" Variation?
On page 56 of Little Wars, Wells writes,

The Blow at the Rear game is decided when at least three men of one force reach any point in the back line of their antagonist. He is then supposed to have suffered a strategic defeat...

Do all three men have to be present at once? Or can two arrive, be killed, and one more arrive later in the game (or some other variation where the three all arrive, but are not all present at once)?

@Ire_and_curses "Blow at the rear" is a variant of Little Wars. The tag "variant" does belong there.

Little Wars is not by any stretch of the imagination likely to constitute a watertight ruleset (give it a break, it was the first of its kind!) so I think we have to apply a bit of common sense to ruling on this issue.  I quote from the text:

Moreover, in our desire to bring the game to a climax, we decided that
  instead of a fight to a finish we would fight to some determined
  point, and we found very good sport in supposing that the arrival of
  three men of one force upon the back line of the opponent's side of
  the country was of such strategic importance as to determine the
  battle. But this form of battle we have since largely abandoned in
  favour of the old fight to a finish again. We found it led to one type
  of battle only, a massed rush at the antagonist's line, and that our
  arrangements of time-limits and capture and so forth had eliminated
  most of the concluding drag upon the game.

This seems to indicate that "three men on the back line" constitutes something of "strategic importance".  In my mind, this suggests that the three soldiers have struggled through the enemy defences to capture the opposing HQ, or something of that sort.  It's hard to see three men reaching the back line only to be shot down as constituting that sort of victory.
So I'd definitely be inclined to think that you have to have three men reach the back line alive to reasonably "capture the enemy flag", or whatever else such a victory condition is meant to represent.  What's the alternative?  That covering the distance of the battlefield is in and of itself a victory condition?  That doesn't sound much like a "Little War" - more like some kind of running race :)


text:
Which MtG core set has had the greatest change in cards from a previous core set?
From its beginning through 2015, Magic the Gathering released a new core set every so often (at first every two years, then every year). At first, core sets would only contain previously released cards, but that changed with the Magic 2010 series.
What core set contains the largest number of different in cards within that core set from the previous core set? (how many cards were changed from that previous year?)

The MTGSalvation wiki tracks core set changes here. The summary, assuming I haven't made any copying/arithmetic errors:

Unlimited -> Revised: 39 added, 35 removed (total 74)
Revised -> 4th: 122 added, 50 removed (total 172)
4th -> 5th: 194 added, 128 removed (total 322)
5th -> 6th: 167 added, 266 removed (total 433)
6th -> 7th: 177 added, 177 removed (total 354)
7th -> 8th: 167 added, 160 removed (total 327)
8th -> 9th: 165 added, 163 removed (total 328)
9th -> 10th: 214 added, 190 removed (total 404)
10th -> M10: 158 added, 292 removed (total 450)
M10 -> M11: 136 added, 136 removed (total 272)
M11 -> M12: 153 added, 153 removed (total 306)
M12 -> M13: 193 added, 193 removed (total 386)
M13 -> M14: 154 added, 198 removed (total 352)
M14 -> M15: 235 added, 201 removed (total 436)
M15 -> Origins: 263 added, 259 removed (total 522)

So Origins had the largest total number of changed cards as well as the largest number added, while M10 had the largest number removed. If you don't want to consider Origins a "true" core set for these purposes (because it was also introducing a bunch of new lore) then M10 also has the largest number of changed cards, and M15 added the largest number of new cards.
It's worth noting, however, that some this is driven by changes in set size — the number of cards removed from 10th edition to get to M10 is literally larger than the total number of cards in many of the more recent core sets.

Also worth noting that after origins they stopped with core sets


text:
Cargo Noir: How to prevent Macao Black Market from going stale
We played Cargo Noir last night for the first time and we found that by the end of the game, half the cargos in the black market had been there from the start.
When you are at Macao, you can swap or pick a random cargo from the bag.
Since you need to have a cargo to swap for a cargo, players often chose to random pick out of the bag as it increases your cargo and still carries a chance of getting what you need.
This meant that people tended to ignore swaps and go for random in every stage of the game, and the market became stagnant.
Are there any suggestions on ways that increase the turn over of cargo on the market and freshen things up?

I've found that experienced players make more and better use of the market. Make a few decent grabs from it your next game, and players will start making use of it.
It is a matter of pointing out that a market draw allows an almost assured increase of a set, with no cash outlay. The value of this is minimal in early rounds, but once one is holding 4+ of a type, if a 5th is in Macao, it's worth getting.
As an aside, I played Tuesday last. The other players ignored the 3 wilds that started in the market until I grabbed two of them. Too little, too late; they were masters at bidding, and have a rather unpleasant tendency to gang up on whomever happens to have brought a game. I was unable to win an auction until turn 4... and came in 2nd of 4.

But you need to have a cargo to swap for a cargo.  Whereas for the random pick out of the bag you increase your cargo and have a chance of getting one you need.  This meant that people tended to ignore swaps and go for random, in every stage of the game. (I shall update my question to make this more clear)

@E_L You get more cargo, yes, but your storage is finite and you want to make every bit of that capacity go as far as it can.

@Argyle I get that storage is finite.  But in our game we all tended to go for, say 3 sets of 3, rather than 9 tokens of one type.  -That the best strategy was to get more cargo rather than a particular type of cargo.  This is also the case if what you have in your hold is nothing like what is on the market, and everyone is doing something else or playing by a different strategy.  There will be no refresh, you get stuck, and have to follow the same strategy

@E_L having about 20 plays under my belt, I can say, you are dead wrong in how to win. The value of a 5 set (25) is well more than the value of two 3-tile sets (2x3=9), and going for the 5-7 range is often worth sacrificing a tile or two to take an extra turn and get the extras. Your math is fatally flawed, and you just don't see it.

maybe, maybe not.  strategy has to change according to how other players play, and sometimes the optimal strategy is not always the winning one.  but I shall trying playing it your way next time and see how it turns out.

One idea I had was to have D8 roll that would remove a cargo from the market to the discard pile at the end of each player turn.  Each cargo space in the market obviously related to each di side
This way, there is constant new cargo coming in to the market, keeping it fresh, but also adding a danger element as cargo that you were waiting for might get removed by the time it gets to your turn.
Do you think this would work?

Why was this answer marked down?  If its not a good solution, would you care to comment why?

I would suggest trying this idea yourself and including your results in your answer.

