text:
How many times can I use The Shiny Orb?
Say I'm playing a Vampiric Race and have The Shiny Orb. Another player has a ton of territories with only single units in them adjacent to me. Can I use vampire to take one and then The Shiny Orb to take another?
What about if I am a Magic race and have The Shiny Orb? Can I effectively use it twice on each opponent? Twice total on two different opponents?
My confusion arises because in the "shorthand rules" for The Shiny Orb it specifies once per turn per opponent, but in the rule book it says once per opponent. It also says that it counts the same as Vampirism in the full rules.

The rulebook (page 14) states that the Shiny Orb can only be used once per turn.  Nothing about per opponent.  You can use it but once each turn.
You can use it in addition to the Vampire power (which can be used once per opponent per turn.
If you are Magic, then you can use it one additional time, on the same or different opponent.


text:
How does Jester interact with the Knights?
Each of the Knights has a different name. If someone reveals a Knight when I play a Jester, can I gain a Knight, or do I gain nothing since there isn't a second Dame Anne (or whomever) available in the supply?

The same situation arises if there are none of those cards left in the supply or when the card is gained via some other specific card (tournament prizes & black market)

The Golden Rule of Dominion is "do as much as you can".
If no copies of a card exist (e.g. because they've all been trashed) then no card is given out by a Jester.
Since Knights are unique cards, no-one gains anything when a Jester reveals one.

This is what we thought, and how we played it, but we couldn't find a definitive answer in the rules for either card.

As @swbarnes2's comment indicates, this answer is not quite complete; Dame Josephine is a Victory card, so in that particular case, her owner gains a Curse.

If Dame Jospheine is revealed, she is a Victory card,so that triggers the first text on Jester, and the player owning her gets a Curse.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Does the Paladin count as an adventurer for the purposes of the Magic Key spell?
Do Paladins count as Adventurers?
Year one, I kill the Paladin, and no adventurers.
Year two, the first spell is Magic Key (a slow spell):

Discard one of your imprisoned adventurers (if you have any).

Assuming I can't kill an adventurer and/or all the magic users, do I lose my first year paladin?

The Paladin hates it when people lump him in with mere "adventurers" - he thinks he's better than that - but he totally is one.

Good question! From the FAQ: What rules and cards affect the paladin in combat?

The paladin is still an adventurer, so
  anything that affects adventurers
  affects him (including traps and
  attacks that damage all adventurers).

So in your example, you lose your Paladin. Dungeon Lords is indeed a brutal game...

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


text:
How does Le Havre compare with Agricola?
At my gaming group, we are looking into getting a new boardgame. We're all relative novices with boardgames but not with games in general.
Among our options are two games that seem rather similar: Le Havre and Agricola. They're designed by the same guy and offer similar mechanics (different theme though). Even though Agricola seems more popular and has a better overall score at the BoardGameGeek, there are quite a lot of people that describe Le Havre as an upgrade to Agricola.
We have watched some introductory videos and have become familiar with the basics of the rules in each one, but obviously we can't get a real feel of them until we've tried them.
So, how do the games compare with each other? We're looking for information that's not immediately obvious, such as setup time, how much fiddling with bits and other bookkeeping there is, game flow, downtime, complexity of decisions, tactics vs strategy, extent of player interaction etc.
We are not looking for subjective opinions (unless they can be backed up somewhat) or obvious things that can be observed without playing the game, such as theme, mechanics, rules etc.

To start with Le Havre is a port town in France...

I've played Agricola (my favourite game) about a million times, and Le Havre only once so far.  But I'll give you some of my basic impressions.
Agricola and Le Havre are much more similar to each other than, for example, to other Uwe Rosenberg games like Bohnanza and At The Gates Of Loyang.  Both are about creating a working food engine in an environment of resource scarcity and then making whatever profit you can on top of that.
The key differences, as I see it are these: in Agricola, the resource tiles come out in a partially randomized but largely predictable order.  Once they're out, they're not "owned" by any player: if you're the start player, you get first dibs, but that's all.  In Le Havre, though, the development of the game can be intimately shaped by the players, because they choose which resource spaces to buy and introduce to the game.  Who owns that space is then a consideration - you may desperately desire a resource but desperately not want to pay its owner for it!  In addition, there's quite a nice mechanic in Le Havre that means you can sit on a resource square and thus deprive other desperate players from using it - though quite often you have much more important things for your people to be doing than sitting around, of course...
This makes Le Havre sound much deeper and more interesting than Agricola so far, and it's true, if you're a fan of games on the Caylus end of the complexity spectrum, then Le Havre may be more appealing to you.  But of course, Agricola has some tricks of its own up its sleeve.  Le Havre is completely lacking in an analogue to Agricola's "Occupation" and "Minor Improvement" cards", which are basically hands of cards that are private to each player, and which can exert dramatic effects on the game.  Now, some people HATE these cards: because they add a big whack of randomness to the game, especially if you just deal them out and don't draft them or anything.  I personally like them: they ensure that every game of Agricola is really different, even if, yes, sometimes someone will play a busted Occupation card for their first move and it'll be a huge uphill struggle for everyone else to win for the rest of the game.
Personally, and please forgive me for entering into subjective territory for my final paragraph, so far I prefer Agricola because the theme and mechanics mesh more satisfactorily for me.  Assembling a "food engine" just seems like a more appropriate occupation for a farmer in the Dark Ages than a businessman in an industrial port!  Plus the Occupations and Improvements, with their cartoony illustrations and all, bring the world of Agricola to life with greater verve than the world of Le Havre.  And Agricola is still a fantastic little game, mechanically, if you don't mind the randomness for the card deal.  Le Havre takes a bit longer, is a bit more complex, has a bit more interaction, and has enough randomness to keep things interesting but almost certainly not enough to give any player a significant advantage through sheer "luck of the draw".  I feel like Le Havre was an attempt to improve the Agricola experience for really hardcore gamers, and it does succeed!  But it's still Agricola I want to bring out all the time, saving Le Havre for special occasions.

Thank you for your answer. Also, there's no need to apologise for stating your personal opinion, I was just being a bit too uptight in the question to make sure it wouldn't be closed.

"Le Havre was an attempt to improve the Agricola experience for really hardcore gamers" That's what I'm looking for :-) Le Havre now in my top of the "Must have" list :-)

I've never played Le Havre.  One thing about Agricola that really appeals to our group is that it plays well for all the supported numbers of players, including 2.  How well does Le Havre support different numbers of players?

I 've played both games several times (don't really like Agricola, I 'm a Caylus/Le Havre guy); this answer is a really accurate and objective description. Well worth the +1.

@thesunneversets gives a fantastic overview, so I just have this to add: I've found that it's easier to meet your basic food needs in Le Havre than in Agricola. In Le Havre, you're making a profit while trying not to forget about collecting enough food. In Agricola, you're trying to collect food and occasionally making a profit, which is quite appropriate for a farming game.
I've only played each game once, but some of my gaming group has played both games much more, and I'm passing along their opinion along with my own.

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


text:
What expansions for Carcassonne add variety without changing the character too much?
I've been playing a fair amount of Carcassonne with the basic tiles and the original River expansion. What other expansion packs will add a bit of variety to the game but without changing the character too much? I've heard Inns and Cathedrals is pretty good but don't know about any of the others. I'm especially interested in any that work well with 2 players.

there is a very thorough explanation of the biggest three Carcassonne expansions, and how each affects the game: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/2374/how-do-the-expansions-for-carcassone-change-the-game/2376#2376

Carcassonne: Traders & Builders
The chance with the builder to draw two tiles can make a huge impact on the game so it adds a dimension all on it's own. I however personally prefer not playing with the Traders part (the cloth, wine and grain tokens) just the builder and the tiles.
Carcassonne: Bridges, Castles, and Bazaars
Bridges makes for some interesting escapes and castles is a new fun thing to do with those small cities. As above I preferably skip parts of this expansion which is Bazaars (tile auction).
Carcassonne: Inns & Cathedrals
Pretty straight forward expansion that adds Inns (a road with an inn somewhere along it's path is worth 2 points when complete (0 if left unfinished) per tile. Cathedrals are in cities and makes the city tiles worth 3 points if completed (0 if not completed) per tile. Great ways to remove others points if drawn late in the game. Also the big meeple/guy is in here iirc.
Carcassonne: The River II
This one, unlike first expansion can split and create two streams.
Finally I just recently started added Carcassonne: The Cult to my bag. Works just like cloisters but if you put it next to a cloister only the one scoring first gets any points. So far it's fun but it's only some 5 tiles or so.

Thanks for this great list, @Don. I already have Inns and The River, but I just ordered Traders, Bridges and the River II, and skipping the other major expansions. I'm also getting a few mini-expansions: King & Scout and Cults, Castles & Creativity. Most of the other expansions look to me like they mostly take away from the core gameplay, and your answer confirmed that these were the important ones.

@Andrew, see the link in first comment below the question re detailed explanations on some of the expansions and how they influence the game.

The only expansion I have besides the original River is Inns & Cathedrals, but I'd say it's a necessity. In addition to ramping up the stakes and adding some interesting tiles, it adds the big meeple, with adds a lot of fun to hostile takeovers.

My wife and I regularly play with Inns & Cathedrals and Traders & Builders.  We're mostly interested in having more tiles for a longer game, but the extra rules do add some variety.  We sometimes ignore the expansion rules and just use the tiles, especially if we're feeling lazy or playing with less experienced players.
Inns & Cathedrals
We use this one primarily for the extra tiles and the big Meeple.  A lakeside inn has little effect in 2p unless one player finds a way to hog them and complete those roads.  We score more total points, but they're usually split evenly.  A cathedral becomes a late game screw-you tile in 2p (our games get kinda cutthroat).  Play it on a big city to make it unfinishable and thus worth 0 points.
Traders & Builders
The builder meeple is critical in 2p.  You have to make good use of him or else the other player is going to run away with the extra turns.  As for trade goods, I usually see them as an equalizer against bad tile draws.  You can finish your opponent's city in exchange for a chance at +10 or even +20 points at endgame.  That's not always a good play in 3+ player games, but it can help a lot in 2p.  Assuming one of every trade good ends up in a completed city, somebody is going to at least get a 10 point advantage.  That's a big deal in 2p games.

Carcassonne is one of the most expanded board games around. Last time I checked there were 8 full expansions, and 10 mini-expansions. The River is an example of a mini-expansion, and Inns and Cathedrals an example of a full expansion.
I have only played a few of these expansions, so cannot offer my view of them all, but when choosing an expansion, I went for Traders and Builders. It adds a little more dynamism to the game by encouraging cities to be completed sooner, and makes farming more beneficial. This generally suits my preferred style of game, which is why we bought it.
The other expansion bring different dynamics to the game. I would encourage you to check out the link below, and see which one sounds good to you, and hopefully others who have used other expansions can tell you their findings as well.
A full list can be found here.

I would highly recommend the Inns and Cathedrals for a reason no one has listed that I've seen. If you play with Inns and Cathedrals, it allows you to play with 6 players. I often like to invite a couple of couples over to play board games with us, and 5 players is a rather odd number to be playing with...
I would take the recommendations of getting at least the first two expansions (Inns and Cathedrals and Traders & Builders), any of the other ones are just icing on the cake;-)

I add something from my own experience:
Abbey and Mayor
It adds a lot of variety in my opinion.
It introduces a "super cloister", a "super knight" and the "wagon" that is very interesting. Needs experienced player in my opinion
The Ferries
Some road fun finally.
I agree on the above answer with River ( combine 1 and 2) and Bridges, inn and cathedrals, builders and Traders, castles are a must have.
With all above you have already a lot of tiles, fun rules, and no nonsenses.
Expansion that i have and i do not recommend:
-Princess and dragon
-Tower
Basically those are based on meeple removal that is a feature id do not like.
Also keeping track of the fairy is so annoying.
Interesting point from princess and dragon is that it adds 30 tiles to game, so maybe it can be bought for this.
Other mini expansion ( 1 - 2 and 4 and 6 ) looks like useless.
Bazars

Inns & Cathedrals is essential. It's a great expansion containing meeples for a 6th player, the big meeple, and some nice extra tiles. Traders and builders is also good. It contains the builder and trade goods. Both these expansions are really good and are sensible to get as your first expansions. Next could be Abbey & Mayor, which contains the mayor, the barn, the abbey and the cart.
Well, when You have couple of expansions (four or more) they could destabilize the entire game. Since only one exp add features to roads (and road sucks with official exp's), You could print some exp from carcassonne central. Roads to Victory, Seasons, or By the Order od King, they adds very much to game.

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


text:
How long does it take to play Le Havre with different numbers of players?
BoardGameGeek says Le Havre takes about 150 minutes, but I'm curious if the time varies with the number of players as it does in Puerto Rico and Agricola. Approximately how long does it take to play Le Havre with 2, 3, 4, and 5 people?

The rules say this (for the long version.  I don't play the short version and don't know anyone who does).
Players   Minutes(Rules)    My estimates
1           60               Depends on YOU (30-300)
2          120                 90
3          180                135
4          200                180
5          210                225

I've played about 20 games with at least a sampling of all player sizes.  I don't think Solo is worth considering time-wise.  You'll spend however much time you want, nobody will be uncomfortably shifting in their chairs or humming the Jeopardy theme song to hurry you up.
From experience I can tell you that a 2 person game runs 90 minutes if you are both fairly familiar with the game and have a good setup procedure.  If, when you last played you dumped all the components in the box without organizing them, add an extra 30 minutes...
Each player after that is going to add a fairly static amount.  Perhaps 45 minutes.
This assume mythical standard players of course!  :)  If anything Le Havre is going to bring out the worst in the players that like to know they are making the right move by calculating out as many possibilities as they can.
Each additional player is going to add a good amount of time to the game.  Le Havre is also difficult to plan ahead.  Your options can really shift depending on what the other players do.  Unlike say, Agricola, where you may know on certain turns what you have to do (like acquire food) or Puerto Rico (time to SHIP!), Le Havre doesn't really have forcing actions.  There are always options.
The player right in front of you can easily open up options by buying a building unexpectedly, or moving off of a crucial building.  They can also screw you up by sitting on a needed building for a third dang turn!  I find that these sorts of things happen quite often which doesn't reward folks for thinking ahead (at least in terms of reducing the time it takes to play the game).  It's likely that folks with more experience than me will see more gains here.

Humming the Jeopardy song? I pull it up on m.YouTube :)

@TheChaz - Linked up my reference.  Some folks I know have been known to do this :)

It's 30-60 minutes for player, very much like Agricola. This is in the Wikipedia article, but I think it says it on the box too. The rules (zipped pdf from the publisher) have a time/rounds per player table with the conservative estimate (60 minutes per player) for the full game, along with a ~30 minutes per player estimate for the shortened version (20, 45, 120, 130, 150 minutes).


text:
Which resources are better at the start of a Catan game?
Is it better to start with Wheat and Ore in order to rapidly upgrade settlements into cities, or is it better to start with Wood and Brick to build roads?

As a counterpoint to ICodeForCoffee's answer: I much prefer having access to brick and wood on initial settlements.
Initial brick and wood allow you to get to more positions on the map, to increase your ore and corn income. Initial corn and ore allow you to build cities, which get you... more corn and ore.
If you start on corn and ore, you can find yourself locked out of the other resources (brick and wood) much more easily than if you start on brick and wood.

I would suggest trying to start the game by diversifying your resources and numbers.  While I've started games without any access to brick, it usually limits my ability to expand, and keeps me from building out as fast as the other players.  How you start affect what your going to do.  You'll also have to select sites that are available, since no matter what order you place your settlements, you never get to cherry pick the two best spots on the board.  Grain and Ore help you build cities, but you still need to get more settlements you can grow into cities.
I prefer having access to grain, ore, and sheep on my better numbers, and having access to wood and brick on my slightly less common numbers.  I try to diversify myself through expansion, although I will settle for multiple instances of a resource if the numbers are good, and there is easy access to a port for those resources.  This is a game strategy though, and while you can win this way, it's difficult.
For a beginning player, I would suggest making sure you have access to brick and wood.  It helps you out immensely and doesn't make you feel stalled in the beginning part of the game.  I like getting access to a 6 chit or an 8 chit with different resources for each of my initial settlements, but only if the settlement locations I'm taking look useful.  Definitely avoid building your initial settlements on the coast if the location doesn't have a port.  You're reducing the number of resource tiles you have access too, and don't get a port in return.
As a note, I asked a very similar question when we first started the beta for the site, How do you place your initial settlements in Settlers of Catan?
Once you've played your settlements, I suggest first getting new settlements before going to cities and development cards.  Definitely though, if you have the resources to build a city, do it.  While early expansion is good, using your resources before the robber comes and reduces your hand size is a much better strategy then throwing things you want away.

It is a mistake to choose one strategy.  The nature of the game - with the random placement of tiles, the assigned numbers, and the locations of ports - requires a player to adapt to the current situation and apply any number of strategies.  Another variable is the order you draw to place your first settlement - if you are first, it might require a completely different strategy than if you are last - depending on the settlement locations that are available to you.

+1: Flexibility is a huge key to winning Catan, adapting to the current situation is essential.

Both strategies can be successful - as discussed in this question your strategy should be based on the initial settlements you are able to get.
Roughly, if you have easy access to Brick and Wood, going for long roads and many settlements can be a good idea.  On the other hand, if you have easy access to Wheat and Ore, you'll want to emphasize upgrading your settlements to cities.

Wheat and ore.
Your first city gives you far more dots of production than your third settlement. A starting settlement can have thirteen dots of production, while your third settlement rarely breaks seven dots.
After you get your first city or two up, you can trade your valuable city materials to other players for clay and wood. 1-1 trades are pretty common, especially for wheat, but your production is so strong that you can afford imbalanced ratios (say, 3 ore for 1 clay and 1 wood).
Do be careful you don't get boxed out completely---you usually need to build two more settlements over the course of the game, if only to upgrade to cities for the VPs. If you're conservative about your initial road placement, this isn't hard to engineer, but it is a danger.

Building a city before building your third settlement does bring in the advantage of more income. If your three target junctions are 12, 10, and 7, a settlement and city bring you income on 34 pips, while three settlement bring you 29 pips. BUT! By building a third settlement
a) helps to limit your opponents' options, by occupying a vacant junction, and by building two additional roads, which limit opponents' road building opportunities
b) often increases your variety of resources
c) contributes to your future effort towards longest road
d) offers protection against the robber by making less juicy targets. Not only do you lose, say only 5 pips versus 10, but you may avoid getting the robber entirely when someone else has a city (a bigger target) and you don't.
e) probably brings you closer to a trading port, which can be critical in the middlegame.
Overall, I've had much better luck with the third settlement strategy rather than the 'city as soon as possible strategy'.
Wrt another strand in this thread, I've had excellent luck going after development cards right away. Having several cards often makes you immune to the robber--either you can move it if someone puts it on you, or knowing (or believing) you can move it means other players often pick on someone else. Second, and obviously, largest army means two points it's great to have. Third, you often pick up a victory point card or two. Fourth, you often get back the resources you spend, through road building and monopoly cards, or in resources that diverting roober helps you gain.
I don't think resource cards are the best strategy, but they definitely shouldn't be sneered at, a steady stream of them can help you cripple your closest opponent, and if you find yourself with limited mobility it can be a very viable way to win.