I wouldn't downvote this; but I suggest you move it this proposal to the question itself. Or explain the results of applying it


text:
How good is the AI in the iOS port of Haggis?
I recently picked up the iOS port for Haggis. Although I own the physical version, and you can play it online at boardgamearena, playing versus the iOS AI has been my first experience with the game.
I generally beat the AI pretty handily at this point but I'm wondering if this is one of those games where the AI employs a strategy that can be successful against novices but cannot compete with even moderately experienced players.

My perspective is having never played Haggis until i played it on the ipad.  I have quite a bit of Tichu experience.
The AI offered competition to me for about 5 games.  After that i can beat it 4/5 of the time.
So overall i think it is a good way to learn the game, but will not help you get ahead online


text:
Choose a leader when copying the Courtesan's Guild with Olympia (B)?
7 Wonders with Leaders extension
Situation

Alice has the wonder Olympia (B) and builds her 3rd wonder stage (= at the end of the game she can copy a guild card of one of her neighbours).
Bob plays the Courtesan's Guild and places the Courtesan token at a leader card of his neighbour Carol.
At the end of the game, Alice copies Bob's Courtesan's Guild.

What to do?
{Variant 1}: Alice gets another (virtual) Courtesan token and has to choose a leader card of one of her neighbours herself.
{Variant 2}: The leader card chosen by Bob is "imprinted" in the Courtesan's Guild and therefor Alice copies this leader card by copying the guild. (However, the points for this leader card are calculated as if she would have played it herself)
Or something else?
Follow-up questions if {Variant 2} would be correct
Let's say Bob would have placed the Courtesan token at a leader card of Alice instead of Carol. Would Alice get points (if any) for this leader card two times?
Let's say there weren't any other leader cards in play when Bob built the Courtesan's Guild, so he could not use the Courtesan token. Can Alice now use the token at the end of the game?

Discussion elsewhere

boardgamegeek.com: Olympia vs. Courtesans' guild
boardgamegeek.com: Olympia (B) stage 3 copying Courtesan's Guild?
boardgamegeek.com: Courtesan's Guild (And yes, Olympia B)

Other questions about Courtesan's Guild: Abu Simbel and Courtesan's Guild · Timing of Roma (B)/Catan (B) and Courtesan's Guild?

On boardgamegeek.com, Jacek Deimer says he has asked Antoine Bauza, the author of the game:

Can I chose new leader for the copy or am I forced to copy leader that already has Courteasan Token on it?
  For example: I copy CG that copies PLATO, will I have to copy PLATO again or can I copy different leader?

Antoine's answer:

You can copy any Leader from your two neibhourgs

So, {Variant 1} would be correct.
(note however: there is no source to verify that statement)

Here is a statement by a Éric Franklin (credited for "Revision" in the rule book) confirming that the interpretation described in {Variant 1} is correct.

Update (2013-02-18): Repos Production published an official FAQ, containing this question:

Q: With stage 3 of Olympia’s B side, I copy the Guild of Courtesans. Do I then need to copy the effect of the Leader where the Courtesan token is, or do I get my own virtual Courtesan token which I can use as I want?
A: You get your own virtual courtesan token.


text:
Timing of Roma (B)/Catan (B) and Courtesan's Guild?
7 Wonders with Leaders extension (and optionally Catan wonder)
In the same turn (Alice and Bob are neighbours):

Alice builds the Courtesan's Guild

→ she can copy a leader

Bob builds 2nd or 3rd Roma (B) stage (or 1st Catan (B) stage)

→ he can recruit a leader

Can Alice place the Courtesan token on the leader card which Bob recruits in the same turn?

Other questions about Courtesan's Guild: Abu Simbel and Courtesan's Guild · Choose a leader when copying the Courtesan's Guild with Olympia (B)?

On boardgamegeek.com, Jacek Deimer says he has asked Antoine Bauza (the game author):

If Courtesan Guild is built in the same turn that ROMA/CATAN recruits extra leader, can it copy leader recruited during the same turn?

Antoine answered:

No

So Alice has to choose a leader card to copy (guild card effect) before Bob recruits his leader (wonder effect).


text:
What to do when all 3 diplomacy tokens are in use and you need a 4th?
The Cities expansion comes with 3 diplomacy tokens.
In each game there could be 4 (5 with Manneken Pis) ways to get a token:

Age I City card: Residence
Age II City card: Consulate
Age III City card: Embassy
Wonder: Byzantium

side A: 1 token
side B: 2 tokens

(Wonder: Manneken Pis)

What happens when all three tokens are in use and now another token is needed?
Example scenario:

4 players:

Bob has wonder Byzantium (B)
Alice has wonder Halicarnassus
Susan (any wonder)
Dave (any wonder)

In Age III:

Bob builds both wonder stages → 2 tokens (1 left)
Alice builds a wonder stage and builds Residence from the discard pile → 1 token (0 left)
Susan builds Embassy from her hand → 1 token needed

Does Susan get a virtual diplomacy token or not?

Just as a note, the wonder in question is Byzantium (diplomacy), rather than Petra (debt).

Also, you'd have no reason to have two Diplomacy tokens in the same age. You have to use them when military is checked. Bob has misunderstood how to use Diplomacy tokens, and someone should advise him to build his wonder stages in separate ages if he wants the maximum benefit from Byzantium.

@SocioMatt: If Bob has two Diplomacy tokens, he uses/loses only one per Age, so it can make sense to get more than one Diplomacy token in the same age. (Obivously not in Age III, like in the scenario, but Bob might have had other reasons for building that wonder stage ;-)).

@unor You're right. I think my game group has been playing this wrong, so nobody ever takes multiple tokens in the same age. The rules literally say "During the next Conflict, the player will not take part in the resolution and then MUST discard this  Diplomacy token." It isn't until the clarifications that it mentions you only need to discard one of the Diplomacy tokens.