Development Cards! These can seem less rewarding in terms of sustainable resource generation, but if you find yourself without road components, buy development cards! Knights can give you some control and protection along with 2 VP's, and the other cards can help you out quite a bit if well-used. Playing Monopoly after a big score of ore or brick can be very satisfying for you, and demoralizing for the other players.

Diversify! Don't compromise on starting with high numbers and 6 separate tiles, unless you are getting two of a 6 or 8, or a port for an item you are set to get a lot of. You're also much better off with a spread of numbers: if you can, sit on a 6 and an 8 instead of two 8's. Spread out with settlements if you can before upgrading to cities. Ore is, for this reason, okay to miss at the beginning.

Generally, you should go for the colonies.  However, you have more option if you still get all resources, just trying to have more frequent number for wood and brick.
The good colonies spot may be gone fast.  If you first upgrade your city, they might not be there.  Also, more colonies can bring complementary resources when cities when only gave you what you already have.
There is a special case, when the wood or brick all have extreme number (2,3, 11 or 12), it will be hard for all player to get road and colonies.  In that case, you should first invest in development cards, which will allow you to get an edge in development.

Many experts will say that ore wheat sheep is a more robust strategy that brick and wood.
Studies have shown that brick and wood based strategies (featuring longest road) win only slightly more than ore wheat sheep strategies(featuring largest army). Except for one caveat.
Every player starts with two settlements and two roads. In resource terms, every player gets four wood, four brick, two sheep, two wheat, and no ore at the beginning. So if a brick and wood strategy wins "barely" more often than ore wheat sheep, then the second strategy has come (further) from behind.
Another way to look at it is to realize that you get one victory point for building settlements, and one victory point for upgrading them to cities. You get two victory points for longest road and two for largest army. So far, those effect balance. But you can also win by drawing development cards that give you victory points. That tips the balance in favor of the ore wheat sheep strategy.
But the best way is to use a five (or four) resource strategy that keeps your options open until late in the game.

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


text:
Is it better to pick up a Chapel or Steward?
Consider a game where both Chapel and Steward are present.

If the copper split is 4/3, is it better to pick up a Chapel or a Steward?
Can you think of any situations where you'd pick up Steward if the split was 5/2?

I would (almost) always prefer Chapel.
Honestly, if Chapel's on the board, I will buy it before my first shuffle, almost no matter what. This is because I love putting together combos, and Chapel is the fastest way to thin a deck, which then removes most of the chance from getting a combo to go off.
@ColinD's 5/2 hypotheticals all sound playable. (Steward/Fool's Gold sounds especially fun to me, especially if you can get another cheap card with +Buy.) But in every one of those cases, I think Chapel would work better than Steward. For example, in the Fool's Gold case, you can literally trash everything but Fool's Gold (and the Chapel) very quickly. If you can pick up a Market or two (or anything with +Buy) you'll soon buy out the Fool's Golds -- and that's the point when you want card draw. After the Fool's Gold pile is empty is the appropriate time to pick up an action for card-draw, though hopefully there's something better than Steward's +2 Cards.
The thing about Chapel is that it makes your deck fast. If you open Chapel/Silver and start trashing like crazy (and if you open with a Chapel you must buy something else that produces coin or gains cards), pretty soon you'll be down to a 7 or 8-card deck with no chaff. The good cards you've bought come up again really quick. It's fine if your non-Chapeling opponent has 2 Golds and you only have one if you're playing yours almost every turn! The situation is even better for terminal actions: a single Goons in an 8-card deck is much better than 2 Goons in a 16-card deck because it'll come up just as frequently and there's absolutely no risk of collision. This is why Chapel is so good at setting up engines: the engine cards are about the only ones in your deck, so they come up together every time.
Decide up front if you're going to use Chapel; if you are, buy it before the first shuffle. Waiting for an unlucky $2 hand defeats the purpose of Chapel: speed. With Chapel, you want to trash all the Coppers and Estates ASAP, and if you've waited a few turns and already bought several other cards you want to hang on to, you've already missed the boat on the Chapel.

When not to use Chapel:
Don't use Chapel for a Big Money. Big Money + Chapel is slightly slower than just Big Money.
Chapel is great because it can trash 4 cards at a time. Chapel is not great when your hand is small. If you've discarded down to 3 cards, your Chapel is now a crappy Steward, lacking the options that round Steward out into a useful card. Chapel is fast enough that expensive discard attacks (especially Goons ($6), but also Ghost Ship ($5) and Margrave ($5)) aren't too concerning. (Torturer even less so, just take the curse and immediately trash it.) But Militia and even Cutpurse can get in the way. This is especially true in > 2-player games where you have more than one opponent causing you to discard. If you almost always have a hand with < 5 cards, Steward is probably a better choice than Chapel.
Jack-of-All-Trades can also compete with Chapel. Chapel will be much more effective at setting up an engine, but it needs to be a darn good engine to beat "doublejack" (Big Money + 2 Jack-of-All-Trades).
@User1873 astutely pointed out that you need to consider available card-stealing/trashing attacks in evaluating Chapel. Thief, Noble Brigand, Pirate Ship, etc. steal/trash treasures and make a Chapel strategy riskier. A lucky attack or two could leave you in the unfortunate situation of needing to buy Coppers to afford a Silver! Any heavy trashing increases your treasure density so much as to make treasure-stealing cards very appealing. Masquerade can also make you give up good cards if they're the only ones left in your deck. Like the drawback of discarding attacks, the risks are exacerbated if several opponents are using stealers.

I've had great luck with Chapel/Fool's Gold before. Definitely would have to reconsider the strategy with treasure stealing cards on the board, though.

It depends on what other supply cards you want in your deck and what attack cards are present on the board.
Chapel is powerful because you can use it trash your entire starting deck in a couple of turns. The downfall is that in the short term, for those couple of turns your buys will be either non-existent or will be very low. If you buy a chapel, do not count on getting to $5-6 early. If you absolutely do not want coppers and estates this is the card to get.
Steward is a little bit more rounded. Its trash curve is slower and will involve you having to pick between trashing or playing it for one of its other options each turn. This can help you get to $5-6 sooner which can be extremely powerful.
strategies for 5/2 opening steward buy: disclaimer, these are heavily supply specific and were generated off the top of my head:
One situation where I might pick up a steward on a 5/2 is for a steward & embargo opening. I would then proceed to place embargo tokens onto steward. I would only consider this if steward was the only trash card in the supply.
Steward + fools gold sounds pretty fun. Use the trash early to trash non-fools golds, leaving u with 2 cards that can hopefully buy you more fools gold. Later in the game, use it for the draw power to draw fools gold.
Another situation I might consider is steward + squire if there are good attacks on the board. The first couple turns, you should trash coppers and estates while picking up more squires. then start trashing them and picking up attack cards (this will work especially great with cultist).

Chapel is obviously better for trashing, but Steward has many other uses
The ability to trash down quickly is very powerful, and good Chapel play generally is aggressive Chapel play, destroying as many cards as possible in the first few. But Steward is so flexible, that it is well worth considering in many decks.
If both Steward and Chapel are available and I have $3 to spend on the first turn, I would have to look carefully at the rest of the board before making my decision. For example, if Mountebank is on the board and there isn't huge engine potential, I would take Steward/Silver instead of Silver/Chapel. The effect of Chapeling down your deck will be mitigated if your opponent is handing you two junk cards every turn.
With Steward/Silver, if you draw the Steward with four coppers in the next shuffle, take the Mountebank. if the Steward comes up with 2 estates and 2 coppers, then just trash the estates. There's a lot of flexibility.
What about the 5/2 split?
If both Chapel and Steward are on the board and you open 5/2 ... the thing is, it's harder to justify taking the Steward over the Chapel because the comparison will be
[power 5 card] + [Chapel]
versus
[Steward] + [nothing]
Most board have 5-cost cards that are very powerful, and by themselves they might be preferable to Steward.
If Dukes are out (especially in 2 player games) I would consider Steward better than Chapel for sure. I would NOT get a Chapel in a Duke game because Copper isn't bad at picking up Duchies or Dukes. The Steward remains a solid choice because you can trash your starting estates, or use it for +2 Cards to cycle faster, or more likely use it for +$2 to get enough cash to purchase a Duchy or Duke later on. In 2p games, I would say that 70% of the time when Duke is out you want to go for a Duke strategy over Provinces.
If you interpret the question a little more broadly, it is definitely better to pick up Steward over Chapel if Hunting Party is on the board. However, I would still open Hunting Party / nothing, and then get Steward in turns 3 or 4. Hunting Party decks don't need much trashing, and the Steward will suffice in getting rid of the starting estates so the Hunting Parties will run much smoother.
To play this Hunting Party deck, you'd buy LOTS of Hunting Parties, 1 gold, 1 silver, 1 steward, and once you have a critical mass of Hunting Parties plunge for Provinces. But you do NOT want diversity here. Steward will act as Trash 2 until the estates are out, and then switch to +$2 to get Provinces. (1 gold + 1 silver + 1 copper + Steward = Province)
With that said, Steward is an average payload for a Hunting Party deck, and more often than not there will be a card better than Steward out there to use.


text:
Do "play immediately" cards in the zombie turn affect the number of cards a zombie player will have in his hand?
This is probably a silly question, but I've just read the rulebook of "Last Night on Earth", and need a small clarification: the rulebook says that a zombie player must draw up to two cards at the start of his/her turn. It also says that the player must play immediately any "Play Immediately" cards that he/she draws from the zombie deck.
If I have no cards in hand, and one of the the cards I draw is a "Play Immediately" card - do I draw another card, so I'll have two cards in my hand, or does this count as though I've already drawn two cards?