I think it's pretty safe to say that there are only 3 Diplomacy tokens provided because the scenarios in which 4 or 5 Diplomacy tokens are required at once are so vanishingly rare.
As I discovered from previous discussions of the finer points of the rules terminology (and I went so far as to double-check with the game designer Antoine Bauza via Twitter!), 7 Wonders is not a game where you need to obsess about the minutiae.  In unusual corner cases, things probably work in a commonsense sort of way, no need to over think then.
There is no obvious reason why a player should be deprived of a Diplomacy token because 3 have already been taken already; and certainly no available justification for taking somebody else's Diplomacy token that has already been given out!  In the unusual event that more than 3 Diplomacy tokens are required at once, I believe the sensible course of action is just to use something else as a stand-in Diplomacy token for the turn.


text:
When you don’t have to move (bonus card), do you pick up your separated assistant or do you have to separate another one?
My question is about this bonus card:

When playing it at the beginning of your turn, you don’t have to move your merchant (and you may use the field’s action).
The rules say that you "again" have to use one of your assistants for this, but I’m not sure if this always applies (i.e., not following the normal movement rules), or if it only applies if you would have to use an assistant as if you had moved normally.

Situation after the first turn:

Situation A: Your merchant is on top of all his assistants (from that field), because you have picked the assistant up that was left there.
Situation B: No assistant was on the field, so you had to separate one assistant. Now your merchant is on top of 1+ assistants, and next to them is one assistant.

Second turn begins and you play the bonus card, so you stay on this field:

In situation A: You have to separate one of your assistants and he will be left there when you move on in your third turn.
In situation B: Do you have to separate another assistant (so leaving two assistants when moving on in the next turn), or do you pick up your previously separated assistant (leaving no-one when moving on in the next turn)?

Act as if you would have moved your Merchant.
So if you play this card while an Assistant is separated (from your previous turn), you pick this assistant up and play the Place’s action.
The rules say "Your Merchant stays at his current Place but you have to use an Assistant again", however, "use an Assistant" does not necessarily mean to separate one. You also use an Assistant if you visit a previously visited Place and pick this Assistant up.
References
This question gets discussed in these threads on BoardGameGeek:

Some questions about rules

André Bronswijk confirms it
Grzegorz Kobiela confirms and explains it

Bonus Card, which lets you stay where you are
Need clarification about the "Do not move your Merchant" Bonus Card

Ralph Bruhn confirms and explains it

No movement card

Ralph Bruhn confirms it indirectly


text:
Can you use Halicarnassus' special ability to build the wonder or to discard the card for 3 gold?
The wonder Halicarnassus has a special ability (second stage on side A, all stages on side B) that lets the player choose a card from the discard pile.
Instead of building the card for free, can the player also choose to build the wonder (paying the corresponding costs), or to discard the card for 3 gold?

Another question about Halicarnassus: In Seven Wonders can you use the “Play card from Discard Piles” ability to play an age III card?

No. The special ability can only be used to build the structure (for free).
The rules say "build it [the card] for free", which excludes the other two cases (where you discard a card, or build a wonder stage, not the structure/card itself).
Also confirmed by the official FAQ:

Q: Using Solomon (take a card from the discard pile and put it in play for free) or stages of Halicarnassus, can I use this card to build a Wonder stage?
A: No.

It’s the same with Olympus (side A, second stage).
Only with the special ability of Babylon (side B, second stage) it is possible to build the wonder OR to discard the card OR to build it (paying its costs!).

Related threads on boardgamegeek.com:

Halicarnassus - playing from the discard - is it like playing any other card?
Mausoleum Question
The Mausoleum of Halicarnassus?
Olympus 2 Stage Wonder
Olympia board wonder - 2nd stage question


text:
Is splitting your 3 settlements allowed?
Let's say I've placed settlements in two separate forests. In both forests there are still (more than) 3 fields free. Now I draw another forest card and have to place my 3 settlements.

Am I allowed to split my 3 settlements and place 1 settlement in terrain A and 2 settlements in terrain B? (next to my other settlements, of course)
Or do I have to build these 3 settlements in the same forest terrain, if possible?

Hymie's answer is completely correct. Quoting from the rulebook:

the 3 settlements must be built successively one after the other.

And BGG FAQ:

There is no rule that you must necessarily place your 3 settlements in a single contiguous group (though sometimes you must, and sometimes you may choose to).

As long as you are next to your existing settlements and the terrain types match the card, there is no requirement that the three settlements that you play be in the same physical piece of terrain.

Can you please post a link to the rules if you have?? or something that make your answer more clear about why you said so?? thanks!

http://queen-games.de/games.aspx?ProductId=45  Page 4 of the rulebook outlines the building rules.

I'm guessing he "said so" because it's the correct answer! In any case, I'm more concerned with how the OP got settlements in two separate forests. It's possible... just curious :)

@gbianchi There is no rule that specifically states this is allowed, because it is clearly implied by the lack of any rule that says that all 3 of your settlements must be built adjacent to each other, or within the same chunk of terrain.  Each settlement is placed individually, following the rules for individual placement.

@TheChaz: It's just an example to get the situation clear ;-) (However, this very case should be possible when we assume that there is another quadrant at the bottom resp. at the left, which is not pictured here).

You must build 3 settlements consecutively (which means all 3 right now, in a row, one after the other) during the current turn. So long as they are placed next to existing settlements, they can be split up.

Could you provide citation to substantiate this? This appears to be contradicted by the BGG FAQ, but then again, the BGG FAQ isn't cited either.

What you are NOT allowed to do is use an ability while placing the mandatory settlements. For example:

Place one mandatory settlement
Use paddock to gallop it somewhere else
Build your remaining mandatories.

Those three settlements have to be played sequentially.


text:
Can you play a new player game of Carcassonne w/o farms?
I've taught Carcassonne to a number of new players (it's a great "gateway game")! However, the problem that I keep having is with the farmers. Players are able to quickly grasp the idea of putting meeple thieves on roads, soldiers in cities, and monks on monasteries.
But the farmers and their farms confuse the heck out of them during their first game. Generally they are confused about the mechanics of how they work or they don't see their utility. Thus any experienced players surge ahead because the new players just don't understand farms. If I get to play a second game with these new players, they have a better grasp on how farms work and can usually use them effectively, but this is a pain point of the first game.
A friend of mine suggested possibly playing the first game with no farms (giving these new players time to focus on the other mechanics and preventing experienced players from taking advantage of their confusion over farms), then adding in farms for a second game.
What sort of issues might appear if we removed farms in the first game? Would it still be playable? And would this be an effective way of alleviating the trouble we have had with teaching how to use farms?

What sorts of farm issues are you experiencing with players? Farms are like any other feature, except that abutting completed cities, rather than constituent tiles are scored (and "completion" doesn't trigger scoring).

@Aldaron The problem is that they work differently than the other features and new players find that confusing. Also, it's hard for them to understand their usefulness until the end of the game.