When playing as the zombie, you first fill your hand of cards (4 cards if there is 1 zombie player, 2 cards if there are 2 zombie players). After drawing all cards, you then decide in which order you would like to resolve all of the "play immediately" cards just drawn. After resolving these cards, they are not replaced.


text:
Is the number of cards in my opponent's library public knowledge in Magic: The Gathering?
The number of cards in players' hands is public knowledge, as is the number of exiled cards and cards in anyone's graveyard. But is the number of cards in your library public knowledge at all times as well? This could strongly affect decisions for players who frequently run mill decks.

Yes. From the comprehensive rules:

401.3. Any player may count the number of cards remaining in any player's library at any time.

Note that doing library counts excessively in organized play is grounds for a penalty in the same way that any other time-wasting behavior is. :)

In MTGO every player's library count is always displayed, so there's never any question, nor any need to stop and count.

Note: The rules linked to above is old, but the link names will always change.  The page to find the rules is here:  http://archive.wizards.com/Magic/TCG/Article.aspx?x=magic/rules, with the current rules located here:  http://media.wizards.com/images/magic/tcg/resources/rules/MagicCompRules_20140601.pdf


text:
Why does Mana-Burn exist in Magic: The Gathering?
My understanding of Mana-Burn is that if you have any left over mana in your mana-pool at the end of your turn, you loose that many life. But why is this rule necessary? The only time I see it come into play is when you have cards that give you multiple mana like Dark Ritual and Black Lotus, and isn't wasted mana penalty enough? I can't think of many times when I would purposely want to have extra mana left over in the first place.
When and how does mana burn usually happen? Why was the rule added? How would Magic be different without it?

It should be said that the rule was never "added"; it was part of the rules since Alpha until it was removed with M10.

Mana burn has been removed from the game in the magic 2010 rules update. From the comprehensive rules glossary:

Mana Burn (Obsolete)
Older versions of the rules stated that unspent mana caused a player to lose life; this was called "mana burn." That rule no longer exists.

When the rule was still in effect, you lost all unspent mana in your mana pool at the end of each step and phase (not turn), and you lost life equal to the amount of mana lost.
As for the reason why it was there: As you said, it was meant to punish anyone who didn't manage his or her mana well. Also, there were a few cards that had the mana Burn rule in mind. They would add Mana to a player's pool during on of his/her game phases. Some would reward you for being tapped out or punish the opponent for not being tapped out, mostly in the Prophecy edition.
Why was it removed? As you noted as well, it was practically irrelevant a rule as it only very rarely happened, and when it happened, it confused most players about the details of how it worked exactly.

Mana burn was removed on July 11, 2009, with the introduction of the M10 rules changes. http://www.wizards.com/magic/magazine/article.aspx?x=mtg/daily/feature/42a

@Hackworth, What if you're not playing standard and need to deal with "mana burn" cards? E.g. https://i.sstatic.net/vM1dt.jpg How do we treat  these cards then?

@Pacerier When a card has a trigger for an event that never happens, that trigger obviously never goes off. But if you are playing with custom cards anyway, then you might as well reinstate mana burn as a house rule.

@Pacerier The only cards (and someone can correct me if I am wrong) that were ever printed involving mana burn told you to ignore the rule, like Upwelling. Cards like the custom card you put out just don't exist, and thus the situation of cards like that no longer working don't exist either. Only cards like Piracy were really affected - since there no longer was a penalty for tapping your lands in response, people reacted to it differently.

Mana burn is no longer a part of the game as the other answers point out so well. However, I feel like I have a definitive answer to "Why was the rule added?"
In episode #4 of his game design podcast - Games With Garfield - Richard himself and Skaff Elias comment on the creation of mana burn.
transcript from 05:27 to 06:25

SKAFF: Mana burn really wasn't even in there in the beginning, for the first couple of years we played the game and it kind of crept in because we didn't want people to just go... We needed a mana pool to make sense out of casting... exactly how a card was cast, to try and formalize that, and then some people who were just trying to be jerks (maybe I was one of them) would just dump all their mana into their mana pool so that, you know, it couldn't be disrupted, cause certain things disrupted it back at the time. And, anyway, to sort of prevent that and to prevent people to ever wanting to do that, mana burn was introduced into the game. The clearing of mana out of the pools, and maybe that wasn't good enough so maybe actually take some damage from it. And then from there it took on a life of its own and actually became part of the play of the game.

And Richard Garfield adds:
transcript from 6:26 to 6:47

RICHARD: Certainly, back in the old days there was a point where you could technically, at the start of you turn, just tap all your land and then you'd have all your mana for the whole turn. And the only difference would be that your opponent couldn't tell how much it was, was a pain to keep track of and so forth and so... Mana burn eventually was an answer to that (...)

So, to sum up, it seems that mana burn was created as a game design mechanical fix to avoid memory issues and to avoid some weird situations in the original spell timing rules.

Cool find! It sounds like a combination of memory issues and some of the weirdness related to mana-denial tricks under the batch system ("cause certain things disrupted it back at the time").

@AlexP I only highlighted the memory issues fix, but I'll edit the answer.

I'm curious as to what that weird disruption trick actually is. (Well, was.)

Say you have two islands untapped, and I cast stone rain on one of them with mana left over. Do you tap one before it hits to store the mana to counterspell a creature I cast later? You risk manaburn if you do, as I might not cast the subsequent spell letting you take the damage.

@rahzark, So it has a purpose then. Why was it removed? And since it's removed now does it mean that people can just tap all their lands at the start of the turn?

@Pacerier No, mana empties at the end of every step and phase. Please have a look at the basic rulebook, and post new questions if you have new questions.

The short answer, is "it doesn't happen", as Hackworth has already correctly noted.  MaRo wrote a good article about why it was removed, which you can read here.
Why was it in the game in the first place?  Well, it does make a difference.  Check out cards like Mana Drain and Eladamri's Vineyard.  Mana Drain is less powerful (though only marginally - it's still a beating) with mana burn; without mana burn, it now has no downside over Counterspell whatsoever.  Eladamri's Vineyard is considerably less good than it was - the fun in the old days was giving a non-green deck mana it would have trouble using, hopefully causing burn.  Now the card is much more symmetrical, with very little downside even for a nongreen opponent.
Also look at spells like Branded Brawlers, which "can't block if you control an untapped land".  At the time Prophecy was an interesting set which rewarded you for mana management and tapping out every turn.  Now it's a lot easier to tap out - it doesn't cost you life if you don't have something to do with your mana!  Prophecy as a set is full of cards which look pretty pointless these days.
But really, it was a pretty fiddly rule, which almost never had a significant impact on gameplay, and wasn't really worth the extra bookkeeping it involved.  Most Magic players I think don't really miss it.

It should be noted that a lot of cards that look like they'd be useless without mana burn still have a role to play - usually a smaller niche than what they had before, but they're also easier to include without having to build around them. A player can tap lands freely to avoid the damage from Citadel of Pain, for instance, but it still nicely punishes instant-happy decks that need mana to mess with your turn.

@thesunneversets, What if you're not playing standard and need to deal with "mana burn" cards? E.g. https://i.sstatic.net/vM1dt.jpg How do we treat  these cards then?

@Pacerier That's not a real card. If there were a real card that referenced mana burn, you'd just look at the oracle text of the card (that's the text in Gatherer). Whatever it says there is what you do. As this answer says, that does mean some cards have effectively changed. But I'm not sure there are any real cards that ever explicitly referenced mana burn, except to say that it doesn't happen (like Sakiko).

@Pacerier Per the M2010 rules update only six cards mentioned mana burn: Upwelling; Mindslaver; Mark of Sakiko; Sakiko, Mother of Summer, Sakura-Tribe Springcaller; and Shizuko, Caller of Autumn. All of them are simply saying that certain mana doesn't cause mana burn. The oracle text changes were therefore trivial, just removing that reference. So there are no "mana burn" cards - even if you do have one of those cards that says "mana burn" on the physical card, all you have to do is ignore it.

Mana Web would be another good example of a card influenced by mana burn.

edited the post to add a fix for the auto card link, but needed to make fairly minor changes around it to fit into 6char. Feel free to just fix the url manually


text:
How difficult is Axis and Allies to learn and teach new players?
Axis and Allies seems to be a very popular game to the point where I've even seen copies in Toys 'R Us! Before I jump on the bandwagon, I want to be sure I'll be able to get some use out of it.

How difficult is it to teach new people? Is it the kind of game you need to play several times before you really get it?
Would it be a good game to play with family?
Do you have to be a Game-Geek to have a chance at enjoying it?