@Aldaron It's much easier to quickly look and see the size/value of a city or road than for a farm, even assuming the field isn't going to grow further. Experienced players will have a much easier time with that, and with guessing whether it'll become more valuable as the game goes on. And the fact that you don't get your farmers back makes any mistakes fairly unforgiving.

"farms are like any other feature" - except in when they are scored, how they are scored, and how easy it is to determine control at a glance

If your players learn about farms after only one game, why would you want to cut them entirely? Eventually, they will have their first game including farms, no matter how long you postpone it.

You could do, the game would work perfectly well without farmers.  I would argue against it because this still leaves the new players in a position where they don't see farms being used and don't see how they can score highly if placed well despite the long-term sacrifice of a piece.
In my experience with teaching Carcassonne, players tend to go very quickly from not understanding how they work, to playing too many farmers too early, then getting a good grasp within a few games.  Just be patient.

A couple points of advice here -
1) One easy way to teach the farm mechanic is to run through a sample game of perhaps 5 turns.  Make sure to drop a farmer or two during this sample and at the end go through the scoring process.  This will get you to the "aha" moment that people have about farmers much more quickly.
2) the game can certainly work without farmers, although it makes the game less interesting for veterans.  If you are not going to use farmers, I would remove two meeples from each player's supply, since you will no longer be committing meeples to the board permanently.  This will maintain some of the scarcity decisions that have to be made regarding occupying card features.  One of the more interesting tradeoffs in the game is deciding how many farmers to commit to the fields at the cost of being able to place more often into short term gains.

I agree with both parts of your suggestions.  Even playing with others who are experienced, I often win the game through vast farms and am often running out of meeples when I want them. That balance is indeed critical to the game.

Just to add my 2 cents, I taught the game to my kids (when they were 9). Everything was easy, except how to explain to them the concept of farms. After a few games without any farms, I let them put some meeples inside a field after the game was finished so they could understand how farms work. Now they are playing with farms, but they are not very good with them...
The game is not really unbalanced without farms, it's just a little more about luck.

When I play Carcassone with new players, I give them a two meeple advantage, usually by having the experienced players (which is often just me) play without two of my meeples.  This helps take away the big advantage experienced players have in knowing how farms work because they can't farm as aggressively (or else they will have no meeples left for cities/monasteries).  This handicap is big enough that a new player can often win with proper rules explanation, which is good in my book.  People tend want to play a game more if they feel they did well in their first game of it.
If you wanted to play without farms, I would suggest having everyone play with two fewer meeples, so that new players learn how to work around through a constrained of meeple situation.
These options can also be combined.  You could play without farms, giving new players 5 meeples and experienced players 3.

Of course it would still be playable! It would have a different balance, but it may even be better for newer players: experienced players would have to re-evaluate their strategies, which may put everyone on a slightly more even setting.
Why not just try it? I mean, what's the worst that would happen?

"What's the worst that would happen?" - well, in general, imbalancing the game enough that it's not fun to play and doesn't help teach the full game. I don't think that's the case here, but you could probably be a little more convincing about it :)

Fair point! I suppose that it seemed like something that one could very easily try. As it stands, it seems like the original poster finds the game unbalanced when it comes to teaching new people, and has identified one possible way to alleviate that in the process. At that point, it seems like little harm would be introduced by just giving it a go.

I played my first Carcassonne session at a friend's house without farmers. Then I went and bought myself the Big Box.  So yeah, you won't ruin the game if you leave them out. :-)

When I learned, I think someone forgot to tell us about farms (or maybe omitted it intentionally). The game seemed to go fine without them.

I consider the first game a learning game.  Not teaching/playing the farms merely postpones it.  I think the only way to really understand them is to use them and show.  I also spend a lot of time giving advice to new players (depending on how fast they seem to be picking it up).
The hardest part I've found is try trying teach them where they can play farmers because of the connected fields or if it is unlikely to ever touch even a single city.
If you just want everyone to feel they are doing well, then go ahead and skip them.  However  I would consider asking everyone about the house rule before going ahead with it.


text:
When can I activate the special Halicarnassus effect?

The rules say what the effect does but not when to use it.

Once per era?
At the time the wonder upgrade is done?
At the end of the game?
Something else?

The rules do say it (English base game rules, page 8 and also page 9, for the wonder The Mausoleum of Halicarnassus):

Clarification: this special ability takes place at the end of the turn in which
  this stage is built. If players discard cards this turn (as in the case of the 6th
  turn of an age), the player can also choose from among them.

So when you build this wonder stage, you wait until everyone finished their action, and then you go through the discard pile and build one of its cards for free. One time only (per wonder stage).
Special cases:

if others use the same ability in the same turn (tl;dr: there is a defined resolution order)
if the Babylon (B) player discards the 7th card for money (tl;dr: it gets added to the discard pile before the Halicarnassus player goes through it)

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


text:
Dealing Age 3 - what to do with the two extra cards?
How do you deal Age 3 of 7 Wonders?
Once you get the deck ready for the adequate number of players and add the guilds, there ends up being 2 extra cards due to the 2+ guild logic. Thus some players would get more than 7 cards.
How is this handled? Are the extra cards simply not dealt? Can you provide an example for 5 players please?

There are no extra cards in a correctly prepared deck.
The base game contains:

49 Age I cards
49 Age II cards
50 Age III cards

(There is one additional Age III card so that there are never all Guild cards in play.)
For a game with 5 players, you have 35 cards per Age:

Age I: 35 non-Guild cards
Age II: 35 non-Guild cards
Age III: 28 non-Guild cards, 7 Guild cards

exactly.  every age, everyone will end up with EXACTLY 7 cards in their hand.  no more, no less.

Guild cards are not all added together, you only add Guild cards based on the number of players +2, so you will always have a consistent amount of cards per player per age. In the case of the base game that will mean that you will always have 7 cards in your hand at the start of each age.
For 5 player game, that means 7 guild cards are added to the Age 3 cards.
This means you will have all the 3 player cards per age, all the 4 player cards, and all the 5 player cards. And the Age 3 deck will also have 7 guilds. (A total of 35 cards per Age)


text:
Babel tower tile #15 (ignore resource cost for Wonder) overpowered?
In our recent 7 Wonders play session we've tried playing Babel extension, which triggered a question/thoughts about babel tower add-on.
Specifically tower tile nr. 2 and 15 which states:

These two tiles allow players to ignore the resource cost when constructing military buildings or for a Wonder stage.

Now, while building military buildings virtually for free seems to be very powerful, especially if you are lagging behind in a 3rd age and want to catch up with at least one neighbour, but it felt okay-ish.
However, building Wonder stages for free felt like completely messing up game mechanics - some wonders require a lot more of resources to build than others, with a cost and reward system being quite balanced, but with this card open, everyone would just built their wonders within few turns. It felt as if someone switch on god mode. Besides, it wasn't a fair game from that point on, considering how different rewards for Wonders are.
So my question is, whether we've misread/misinterpreted the rules, or does this card really effectively permits building Wonders completely for free for every player, apart from the money, that aren't required for the most of wonder stages?
P.S. And while we are here, tile nr. 20 - " Raw materials cards (brown cards) which produce a unique resource (Lumber Yard, Stone Pit, Clay Pool and Ore Vein) produce an infinite number of resources." felt overpowered as well, just maybe by a lesser degree than the previous ones.

You have played correctly; tile #15 indeed lets you construct wonder stages without paying the resource cost. It's very true that some Wonders will benefit much more: Gizah B, with its massive 4 stages, will be able to take 20 points for "free" (using 4 actions), even if other players conspire to lock this player out of resources, which is very possible in 3-player or 7-player games. On the other hand, Rhodes B would benefit little, with only 2 stages to construct.
Furthermore, your feelings are justified; yes each Babel tile tilts the game to one way or another. They are not meant to be "fair for all". However, in general you may find both tiles that tilt the game to either way; take for example the opposite tile, tile #16: every player will have to pay a tax for each wonder stage; Gizah B would effectively have to pay 10 coins (+ any resources, if applicable) to construct all wonder stages. In another example, tile #22 double the penalty for losing a Military battle, while tile #19 diminishes the points gained by the victors, making military less or more important, respectively.
Finally, if you feel that one tile turns "god mode" on for a specific player, there's always a solution: conspire with other players to cover the tile. If you do it correctly, it won't stay there for more than a single turn.

Your example with #22 vs. #19 is a good example of two oposite cards that are balanced IMHO - they have effect, however it is limited and within certain scope.
However, #15 felt overpowered, as it gave too big bonuses for too small cost, as it felt more like a 'free wonders for everyone', which in turn felt like completely beating the purpose and fun of the game. In the end we decided to simply ban this card, but I wasn't 100% if our interpretation was correct, so thank you for your answer!

@KlausK It does seem strong at first but it's not ridiculous. Remember first that each wonder stage is already a play, as is the Babel tile. Not having to pay resources is helpful but it also means you're wasting time, and it probably means you don't have a strong enough resource base. The same effect exists on the Architect's Cabinet in Cities. The Babel version of this is easily covered in a 4+ player game if it would be too strong for a single player. There can be situations where free wonders will turn a game but more often it's an attempt to make up for a weaker strategy.

@KlausK Also, if it does seem that people keep winning because of this effect, take a close look at the rest of their points. They're probably getting points across multiple categories.


text:
Precondition costs for structures built with Halicarnassus "build for free"?
When playing with Halicarnassus A side and I build a second wonder stage, is it possible to build a structure that in its precondition cost has another structure which a player controlling Halicarnassus doesn't have built?
For example, to build Haven, you need to have a Forum in play.

There are no building prerequisites. The building names next to the cost indicate that you may construct the building for free, without having to fulfill the resource cost. From the rulebook, p. 4:

Free Construction (Chains):
  Some structures in Age II and Age III have, to the right of their resource
  cost, the name of a structure of a previous age. If the player has built the structure named there during a previous Age, that  player  can  build  the  structure  for  free,  meaning  without  having  to  fulfill the resource cost.

Since Halikarnassos allows you to construct any building in the discard pile for free, anyway, the "chained" card is irrelevant at that point. Nevertheless, you are still forbidden from constructing a duplicate card.


text:
Phases order in "Catan: Cities & Knights"
According game rules, each player can perform any action (building, trading, knight activation, etc.) in any order during her/his turn.
Can an action type be done more than once in the same turn?
Example: It's John's turn:

he activates a knight
he builds a settlement on an harbor with 3:1 commercial ratio
he uses such 3:1 change ratio to exchange resources with the bank
he trades with othere players
he builds a road
he activates another knight

I have that conundrum since in the classic Catan, the trading phase and the building one are strictly separated and you cannot mix them up (you can just if you use advanced rules).

Welcome to the site, and thanks for your question! Could you please condense this to a Minimal Example? i.e. if I understand your question correctly, you could remove steps 2, 3, and 4 entirely, so since they're there, a) I worry that I don't understand the question correctly, and b) the essence of your question is lost in irrelevant details.

Thank you @BenjaminCosman for your kind welcome. Points 2,3 and 4 aim at underlying the usage of a resource you've just built in the turn. But ok, you are right, they are not strictly necessary for the example. Do you mind if I leave them in the question for understanding if I can use that new resource in the same turn?

The question is quite understandable as it is.

Yes, you can take the same kind of action at multiple points in your turn. The relevant rule is:

You may do any or all of the following in any order:
– Trade resources and/or commodities with the bank and/or other players.
– Build roads, settlements, cities, knights, city walls, and/ or city improvements.
– Activate, promote, and/or perform actions with your knights.
– Play any number of progress cards.

This could be read to mean that each of those four bullet points are "phases" that can happen only once each in an order of your choice, but we can infer that the intended meaning is the more permissive one by this later rule:

Trading and Building
In Cities & Knights, you are allowed to build and trade any number of times and in any order. You do not need to finish all of your trading before you begin your building.

Perfect! And can we leverage a settlement we've just built on an harbor with a more convenient commercial ratio?

Yep. The trading rule is just "If you have a settlement or a city on a harbor..."; it doesn't say "If you had a settlement or a city on a harbor since the beginning of the turn...".


text:
Which dice game has a board with 9x9 squares that has different colors on the diagonals and midway on some edges?
Can anyone identify this game?
It's played on a board of 9 by 9 squares, some of which (on the diagonals and midway on some edges) are different colours, reminding me of an abbreviated Scrabble board, but rather than tiles, the players cover the squares with cubes that have various coloured symbols on their faces.
The picture seems to show a board slightly more than 1 ft. square, with the squares and cubes having edges of 1-1.5 in.

They look like Mahjongg cubes.