Moderate Difficulty
I assume you're talking about A&A Revised or perhaps the 50th edition rules. I mention this because both are slightly more complicated in terms of rules than now obsolete 2nd edition (i.e. the new editions have more units and more special rules).
That said, the following observations should apply across all versions, with the newer ones being marginally more difficult. I'll address how hard it is to teach into a few key categories:
Rules complexity
Axis and Allies is rules intense. I would put the rules complexity about equivalent to Diplomacy. Consider it a full tier above something like Monopoly, Risk, or Clue, but not quite as bad as Arkham Horror. Furthermore, unlike a game like Dominion, where the base mechanic is fairly straightforward and most of the rules are revealed on the cards themselves (i.e. instructions at the point of need), in A&A someone is going to need to have good grasp of the game from the start, or you're all going to be buried in the rule book for the first few games. Be prepared for the first game to take extra time.
Strategy complexity
Although there is a steep learning curve between the novice and expert player, this should not be a problem for a play group learning together. There are optimal buys and well tested strategies, just like in chess. But if none of you know then you'll all learn together; years from now you'll all have a great laugh about the crazy stuff you tried when starting out. So yes, you need to play several times to get it, but unlike some games, I think A&A is fun when you're learning, so it's not like you'll have to put in four or five games for it to pay off.
Game geekery
I don't think you have to be a true game-geek to enjoy it. I've found its appeal is well calibrated with its rules complexity. Casual gamers who only like the most mass market of games will probably be intimated. But you don't have to be a hard core gamer who thinks Arkham or Twilight Imperium are too simple to like it. That is your group will need to want a challenge beyond the most common games, but being a geek not required. An interest in history in general, WWII, or war games helps as well, as the theme in this game is obviously very strong. If your group wish Risk wasn't so simple and boring, this might be a good option.
Family appropriateness
Assuming your family meets the criteria above (ready to graduate to slightly more complicated games) then it might be appropriate. It's a long game, so your family will need to be willing to spend a few hours doing this (or have a big table to leave it set up between sessions). That said, the game is robust to people with different learning curves because it's a team game (Axis vs. Allies). You can team up the strongest and weakest players and/or give the best player the most challenging country. The game is also easy to handicap with bidding.
I say go for it.

I'd disagree that the rules of Diplomacy are equally complex, I've always found new players to pick them up very easily - if only because there are so many less pieces and variations!

You point about Risk is good though, I find it far too shallow after Diplomacy/A&A.

@jon Good point re Diplomacy. I may have let my familiarity with A&A and lack of with Diplomacy bias my assessment. If you have another suggestion at closer parity I'll edit my answer accordingly.

I think you mean "intimidated" (probably be intimated) :)

In terms of rules, Diplomacy is one of the simplest 'war' games around.

How difficult is it to teach new people? Is it the kind of game you need to play several times before you really get it?

Axis & Allies is a turn-based game. When it's a player's turn, she goes through a series of steps to complete her turn, after which it is the next person's turn. There are a number of distinct tasks that can be performed during a turn and mastering that sequence takes at least one detailed reading of the rulebook along with a fair amount of practice time. But once you have the turn mechanics mastered, the game moves very quickly.
So to answer your question, if you are well-versed at the game it can take a little while to get a new player up to speed. It also requires a bit of patience because it will take the new player some time to get in the groove and it will take a bit of time for them to complete their turns!

Would it be a good game to play with family?

If you have family members that enjoy lengthy, turn-based games, then yes. My family enjoys games, but more along the lines of card games or fast-paced board games. Spending 15-30 minutes setting everything up, just to start playing is not something any of my family members would subject themselves to!

Do you have to be a Game-Geek to have a chance at enjoying it?

I don't think so. I love the game and I'm not remotely close to what you'd call a board game geek.
A Good First Step - Play Online
Before you invest in the board game, it might be worthwhile to first read the rulebook and then try the game out online. That way you can get a feel for the turn-based mechanism and see if it's a type of game you (or your family) would enjoy.
You can play the 2nd Edition of Axis & Allies online (for free) at http://gamesbyemail.com/Games/WW2. (It's not an interactive game - rather, you make a move and then your opponent is notified. He can then make his move at his leisure, after which you'll be notified.) And you can read the 2nd Edition rulebook at http://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/rules/axis.pdf. If you're interested, drop me a line and I'd be happy to play a game with you and offer any advice or answer any questions you have during our play.
Granted, playing online is no substitute for playing it in-person, as you lose the social dynamic, but the nice thing about online play is that you don't have to commit 15-30 minutes for setup nor do you have to set aside a big block of time to play the game start to finish.

It's not that difficult to learn at a base level, but the large ruleset, range of move variations and many pieces definitely needs everyone's attention and interest from the start.
The first time I tried with a couple of 'game geek' friends, we spent an hour and a half setting it up and reading the instructions, only to realise we'd never finish a full game that evening anyway. Set aside time for a good few trail runs.
I see no reason why it wouldn't make a good family game, maybe not so much with some younger kids due to it's complexity.
One persons geekery is another persons passion but it is definitely is at the more complex end of the gaming spectrum. It would also possibly help if you are a fan of war games already - can you tell your British Cruisers from your Japanese Battleships?!
If you haven't already, it might be worth trying Risk, or Diplomacy first (the latter is my personal all-time favourite).

This is not an easy game to pick up. It takes several hours to learn, or at least learn well. It's multifaceted, with diplomatic, military, and economic considerations. Then playing could take the better part of a day. Best left for a long weekend or say, cruise vacation.
It would be a good game for MY family. But that's because we're all game geeks.


text:
Battlestar Galactica vs. Shadows over Camelot
I've seen these games compared very often, with steadfast advocates on each side. link1 link2 link3  I'm mainly concerned with:

depth of strategy
suitability for new players (length of time to explain, etc.)
overall feel of the game
what situations you would recommend playing each of them in.
anything else you think should be included in regards to comparing and contrasting them

Some things I've noticed:

Shadows supports more and fewer people better, and seems to be easier to understand.
Both are Cooperative with the traitor mechanic.
Battlestar seems to be the 'improved' version of Shadows. (What's really improved that was 'wrong' in Shadows?)

your link didn't make it here so I removed the cruft.  Can you re-add it?

I played BSG once and didn't really enjoy it (though I was quite drunk, and in no state to understand the intricacies of the rules!)  On the other hand, I like the look of Shadows and have been wondering if I'd enjoy it.  If anyone can provide an answer that explains if Shadows might be a good game for someone who had a negative response to BSG... I shall be generous with my upvotes!

One thing I noticed is that Shadows is much more... unfocused.  There are a ton of quests all over the board, and the players are going to be split up doing various things the whole time.  They're not much interacting with each other, just responding to the general board conditions and their own quests.
In Battlestar, you still have multiple threats (4 dials, 3 kinds of Cylon ships, Cylon boarders) but it seems like you're all working together more against these threats.  Perhaps it's the fact that the roles (Political/Military/Pilot) make it clear that each person is most useful in one area (whereas in Shadows it feels like any character can do any quest, mostly).
Most of all, though, the fact that all players are actively involved in every skill check that happens gives Battlestar much more interaction - there's more opportunity to really sabotage, but more opportunity to be exposed, and the Brig offers a way to "hedge your bets" and contain someone you suspect to be a traitor.
I also really like the second round (Sleeper Agent phase) in Battlestar, where some players may discover they're a traitor after all.  This means nobody's past behavior can totally prove anything, and that in the first round nobody really wants to do TOO well as a human, lest they turn out Cylon and be hopelessly behind.
When Jeff declined to help us pass that skill check, was he really out of green cards?  Or is he a Cylon?  OR is he a human, but afraid he'll end up Cylon and lose to the humans?

Must admit that I hate it when players are playing badly because they might turn later. It just feels a bit cheep in my mind. In the games I have played the cylons never have had any problems winning even if all has played their best.

@Skadlig The general opinion seems to be that the Cylons always win the first few times you play, after which it gradually switches the other way. That's anecdotally how it's working for my group as well.

I find that unless all players focus on a single plan, it's very easy to lose quests in Shadows.

When it comes to the traitor function I think that the games are quite different. When the traitor wins in Shadows I tend to feel betrayed, as in there was one person who ruined the game for the rest of us. But in BSG I have never felt that. It's more like there is two different teams to the game and I can take that one team triumphed over the other one.
When it comes to excitement I would also put BSG first. It just feels more important during the whole game to find out who is a Cylon and you can always be certain that there will be at least one who is. Shadow on the other hand projects a sense of urgency that BSH just can't top. When it comes to drawing cards I think Shadows is the better game. I have never felt such an reluctance to draw a card as I do in Shadows when it comes to the black cards. It's probably because you have got an choice.
"Is it better if I draw a black card now when we're almost done with excalibur or should I take a catapult instead? On the other hand we can only two more so if we got a traitor..."
You get the feeling that strategy and your choices actually matter and to draw a card can make or break the game.