It's a dice version of the match-3 (3 alike or 3 different) game "Set". It's cleverly enough called "Set Dice"


text:
Hungarian card says MINIMUM in the description, but MAXIMUM on the top
I have a translation problem, I'm playing Terraforming Mars in Hungarian and the following card (original name is probably 'colonizer training station') description at the bottom says you need a MINIMUM of 5% oxygen level, but the symbol on the top says you need a MAXIMUM of 5% oxygen level.

Which one is the correct in the original version?

All Terraforming Mars project cards have a number, it's written in the tiny gray box on bottom right above the cost (2), this card is "001". The reference tells you that's project card 001: Colonizer Training Camp and tells you its prerequisites.

As a general rule, I'd expect that the icons (which don't change during localization) to be more accurate than text (which does change).  But it's always good to double check.

The English text on Colonizer Training Camp is

(Oxygen must be 5% or less.)

This goes with the "max 5%" icon, as you suspected.

edit: Link to an image on BGG, where the English card can be seen.

Maximum 5%

The fact that the '5%' prerequisite box is red confirms it's maximum (not minimum).
All Terraforming Mars project cards have a number, it's written in the tiny gray box on bottom right above the cost (2), this card is "001". The reference tells you that's project card 001: Colonizer Training Camp and tells you its prerequisites etc.:

Jovian tag, Building tag
  Cost: 8
  Requires: max 5% O2
  (Oxygen must be 5% or less.)
  VP: 2


text:
Game (like tic-tac-toe, but with a hole in the middle) where players have to score by getting temples on tiles?
The game has eight square pieces placed in a 3x3 array with the middle empty. Think tic-tac-toe but with a hole in the middle.
Each of the eight tiles has a matrix of squares on it, around 8x8 or maybe 10x10.
Each square is water, woods, mountains, vulcanos, large/small temples and, possibly something else too.
During the game play, each of the 8 tiles can be rotated or moved.
The aim of the game is to score by getting many temples, getting temples on many tiles etc.
Each player places his minions along a line they choose, creating a series of dudes, like a nomad clam traveling.
What is the name of the game? Where can I look to find out, should nobody here recognize it?

Dokmus
This is the part where I describe the game to show that it lines up with your memories, but honestly you've described it in pretty good detail, and there isn't really anything for me to add.  The tiles are 7x7, though.
The tile movement powers are drafted each round by the players, so each player gets 1 special power and three worker placements.

That is the game. However, I'm 101% certain it wasn't called Dokmus or I would remember as it means a funny thing in my language (or at least it makes for a funny joke in my head, let's not blame the language for my weird brains). I was on that site before but didn't find it: +1 to you for better goole-foo.

Not Google-fu - I actually learned the game about 2 weeks back.

Hahahahaha. That's rich. So no google-foo, just a strike of dumb luck? I'll take it! Hope you liked the game.

I enjoyed it quite a bit!


text:
Abu Simbel and Courtesan's Guild
So, this item came up last night while we were playing. I'll give you our answer, but I want to see what everyone else's thoughts are.
One player was playing as Abu Simbel, and their neighbor had the Courtesan's Guild in hand. They asked whether they could "use" an "Entombed" Leader, or what would happen if they used a Leader that was later "Entombed." We decided that they couldn't use one that had already been entombed, but if they used one that was later entombed, they would not lose the benefits.
Does this seem appropriate, or should we have gone a different route?

The Courtesan token stays on a Leader that gets entombed. This is based on Eddie the Cranky Gamer’s post on BoardGameGeek (to which @Jean-Sébastien links to in his answer, too), who says the he’s asked Repos:

I put the question to Repos and the answer was that the Courtesan stays in play, with the same assumed power of the now-entombed leader.

Putting the Courtesan token on an already entombed Leader is not possible. At least that’s how I understand Ovidiu Cirlugea’s BoardGameGeek post, quoting the game author Antoine Bauza:

You cannot copy it once its buried […]

Putting the Courtesan token on a Leader which is entombed on the same turn is possible, as detailed in that same BGG thread:

Yes, you can copy a leader, even if your neighbor choose to bury it during the same turn. The copy remains, even if the original is buried after !

According to this, you keep the power of the entombed leader. As for seducing an already emtombed leader, I have not found anything, but I would not allow it.

Please provide the information from the link in your answer as it helps in case the link ever breaks.


text:
Discard a card to gain money
Which cards am I allowed to discard in order to gain money in Seven Wonders Duel?

A card I already acquired and placed in my home?
A free unclaimed card from the board (a card a player could otherwise get paying its costs)?

In other words, discarding is an alternative to get a card from the table on one player's turn?

No, thats incorrect, you can not chose to avoid taking a card from the structure and discarding a card from your board for money.
The rules state under Game Turn :-

"On your turn, you must choose an “accessible” card in
  the card structure and play it. An accessible card is a card which
  isn’t partially covered by other cards."

Note it says the structure, not anything in your play area.  'Structure' being the term for how cards are laid out each age. You then have a choice with the card you selected to build it, discard it for money, or construct a wonder.
So to answer your question, the only card you may discard for money is the one you took from the structure that turn and no other.  You do not pay any costs associated with building a card if you are just taking it to discard for money.


text:
Aspasia and Abu Simbel
Imagine this: I build Aspasia at the beginning of Age 3. I then bury her for Abu Simbel wonder stage.
Does the diplomacy token stay or go with it?

(Quoting from the English rules, from the linked PDFs.)
Cities, page 5, about Diplomacy:

A player who puts into play a card with the [Diplomacy] symbol takes a Diplomacy token from the bank and places it on their board.

Cities, page 8, about Aspasia:

When Aspasia enters play, the player takes a
  Diplomacy token.

Wonder Pack, page 1, about Abu Simbel’s stage 3:

The player can no longer benefit from the chosen Leader’s effect.

I’d say the Diplomacy token stays on your board. After bringing Aspasia into play, the Diplomacy effect gets exectued instantaneously, leaving Aspasia with

a now useless Diplomacy effect, and
2 VP at game end effect

both of which stop being active by burying it. But this doesn’t affect any benefits this Leader gave you before burying it, and it doesn’t require to rollback anything made possible by this Leader.
Think of the other Leaders: Many of them also have instant effects, like Caligula, which allows to build one black card per Age for free. If you’d use its effect and bury it afterwards, you wouldn’t have to get rid of the black card in retrospect.

This is exactly what I think. The pay off is actually awful anyway.


text:
How to combine Risk, Catan, and Monopoly?
So my group of friends play a lot of Catan. And we recently got a version of Risk. We ended up thinking about how relationship destroying a combined version of Risk, Catan, and Monopoly would be.
So is there any way to combine the three? (Doesn't matter how mundane or ridiculous it is.)

What are you, a divorce attorney?

You can combine them by putting all of the pieces together in a large plastic bag and then throwing it away.

Use monopoly board. 2 Catan sets, place "producation markers (eg 2-12) randomly on all spaces. Can produce armies only where monopoly piece is after roll, if uncontrolled or friendly. Get resources based on owned spaces. Monopolies provide continent bonii. Leave lots of vague rules so maximum chance to come to blows.

Just this question alone, with some shoddy photoshop graphics and the promise of elaborate miniatures as stretch goals, is an easy $2 million+ kickstarter :P

10 PLAY Catan
20 IF RND<0.5 GOTO 10
30 PLAY Risk
40 GOTO 10
50 PLAY Monopoly

Despite first appearances, this algorithm is not faulty.

You can combine them into a triatlon.

First play risk
Next Monopoly
Last Catan

But if you really want to combine them into one game:

Use a hex tile based board like catan.
Each player has a playing piece that starts at the first settlement and travels along your road (and ships).
The first player that builds a settlement adjacent to an hex can buy it for two ore and a grain. You place an army on that hex.
Each other player that builds a settlement adjacent to an hex owned by another player must pay one ore to the owner.
If you own a hex, you can build an additional army for one ore and one grain.
On your turn, you could use your army to conquer the hex owned by another player.

That combines elements of Risk, Monopoly and Catan and probably results in a game that is hard to play. But as always, be carefull what you ask for.

Here's how I would handle this, but it requires at least four players. You also won't be able to do this with more players than the maximum of any game (i.e.: if the maximum player limit on your version of Catan is 4, you can't do this with five players).
What you'll need: a 60-second sand timer and all three games.
You're essentially going to be playing parallel games, rotating turn order in the same direction on each board. The fourth (and fifth and sixth, if available) player, who is not the main player on any board, will be the referee to make sure there's no funny business and to make die rolls on the Risk board. Turn order would look something like this:

P1 on Catan; P2 on Monopoly; P3 on Risk; P4 ref
P2 on Catan; P3 on Monopoly; P4 on Risk; P1 ref
P3 on Catan; P4 on Monopoly; P1 on Risk; P2 ref
P4 on Catan; P1 on Monopoly; P2 on Risk; P3 ref
Back to step 1

Each player takes their turn on their main board. Risk turns generally take the longest, so that's why the ref moves to Risk; they'll already have a sense of the board state. When necessary, the ref will also roll dice against the main players, which will mostly be happening in Risk.
If an action by a main player requires a main player from another board, grab the sand timer. The players have 60 seconds to finish that task, whether it's trading in Catan, or payment in Monopoly. During these 60-second interruptions, all play should be suspended on any board where the action isn't taking place. At the end of 60 seconds, if the action isn't completed (e.g.: a trade isn't agreed upon), the action is cancelled and can't be repeated again that turn.
At the end of the game, you have up to three winners, one for each of the boards. You also have no friends, but that's a different issue.

Note that this technique could technically be implemented with other games where:

Player interaction is fairly limited
People take complete turns before the next player
Turn order doesn't vary between rounds

Wanna throw Ticket to Ride in instead of Monopoly? That'll work. Not a big fan of Catan? Try out Candy Land instead.

This doesn't really combine the games, it's just playing all three games simultaneously. I'm not even convinced it would be any faster, since all games move at the pace of the slowest one, and all three games have to stop when any one does. It also removes a lot of the player interaction in trading resources or property, or forming alliances.

@Matt Agreed, but since they work on very different mechanics, "combining" in the sense of creating one board game doesn't really make sense. I'm taking "combining" to mean creating a system where all three games and their mechanics are used simultaneously.

@Matt As far as speed goes, playing a slow game of any of these would still be faster then playing them in tandem. And when someone realized they couldn't win on one of the boards, they might focus less when they are the main player there, taking the extra time to think about strategy on the other boards. This would speed up future turns as the field on each board winnows to a few potential winners.


text:
Are "East trading post" and "West trading post" considered identical structures?
The rules state that a player can never build two identical structures - with the same name/illustration.
Since both "Trading post" cards are called just "Trading post" on the "Forum" card (which could be build through chain construction), are they considered identical, according to the "same name" rule?

The East and West Trading Posts are considered separate structures because they have a different name and illustration. Using the short form on the Forum card indicates that either the East or West Trading Post can be the base for chain construction.


text:
If you have multiple wonders do you get multiple special powers?
In 7 Wonders some stages of building a wonder provide special powers.
For example stage of 2 of Olympia (side A) allows you to build one free structure per age. If you have built 2 wonders in this case can you build 2 free structures per age?

It sounds like you're either playing a variant where you get two game boards or you're incorrectly assuming that each wonder space on your board constitutes a separate wonder. Each space is a stage of the same wonder that can only be built once. The correct answer to your question depends entirely on which situation you are dealing with.

Each player has a single Wonder board, and each Wonder stage can only be built once.
The Quickstart rules cover this on the first page under Actions, but it is also covered in the main rules under Game Overview, Clarifications.  You may only build the stages in order from left to right, and each stage can only be built once per game.

build a stage of their Wonder(in the order given by the board, from left to right): the card is placed partially under the board, face down.
2.b. Build a Stage of a Wonder - [...] each stage can only built once per game. (page 5, main rules)

For example, if you have The Lighthouse of Alexandria, building the 3 stages of side (A) would give you 3VP, one Raw Material of your choice per build step, and 7VP in stage order. Building the 3 stages of side (B) would give you a Raw Material of your choice per build step, a Production Good of your choice per build step, and 7VP in stage order.

It seems like you're seriously misinterpreting something because your question doesn't make any sense as stated.
The best guess I can make: You can only build each wonder stage once. You cannot build the same wonder stage multiple times to get multiple copies of its ability.

When building multiple wonders special powers accumulate. So if you build Olympia's special power twice you get 2 free structures per age. However for other structures such as Halicarnassus when you build it's special ability you only get to use it in the age that you built it.