•depth of strategy
-Characters with a OPG ability, and weakness in addition to a special move
-Quorum card deck
-Other decks too like Destination cards, and the wide variety of crisis cards
-there's also a sense of spatial locality, namely, space combat.  For example, it's typically worse to have 8 raiders vs. 4 raiders, but when those 4 raiders are one activation away from destroying 4 civilian ships, whereas the 8 raiders 3 activations away, then in the short term, the 8 raiders is actually a better situation for the humans.  Moving characters about the ships, and knights in SOC doesn't really count as "spatial locality" as characters in BSG to for example move anywhere on Galactica (well, no hazard spots) with just one move/ment, while in SOC, it takes one Heroic action to move to any quest, so distance nor the layout of the locations aren't a factor in those regards.
-reveal powers in BSG
-Also, SOC's accusation has a way to force a player to reveal his identity.  In BSG, until you get to Pegasus or Exodus expansions' execution mechanic, there's no way to force him to reveal his identity
•suitability for new players (length of time to explain, etc.)
All variables equal, BSG is roughly twice the game play time as SOC.  However, it's also got more depth.  If I have the time and group that's up for it, I'd much rather play BSG.  However, it's easier to teach SOC.  And more people are familiar with dragons and Arthurian legends than the new BSG TV series.  However, an explanation should be enough for most people (e.g. explain what "jumping" is, what a cylon is, the state of the 12 colonies)
•overall feel of the game
•what situations you would recommend playing each of them in.
BSG takes 2.5 to 5 hours.  Average times about 3.25 hours.  Also a higher learning curve.  SOC takes 1 to 2 hours, and teaches fairly quickly, but there's less options.  For example, people feel in BSG, stuff happens between turns like playing a die roll modifier, or how whenever there's a skill check, everyone can participate.
•anything else you think should be included in regards to comparing and contrasting them
I will say that I'm a fan with BSG with all 3 expansions.  There's a whole wall of opinions on what's best, but it seems there's more love for the better expansions here than just Merlin's Company for SOC.
Also those who don't like BSG cited as one complaint how you can turn cylon halfway through.  Some like it because it forces the humans to play a bit conservatively in case someone gets turned.  Others hate having their work undone.  With SOC, since you deal out n cards out of n + 1 Loyalty deck, with only 1 Traitor card, there's the possibility that there may be NO traitor.  If you guarantee a traitor, it changes the dynamics knowing that it's gotta be someone, and makes accusations less risky.  If there ends up not being a traitor (again, NOT because you played the fully-coop version), then those who don't enjoy fully-co-op games feel like they got robbed of the real deal.
Oh, SOC does scale better. Some purists will only play BSG with exactly 5p.  I'm more flexible.  However, SOC is hard for the loyal knights with only 3p or 4p, and gets harder for the traitor in a 7p games on account of # of loyal turns between the traitor's own.

Could you be more direct in your comparisons? Your "depth of strategy" and "what situations you would recommend each game" don't have any compare-and-contrast in them; it feels like you're describing random parts of each game without actually comparing their relative strengths & weaknesses. Also, you don't actually state "what situations you would recommend playing each of them in."

One thing I can say about Shadows Over Camelot is that it does a very good job of creating the proper feel for the theme.
Camelot always stood on a knife's edge, with failure on either side. Arthur was the only thing between Britain and the Dark Ages and when he fell, the darkness consumed civilization. That's how SOC feels. Like every moment could be your last, like every decision could be the one that snuffs out the light of Camelot.
I have not played BSG, but I have heard (hearsay alert!) that it requires some significant knowledge of the relaunched BSG, that in some ways it is an engine for a group to "make their own fun." Which is not to say that it's not a good game, just that it may be less suitable for groups that aren't at least somewhat up on the ever-less-new BSG.

This is not an answer to the question, how can it be - you haven't even played one of the games! If you had played BSG, you would have known that having seen the series was in no way needed to play the game, in fact in many ways you are better off not coming to the game with the preconceptions from the series.


text:
Coloretto vs. Aquaretto and Zooloretoo, what are the differences and how can I tell which to buy?
Coloretto Aquaretto Zooloretto
What are some of the differences between the three? I've noticed that Coloretto is smaller and doesn't take as long to play (30min vs. 45min for the other 2). Zoo and Aqua can be combined and Coloretto seems to stand alone, but other than that I'm at a loss for which to get.
A few questions:

Are there any differences in gameplay between them?
Do they have different levels of strategy, player interaction, or replayability?
Any other prominent differences between them?

Could you explain why you are grouping the three games together?  I'm not familiar with any of them and could use a little background.

@Pat they're all part of the Coloretto series and they use the same mechanics. Aqua and Zoo are extensions of Coloretto. They're related kind of like the different Fluxx games are I believe, but that's the extent of my current knowledge.

FWIW, Aqua and Zoo are not extensions of Coloretto at all. They just happen to share a low-level mechanism. Zooloretto and Aquaretto are closely related and can even be played together (see my answer below), but Coloretto has nothing to do with them.

@Pat I know it was a while ago, but here's a great site that you can play Coloretto (free), no Zoo or Aqua yet... http://en.boardgamearena.com?s=575740

Coloretto is MASSIVELY different to Zooloretto and Aquaretto.  To be more specific: Coloretto is the mechanic on which the other two games are based, but to compare them is a bit like comparing, say, addition to mathematics.
In Coloretto, your move is either to play a card onto a pile, or pick up a pile.  Once you've done that long enough, you look at everything that all players have picked up, and then score.  In Zooloretto and Aquaretto, the piles have become "trucks", and the cards have become animals, or fish.  You still have the same basic mechanic - either draw and play an animal onto a truck, or take a truck - but collecting animals is no longer the sole object.  Once you take a truck you have to place the animals in various parts of your zoo.  There are placement restrictions, bonuses for filling areas, the chance to get extra free animals by placing breeding pairs in the same enclosure.  Players can, instead of taking their normal turns, pay to buy animals from each other, swap animals between enclosures, discard excess animals.
As you can see, just because the central idea of Coloretto is present and correct in all three of these Michael Schacht games, comparing them is like comparing milk and cheese!  I like all of them, but Coloretto is good when you want a quick, abstract game, and the others for when you want a moderately (but not very) complex game... with cute baby pandas.  (I think it's really the cute baby pandas, much more than the mechanic, that made Zooloretto a hit in my gaming group!)
ETA: One final point.  You might assume that Zooloretto and Aquaretto are fundamentally the same game but with mammals instead of fish, but they really aren't.  They have extremely different enclosure rules, animal behaviour rules, and ways of scoring points off specific animal configurations.  Essentially they are the Coloretto mechanic taken away and used in two different boardgames.  But they are of a similar complexity level.  I felt Aquaretto was a little bit more complicated, but maybe that's just because I've played Zooloretto a lot more.  I'm told that it's possible to combine Zooloretto and Aquaretto into one mega-zoo game, which would be intimidating but definitely fun.  Our group hasn't tried it yet, but it can only be a matter of time!

Is it possible to play basic coloretto with the tile from one of the other two? It would be cool if I could just get zoo or aqua and just play coloretto with those tiles. Is this possible or do I have to buy both?

Coloretto has colour cards, "+2" cards, and chameleonic wild cards.  Zooloretto has animal tiles, coin tiles, and concession stand tiles.  You could cobble together a Coloretto game out of Zooloretto pieces, but it'd be a bit like making a Tarot deck out of playing cards - it'd feel excessively cheap.  The core mechanic is the same, but what's on the cards/tiles are not completely or even fundamentally identical, basically!

Which would you recommend buying?

I would buy Coloretto if you wanted a simple, 5-10 minute card game type game; Zooloretto if you want a more substantial 45 minute to an hour type boardgame, and Aquaretto if you decide you really like Zooloretto!

As thesunneversets answered, Coloretto just uses the same basic mechanic, it's utterly different and incompatible with the other two games, and really shouldn't be associated with them.
I'm adding an answer to note that Zooloretto and Aquaretto can be played together as one larger game, and the combination makes for a really great, much more strategic game that takes about 90 minutes. It's by far my favorite way to play, and I was fortunate enough to be taught it by the designer himself, who did a good job of explaining the greater depth imbued by the pairing.

I would love to hear more about this, whether it just be a link to some good rules for combining, or some of your personal thoughts that were imparted on you by the designer.

@Gundabad The rules for combining them are included in Aquaretto. Unfortunately it's been a couple of years so I don't remember specific insights from the designer any longer, just the impressions.


text:
How are the maps provided with Diplomacy supposed to be used?
(I'm planning a game of Diplomacy with my friends for this weekend. The problem is, none of us have ever played before, so I'm trying to fill the gaps in my understanding so that our inexperience doesn't reduce the fun.)

How do you use the paper maps that come with Diplomacy? I know they are supposed to keep track of the units on the board while you go elsewhere with your negotiations, but I'm not sure of the best way to do that. Should I pencil in letters to show where the units are and update them as the game goes on? Does this usually prove difficult enough that you only keep track of your own units and your neighbors'? What updates do you usually make to your map after each round is finished? How would you recommend a new player use their map?
An image of a map being used during a game would be great if possible! :)

You might want to encourage people with tablets or smartphones to use a website where they can update the map easily, that would accomplish a similar purpose to the paper maps with less erasing.  But whether paper or electronic, updating maps time is definitely "on the clock".

Make copies of the map (it's expressly authorized) but you'll find most folks won't write on them.  The pattern I see in both home and tournament play is that during adjudication everyone will write down the units they have down the left side of what will become their order sheet.  During negotiations they'll consult their list and look at the map, often indicating moves by tapping their pencil at the start and end of the move their discussing.  Once they're ready to write orders their turn their inventory list into their orders and submit it.
My larger piece of advice is to keep the pace of the game as fast as you can.  Start the negotiation timer as soon as the previous turn has been adjudicated (don't let everyone take time outside of negotiation to write their units).  Similarly, don't give separate time to write orders after negotiation is done -- that's something you do during negotiation and if you don't get them done your units are in civil disorder.  Along those lines be sure to enforce the "no negotiation during builds

The actual moves are recorded on the Diplomacy board by moving the pieces at the end of each round, after the orders are read and the "combats" are resolved.
The maps are for reference. Suppose you were playing e.g. France, and on the second turn, you said to England, "If I move Army Picardy to Belgium against Germany's Fleet Netherlands to Belgium, would you support me using your fleet in the North Sea?" you'd use the maps to show England what you mean.

So you wouldn't recommend writing on them at all?

@You can, of course. But then you can't "recycle" them for future games--unless you make copies.