You can only build each wonder stage once.


text:
In 7 Wonders, when using a Leader to build Babylon (B)'s second stage before Age 3
With the addition of the Leaders expansion, you can use your leaders to build your wonder.
If you build Babylon (B)'s second stage (which allows you to play the card you would normally discard) with your third Age Leader, can you use this ability to play your fourth Leader or must it be used to play a third Age card?
As the fourth Leader would normally be discarded, the question was raised as we were playing tonight. I'm not sure how to answer it since, if you were using a Leader in any other Age, you would not be able to play another Leader as you would not be discarding a Leader at that time.

No, you are not allowed to play a Leader.
From the base game rules, page 9:

The Hanging Gardens of Babylon
  · the second stage gives the player the option of playing their seventh
  Age card instead of discarding it.

From the Leader rules, page 3:

Leader Cards
  The Leaders (white cards) are a new card category. They are not added to the Age cards and have a different back to set them apart.

See the bold parts: Babylon (B) allows you to play an Age card, but Leaders are not part of the Age card set.


text:
Infinite loop where where both players choose to continue the loop
Yesterday, I was playing a casual game and I had a Stasis, Kismet, and Chronatog, causing my opponent to have to keep drawing, while I kept skipping my turn, with the intent of decking him.
My opponent, however, had Emrakul, the Aeon's Torn in his deck, and he can discard that every turn he draws it to shuffle his graveyard back into his library.
Who, ultimately, is required to stop choosing to continue this loop?  Do I have to stop skipping my turn with Chronatog? Or does my opponent have to stop discarding Emrakul?

Have you seen this question? http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/4733/does-going-infinite-necessarily-end-the-game

Is that necessarily a fragmented loop as defined in 716.3?  My thought being that drawing a card from your library (even though both players know what that card is) is a sufficient change of game state to keep it from being a loop.  Otherwise, your opponent would ultimately have to choose another action, as he would be the active player during his discard phase, and would be forced to make another choice as the active player.

@LJ2 It's not a significant change of game state if nothing in the game cares about how many cards have been drawn or how many turns have passed. Look at the flying/non-flying example in 716.3. Clearly the game state HAS changed, because the game counts the number of skill activations. But it's still a fragmented loop, because nothing currently cares about that number. Same for cards drawn. The fact that the loop stretches across turns doesn't matter either.

amazing question.

First, let's make it clear that the game doesn't force a draw.

104.4b [...] Loops that contain an optional action don’t result in a draw.

Let's also make it clear that the two players are individually doing something acceptable:

716.5. No player can be forced to perform an action that would end a loop other than actions called for by objects involved in the loop.

It's their combined actions that create a weird scenario, and boy it's a weird one. The closest rules for resolving this are:

716.3. Sometimes a loop can be fragmented, meaning that each player involved in the loop performs an independent action that results in the same game state being reached multiple times. If that happens, the active player (or, if the active player is not involved in the loop, the first player in turn order who is involved) must then make a different game choice so the loop does not continue.

And from the Infraction Procedure Guide (used in tournaments with a REL above regular),

It is also slow play if a player continues to execute a loop without being able to provide an exact number of iterations and the expected resulting game state.

In a casual setting, you should mutually accept a draw.
In a competitive setting, I think you'd be at the mercy of a judge. Neither of those is a rules is a perfect match, so a judge should probably do nothing at all, but they're close enough that he might decide to meddle (invoking either or both of those rules).
The latter rule was applied to a deck with Emrakul that self-milled. This of course, is a different situation, since both players are involved in extending the game.
The first rule is close enough that it might be enforced. The game state after the second graveyard shuffle is not 100% identical to the game state after the first graveyard shuffle because Chronatog's opponent has a different hand, but a judge might rule that it is close enough to enact 716.3, forcing you to stop Chronatog's opponent from discarding Emrakul. I doubt it, though.
Wizard's Rules Q&A forum has many judges, including one capable of giving official answers (Natedogg).

If 'chronotog's` ability is activated on its opponents turn, would it cause a difference in who is the one forced to 'break the loop' because of the change in the active player?

oh right. I guess the outcome would be the other way around (will fix in a sec), but it goes to show that 716.3 isn't designed with multi-turn loops in mind.

Why force Chronatog's opponent from discarding Emrakul, instead of forcing Chonatog's player to not activate Chronatog's ability? The problem is because this loop involves several turns, there is no active player.

@Pablo, In all of the turns, only Emrakul's owner is the Active Player. The Chronatog's controller is intentionally skipping all of his turns. (Chrono-stasis decks are fun!)

@ikegami that's a good point, but I'm not sure if it's right. Active player is a term only defined for a turn. Even if every turn the same player is the active player, there is no definition of "active player" in a group of several turns.

@Pablo, That's wrong. There cannot be no active player. There is always an active player. There is one active player in the loop

Since the game has only finitely many cards, eventually the exact same configuration of cards (in hand, order in graveyard, and order in library) must return. However, if Emrakul's owner can net gain a life during each cycle, then it might be possible to have a truly infinite sequence of moves that never returns in the exact same game state.

@Pablo, Yes, it makes no sense because the rules mention no such thing, so stop bringing it up. You've just been repeating the same thing over and over and over again without explaining how this relates, despite numerous attempts. Please delete your comments and write your own answer if you disagree.

@Erik P., An infinite number of monkeys given an infinite amount of time will NOT produce Shakespeare's works. It's a fallacy, and so is your claim that the state must return. I have no idea why you're saying that in reply to my answer?

The one who doesn't want the game to draw is the one who must decide to stop the loop.
We know if a game is in an willing infinite loop (all players choose or are forced to continue it) that does not result in a game win, the game is a draw.
If both players decide to keep the loop going, then the game is a draw. If both players are okay with that outcome, then that is the outcome. If a player would rather the game not draw, perhaps because he believes he has a chance of winning, then he would make the choice to end the loop. There's no mandate that they both need to stop.
Think of it like a game of chicken.

Does it make any difference if it's a tournament and one player is 1-0 up? Obviously that player is not too unhappy for the infinite loop to continue until time is called. The other player definitely doesn't want to go to time, but neither does he want to end the loop if this also would result in a loss..

While technically it's not actually illegal to play for time if you're taking your turns in a reasonable amount of time, judges are human, and many would in fact threaten you with a DQ for stalling if you're seriously intending to drag the match out to time with no effort to win the game.  Especially at non-premier events where your officials may not be zealous memorizers of every nuance.  Chronatog player is basically gambling on what the head judge thinks of his scheme.