The main point of the paper maps is so that players can reference the geography of the board while having secret discussions away from the table.  My group ended up making a few higher quality laminated maps for this purpose as the paper maps are a bit small.  For a typical in-person game of Diplomacy, there is a "main room", where the board lives, and a number of auxiliary locations, where players can have secret discussions (other rooms, outside the house, hallways, etc.).  Having a reference of the map while in an auxiliary location is key as remembering where units are is much less to keep in your head than the entire geography of the board in your head.  There is the added benefit of aiding in secret discussions in auxiliary locations that don't have good sound insulation, as players can point to locations on the map rather than saying them.  When people in my play group go off to an auxiliary location, they almost always bring their order sheets and a paper map with them.
The secondary point of the paper maps is so that players can have a reference for the map (for territory abbreviations and adjacency) that they can look at closely without giving away to other players where on the board they are looking.
While you can write on the paper maps, this isn't usually of very high utility since the state of the board changes every turn.  If people in my play group do write on one, it's in pencil and to plan out and agree on a particularly complicated maneuver involving a discrete set of units (and they will probably erase it afterwards).  People in my group keep track separately of where the relevant pieces are, such as writing down their units on their order sheet (which they will need to do anyways to submit orders) and/or taking a picture of the board with a phone (pre-phones, people would periodically pop back into the main room to look at the board to remember where units are).  We also occasionally write on a paper map to save the game state if we're putting it down for a session.
If you have people that really like writing on paper maps, it is probably worth getting a few higher quality maps on stiff paper laminated, and getting white board markers to go with them so that they erase better (if you don't have a laminator, packing tape can work as an alternative).  We have one such map that I keep with my diplomacy set.


text:
How can I practice my opening leads in bridge?
After playing bridge for several months, I feel my declarer play and bidding have improved to a beginner-intermediate level. However, I think my skill at making an opening lead is that of a novice at best. I have memorized some basic rules about evaluating my hand and inspecting the bidding for clues (and plan to do plenty of additional reading), but I'm curious if there are any good ways to practice my opening leads. With bidding and declarer play I can get quick feedback on whether my choices were good or bad, but with opening leads I rarely have any idea if my lead was brilliant, average, or terrible even after the hand is over.
How can I tell if I made a good lead or a poor lead?
I could examine what gives the best score after recording the cards of all players, but I still won't be able to tell if discovering that lead would be possible without knowing everyone's cards.
Is there slightly more guesswork in opening leads than in the rest of bridge?
When I find two leads that seem to be equally good, sometimes I just pick one at random. Obviously professionals would be able to evaluate leads far better than I could, but do they sometimes encounter the same situation and do a mental coin-flip?

Evaluating opening leads objectively can be very difficult. In fact, it would be hard to do so without doing an extensive computer simulation in many cases (which in itself, is a hard problem). Of course, there will also be situations where one call tell what a good/poor lead is, without any simulations.
To answer your other question, yes there is more guesswork in opening leads, than in the rest of the play.
That said, when thinking of opening leads, you need to listen to the bidding, look at your hand, try to decide what might happen during the play and then come up with a general strategy before deciding what suit/card to lead. (Note: scoring might also change the way you think).
Some typical categories of the general strategy are:
1) Active Defense:
Do you think you need to get your tricks in a hurry? Then you might want to consider an Active lead, like underleading Kings/Queens in order to set up your tricks.
For instance you hold Kxx, Axxx, xxx, xxx. Opponents are in a small slam in clubs, after a normal auction. Many good players will consider leading a spade (from Kxx), hoping partner has the Q and setting up a spade trick before the heart A gets knocked out.
2) Passive Defense:
Does declarer need to work to make his tricks? Then you consider a lead which is less likely to blow away tricks.
3) Forcing defense :
In game or lower level contracts, if you know that the trumps split badly (like 4-1), you might consider a strategy where you lead your suits, forcing declarer to ruff and lose trump control.
4) Trump leads :
Does it look like declarer will use dummy's trumps to ruff out his losers? A trump lead might be called for.
There are lots of good books on opening leads which teach you to think in these general terms (the link in thesun's answer is good with examples, and overlaps with this answer partly).

It's interesting that you mention computer simulations -- in fact, that's the approach that David Bird and Taf Anthias took in writing their book, "Winning Notrump Leads." They have an appendix that describes their approach to computer simulation (essentially, evaluating double-dummy play after each possible opening lead) and their justification of the approach.

@ruds: I see. It is on my reading list now. Thanks!

Also, the opening lead decision for a given contract and auction can vary depending on whether one is playing IMPs or matchpoints. Because it is the least informed action of the hand, one should take care in matchpoints to not give away the hand with the lead. Leading "with the field" is often advocated, on the premise that in most hands one gets another chance to at least obtain an average.
Alternatively in IMPs more aggressive leads are less risky, and employed by experts more often. The loss of an overtrick is inconsequential if any measurable chance of setting the contract ensues.
As always, visualization of the opponent hands is paramount in making good lead choices. Understanding whether the opponents have stretched to the current contract, or failed to investigate higher, can assist one in evaluating the appropriate level of risk for a given lead situation.
Update:
Richard Pavlicek has an excellent online site addressed to Beginners, Intermediate Players, and Experts. Here is a link to his Beginner lesson on Opening Leads:
http://www.rpbridge.net/1u29.htm

A potentially massive question, this.  I could recommend the almost-goes-without-saying-stuff, like: play a lot of bridge, make a note of the different leads that you considered before choosing one, asking your partner afterwards if another lead might have been better.
Definitely read up on opening leads as much as possible and try to correlate what you learn with how various leads work out for you in practice.  I'm sure there are a million essays out there on the art of the opening lead, but here's one to start you off.  Maybe other people will turn up even better expert advice!

It is difficult to objectively analyze opening leads, due to the temptation to assess accuracy on the specific individual results. If you can actually assess your leads objectively, you are probably already the best leader in your club.  Focusing on that is the wrong approach to improvement.
A far better practice is to assess the accuracy of the information on which you made your lead decisions. If you are creating an accurate mental image of all four hands before making your lead decisions, both of point count and distribution, then you will be making significantly better lead decisions than most players.
In a typical evening's bridge, of 24 or 26 hands, you can expect to be on Opening Lead 6 or 7 times. Set yourself the goal of determining your partner's shape and strength accurately (see below) at least 4 times a session. Once you can do this consistently you will, in doing so, have also created an accurate image of the hands held by Declarer and Dummy. From here, accurate and deadly opening leads will start to become a habit for you.
So, how accurate is the goal. Aim for strength to be within plus-or-minus one point, and the sum of outages (unsigned) in all four suits to be <= 3. This counting exercise will improve every aspect of your game in addition to opening leads, eventually also opening up the expert territory of squeezes and endplays, as well as their defence, to you.
Make an informed deadly lead against the better players of your club a few times, with sound reasoning and counting to back it up, and you will start to receive game invitations from players you can currently only dream of having as a partner. Defence is the most difficult aspect of the game, and very highly regarded by expert players.


text:
How much collaboration is reasonable for a Two-Headed-Giant draft?
My friends and I have a regular MTG-drafting group. It's pretty informal, and after we draft sometimes a group of 4 people will play Two-Headed-Giant just for fun since it's not really a tournament and more just a way to get together and play. However, several of them want to play the entire 'tournament' as all THG matches the next time we play. I have no problem with this at all and understand how THG works, but I'm curious as to the best way to do this in a draft.
Assuming we pick teams before the drafting, do we allow players to collaborate in choosing their cards? It seems like this would take way too long and require far too much effort to make the decks work well together. Granted, the effort would make for better decks for each team, but I don't think the extra time is worth it. I suggested that we not allow anyone to help their partner make decisions during the draft so they are still building a deck that can stand on its own, and not having one player run 23 counterspells and removals while the other runs 23 creatures. However, my friends say this could easily result in decks that do not play well together at all.
After we've picked the cards I figure everyone would be allowed to collaborate with their teammate to build their decks, but doing so during the draft just seems like too much. Currently I think players should not be allowed to give the cards they picked to their partner for their deck.
What limits should we impose on collaboration during the draft to allow the teams to build decks that synergize well, without drastically increasing the time requirement of the draft? Perhaps a 3-minute interval between each booster? How can we find a good balance of collaboration and increased time requirements?

I find that 2-headed giant limited works much better with a sealed pool of 8 packs. Two people can easily build decks from that, and the time is just taken with deckbuilding instead of the draft.

I recommend just straight-up reading the MTG Tournament Rules. You certainly don't need to do all of this stuff for a "casual" draft, but it'll give you some good ideas about how to run things.
As Two-Headed Giant draft is actually an officially supported format, the MTR includes specific guidelines on how to run it. DCI recommends drafting as a team, then building decks from one shared pool:

9.6      Two-Headed Giant Limited Rules
All the rules for Limited Tournaments (Section 7) apply, except as described below. The DCI
recommends that each team receive eight boosters per team for
Two-Headed Giant Sealed Deck tournaments and six boosters per team for
Two-Headed Giant Booster Draft tournaments. For the recommended
product mix for the current block, refer to Appendix E. Cards not used
in a team’s starting decks are considered a shared sideboard by the
two players that both players can access.
9.7      Two-Headed Giant Booster Draft Tournaments
Teams (not players) assemble into random drafting circles (called pods) of
roughly equal size at the direction of the Head Judge. Teammates sit
next to each other. Tournament officials then distribute identical
booster packs to each team in the pod. After opening and counting the
cards in their first pack, the team chooses two cards from the booster
pack then passes the remaining cards face down to the team on its
left. Selected cards may be placed into one or two piles. The cards
chosen are not assigned to a particular player; they become part of a
pool out of which both players will build their decks. The open packs
are passed around the drafting pod—with each team taking two cards
from each before passing—until all cards are drafted. For the second
pack, the direction of drafting is reversed as usual. Thus, the
overall draft direction is left–right– left–right–left–right.

Generally, there are no prohibitions on communication between teammates; tournaments instead use time limits to discourage analysis paralysis:

4.4     Team/Two-Headed Giant Communication
Members of the same team may, at all times, communicate between one another verbally. This
includes during play, during drafting, and during deck construction of
Limited tournaments. However, team members that have an opportunity to
acquire hidden information (e.g. by speaking to spectators following
their own match while a teammate is still playing), are restricted
from communicating with teammates for the duration of that match.
Prohibitions against written notes of any kind during drafts apply to
team drafts as well.

If you're playing without judges, I encourage working out some kind of procedure for handling slow play within your group.

for slow playing, I know players that use the same clocks that are used by the "proper" chess players, and they say it works... between friends we prefer pure and simple peer pressure...

@Yaztromo That's basically how MTGO works (clocks, I mean, not peer pressure).

Option 1: allow collaboration during the decks construction, but set a time (quite strict) to pick the decks. (In this case I wouldn't allow side decks, if I were you...)
Option 2: no collaboraion, but allow side decks - after the first match the players will be able to access the side decks and fix the issues highlighted by last match (as normal).
Enjoy!


text:
Why was the banding ability 'removed' from MTG? What was so complicated about it?
While the banding ability was never actually removed from the game, no cards have been printed that use the ability in any set following sixth edition and it has never appeared on any rules summary I've seen from the past several years. Why is this? I've heard it's because the ability was 'too complicated'. What exactly was so complicated about it that might have encouraged its extinction? What is a good situation/example that demonstrates why it was probably exiled from the game?
List of cards that reference the banding ability

Banding was mostly complicated in terms of attacking and blocking eligibility.  The answers already expound on this in depth.  If you want the advantage of banding on the defense without the nonsense, try the fixed version of the ability: Defensive Formation (http://magiccards.info/us/en/9.html)

Take it from the horse's mouth:

The short explanation of banding is that if your creatures attack or block in a band, the controller of any creatures that deal combat damage to them doesn’t get to assign that damage -- you do. Pretty cool. Everything else about banding, though, elicits a “huh?” It works differently when attacking and defending. (In an attacking band of X creatures, at least [X-1] of them must have banding. In a defending band, only one creature must have banding.) A lone blocker could block multiple creatures if they were banded together. If an attacker with evasion (flying, swampwalk, whatever) is banded to a creature without evasion, the whole band can be blocked. Then it gets really complex: What if the only defensive creature with banding is destroyed before damage is dealt? What if my band of three attacking creatures, one of which has trample, is blocked by your band of three defending creatures, one of which has first strike?
The only answer I can give you is, “I dunno.”

Banding was an ability that was flavorful and simple enough in the simple cases. But when you left the simple cases and got into more unusual situations, the rules suddenly became very complex, unintuitive, and opaque. You wind up with a mechanic that cannot be understood or accurately applied simply by reading the text on the card and applying your general rules knowledge. Instead, you have to know a whole bunch of banding-specific rulings, and hope you have a copy of the comp rules handy if it ever comes up.
And all of this complexity is maintained for a mechanic that rarely actually mattered. I could be wrong, but I don't believe there is any card with banding that has ever been a tournament staple. Under these conditions, the best choice is the one that Wizards made, which is to let banding lay fallow and pretend the whole thing never happened.

The creatures stay together (e.g. Serra Angel won't fly on but will help her band) and you'd both assign damage of the opposing creatures instead of your own. I don't see what's the problem.

@CeesTimmerman But do I as the attacker get deal the first strike damage of your first strike creature first, or all the damage first, and if I then use that damage to kill my own banding creature does the band you've blocked fall apart and you now can only assign the damage to one of the creatures, if so do I get to choose or do you? And does that mean that my trampler which is now no longer blocked gets to deal full damage to your face? And the fact that you weren't worried about this when you assigned the blockers probably means you made the wrong call and I now win.

Oh, and I forgot to mention, this is before 6th Edition, so the damage rules aren't as clearly defined, so there may not even be an answer, let alone a modern M10 intuitive one. P.S. Oh look all the fun's fallen out and all we're left with is maths and an argument. Oops.

@deworde Hasbro tunes the rules as such issues arise. Right now it's declare attack, specify which creatures band together (until end of combat) and what each creature or band attacks, assign blockers (bands count as one creature), assign first strike damage, assign normal combat damage. Damage is dealt simultaneously.

@CeesTimmerman Well, no. By definition, damage is only dealt simultaneously within its "strike class". Which brings me back to my question. If I kill the actual creature with banding using first strike damage, does the band fall apart before the normal combat damage step, during the intermediate stage? Does a creature with first strike that's in a band even still have first strike? This is the problem. Even if you know the rules, the fact that you have to learn them, that they have to be "tuned" and that these questions are open is the problem that you "don't see".

@deworde I meant "first strike combat damage step" and "normal combat damage step". "Until end of combat" means just that, and a game as complex as Magic is bound to run into problems, hence the big rules overhaul in 6th Edition. If you're still confused, please consult the comprehensive rules.

banding was the counter to trample; this is the only real loss to the removal of banding

I know this answer is pretty old, but that article that's linked doesn't appear to be accurate. It says "A creature with 'bands with other Legends' CAN’T BAND WITH A LEGEND." It may be that this has changed over the years, but rule 702.21c says in part "He or she may also declare that one or more attacking [quality] creatures with 'bands with other [quality]' and any number of other attacking [quality] creatures are all in a band," which seems to directly contradict that statement.

@murgatroid99 From what I can tell, it was changed as part of the big M10 rules changes. The old rules were that a creature with 'bands with other [quality]' could band with other creatures with the same 'bands with other [quality]' but not actually with [quality].

The current official reminder text for Banding is as follows:

Banding (Any creatures with banding, and up to one without, can
  attack in a band. Bands are blocked as a group. If any creatures with
  banding you control are blocking or being blocked by a creature, you
  divide that creature's combat damage, not its controller, among any of
  the creatures it's being blocked by or is blocking.)

Yes, it's taken them 20 years to distil the "simple explanation" of Banding into that - and I bet you still can't  tell what it means without reading it slowly and carefully at least three times.
Wizards has made it a bit of a rule of thumb, for quite a few years now, to remove complexity from the game where it isn't needed.  Could the game survive with Banding, Phasing, interrupts and mana burn still in it?  Almost certainly.  Is it better off without them?  Again, almost certainly.
The real nail in Banding's coffin is that you can get a similar flavour out of a much simpler rule.  Take for example the en-Kor ability from Stronghold:

0: The next 1 damage that would be dealt to [this en-Kor] this turn
  is dealt to target creature you control instead.

This does almost everything Banding did - gives the owner some power to control how damage is assigned to his creatures.  But with the great advantage of not causing your head to explode while trying to calculate how it works in complicated situations!

Banding allows me to take all damage with an indestructible Pegasus in my Fluttershy deck.

banding works differently on defense than on offense!

Wizards could make new cards with banding.  But they have no reason to.
From Mark Rosewater's tumblr

pussipiru asked: Do you ever dream of taking old unpopular set like Homelands, Fallen Empires or Mercadian Masques and remaking it to be cool?
No. Designing something to prove that you can is a horrible motivation for design.

Could Wizards create new cards with banding that are fun, interesting, and understandable?  Almost certainly.  But doing so would require a great deal of effort for very little gain.
Even with the streamlining that came with the M10 combat rules update, banding is a complicated ability - not because the affects themselves are complicated but because of the number of different variables that it has to interact with.
The audience who would appreciate a creature with banding for the sake of being a creature with banding, and is greatly outnumbered by the number of players who would dislike the creature because of previous experience with banding, or because of its reputation.  And the mechanical purposes that it serves can be fulfilled by other abilities which are easier to understand.
Magic's 25 year history gives it a lot of mechanics to choose from when making new cards.  They have the luxury of being able to choose to reuse only the mechanics which are popular and useful.  Banding is neither, and so they don't use it.

I still don't get the difficulty. I don't know if this was just our house rule back in the day or if it was explicitly stated but everyone I knew back in Alpha and Beta days unless all creatures in a band contained a keyword ability then any who had that keyword lost it for the duration of the band.
So in the examples provided, the creatures with trample and first strike lost those abilities the instant they were added to the band. Also once the band is declared it lasts until the end of the turn, so if you take out the only creature with banding in a band the band remains.
The one complexity that existed which could have been completely removed by a rules update was it working differently on attack and defense, just make it so that they are the same requiring all creatures in a band but 1 to have banding regardless of whether you are attacking or defending.

I guess this is sort of an answer to the question, in that you're saying "nothing was complicated", but that's kind of obviously false: in the first paragraph you've essentially stated that either everyone you knew was playing with it wrong or the rules weren't clear enough to tell what was right, so obviously it was too complicated for a lot of players to get right.

This does not provide an answer to the question. To critique or request clarification from an author, leave a comment below their post - you can always comment on your own posts, and once you have sufficient reputation you will be able to comment on any post.

@MyTurnYet As I tried to say in my comment, I think it's just a bad answer, not a not-an-answer. The claim here is that there actually was no complexity (i.e. Wizards was wrong), which does address the question; I just don't think that it's really true.

-1: "It's not complicated as long as you play it wrong" is probably the ultimate reason to deprecate a mechanic.