text:
How do you make Settlers of Catan work well for 2 players? (Problems and play-tested solution described, alternatives requested)
The basic Settlers of Catan game is designed to work for 3-4 players (or more with 5-6 Player Extension). No 2 player variant is suggested by the rules, and for good reasons:

Trades (an exciting part of the regular game) rarely make sense
No slow-the-leader mechanisms like trade embargoes or coordinated robber placement
The normal board setup offers too little constraint/competition
An early game non-moving robber too strongly influences game outcome

Normal rules/setup therefore result in quick but dull games where whoever gains the early lead wins over 90% of the time.
The question is how do you modify Settlers of Catan to make it good for 2 players, without including auto-generated additional players?
I provide one such answer below that we've used in many games, but I'm totally open to suggestions for improvements on my answer, and/or alternative play-tested systems developed by other Catan enthusiasts.

May I suggest you Catan Card Game? (http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/278/catan-card-game)

Per this meta discussion, I think it would help to explain your house rules so that we can make suggestions for improvement, otherwise the answers may be steered toward "let's discuss ...", which isn't a good fit for the SE system.

Ok Dave, I'll take your suggestion and modify my question and supply our system for suggested feedback. Will take more than a few minutes but I'll try to have it done within the next few hours. I'm a new user and tried to model this off similar questions but hadn't seen that meta discussion.

I'm open to further suggestions on how to better format this for the agreed-upon norms of the community. I do believe it's a reasonable question with a reasonable answer as I've been literally asked the question before and I have a very well defined and heavily play-tested answer. But I haven't seen any other posts that are quite like this one so I'm flying blind. Is this the right idea or are there further suggestions for how to structure this Q&A?

This is likely to become my favorite house rules question to point people to, as in, "Do it this way!"  Great job, I hope you get good  answers.  FYI, my answer would be to play another game if you only had two people as I don't like SoC that much, so I won't be too helpful!

I like the focus on house rules that you've tested (many times, in fact!), which is a key aspect of good house rules questions and answers. (Also, when more than one person has commented on a question of yours, you can notify them of your reply with an @ followed by their name; that gives us a chance to see your changes and reply more quickly. If only one person has commented, they'll automatically be notified.)

@Dave Looks like I managed to stumble into a workable Q&A format (combined with actual experience) for house rules, thanks in part to your suggestions and pointing out the related meta discussion. And thanks for the tip on how to make sure someone sees a comment reply.

@Pat Thanks for the feedback - looks like I stumbled into a workable Q&A format for this sort of thing. My wife tends not to like 2 player games so much. This heavily modified version of Settlers is the one thing we've actually played together more than a few times.

@JoeGolton - Thanks!  Whatever works for you and yours is fine, I didn't mean to imply that your decision to play Settlers 2 player was in any way a bad one.  Just not my cup of tea.  For 2p, I'm all about Carcassonne.

I don't have a good answer but I'd love to see an answer involving a deterministically-controlled third player.

We've played many enjoyable games with the following system that does nothing to deal with the loss of trading, but handles the other issues raised above quite well:

Change hex setup to barbell shape (see picture)
3 of each resource hex (ores always placed as shown with 3-8-11,
rest randomized)
8 randomized ports (5 2:1, 3 3:1)
A set of randomized numbers on either side of barbell (set 1:
4,5,8,9,10,11) (set 2: 2,3,5,6,9,10)
12 victory points
7's get rerolled for the first 6 rounds of play (we call this
"Robber Delay")
Use Robber Equalizer rule:

The Robber Equalizer rule is our slow-the-leader mechanism, and it works by making rolls of 7 less and less likely to stick the further behind you are. First determine how far behind you are by counting up victory points in the normal manner for settlements and cities (but don't include longest road or largest army). Then add 1/3 for each played soldier, each road link, and each unplayed development card.
A 7 rolled by someone who is behind always counts. Each time a 7 is rolled by the player who is ahead, reroll the dice and the 7 sticks if the roll is high enough according to the chart - for example if you're ahead by 1 and 2/3, you need to roll 6 or higher for the robber to stick:
Point  Minimum
Diff.  Roll
1/3    2
2/3    3
1      4
1 1/3  5
1 2/3  6
2      7
2 1/3  8
2 2/3  9
3      10
3 1/3  11
3 2/3  12

If the robber does not stick, then then the dice must be rerolled, and only a number other than 7 will count.
We've played dozens of games with these rules and the games are fairly balanced thanks to the Robber Equalizer rule, though the rule does lead to not being so afraid about having to discard half your hand later in the game as the 7 may not stick, which can be an advantage to the player in the lead.

Perhaps you should modify the Robber Equalizer Rule so that the discarding occurs whenever a 7 is rolled, and the Equalization only applies to robber placement & theft.

Terrific idea on discarding - I'll test it. It might be weeks (or months) before I've played enough games to develop an informed opinion but when I do, I'll report back.

The barbell shape is intriguing! What's the gameplay benefit? Why are mountains always placed as shown?

Alex - It was over 6 years ago that we explored and discarded various alternate setups. To the best of my memory, most discarded setups (such as the default) had too little competition/restraint, which resulted in most games feeling like a foot race (little or no interaction). The board must be smaller. The barbell makes for tough/interesting setup decisions as well as forced competition for resources (usually one side is better). Ignoring ore to start leads to an interesting mid-game dynamic with a simultaneous race for ore and longest road leading to another serious of tough decisions.

One minor suggestion: ensure each player gets one 3:1 port, and randomize the other six.  Why?  Because it ensures a 3-2 split of the other ports.  In the layout shown above, I think the player with four 2:1 ports is likely to have a definite advantage.

@Tynam - Note that we randomize the ports and that we allow players to set up on either side. So if one side had all the 2:1 ports, each player could choose whether to be on that side or not, and in most games we played, we each chose one initial settlement on both sides. I showed the ports in the picture in order to indicate their locations. Nevertheless, your idea of insuring at least one 3:1 port per side is intriguing.

Can't wait to try this (and commenting for personal future reference)

Are there any advantages or disadvantages of having the 6 instead of having the 8? Since ore is always on the 8 in the middle you would potentially get ressources more often (with 6). Or you would get a large number of resources at the same time (with 8). I would suggest giving both players number 6 so that it is even more balanced.

@Tim Most times I played this was 5-10 years ago so I can't remember too well why we ended up with this precise setup. My best guess is that we found that slightly imbalanced sides made for more interesting games than perfectly balanced sides - I do remember we kept changing around the setup until we fell in love with this one. But I encourage you to experiment and report back results. I believe that the barbell shape and 3-8-11 middle was more important to making this interesting than the precise distribution of numbers on either end. And the robber equalization was even more important.

I've been playing a bunch of Settlers of Catan Jr. with my kids.   They solve the trading by having normal "bank" trading and also having a "bazaar".   They put one of each resource out and you can trade 1:1 for any resource in the bazaar once per turn.   If the bazaar ever ends up with all of the same resource, you discard those resources and put one of each back out.

My edition of the game bought recently does not have 1/3 point values. How do you suggest setting the Robber Equalization rule in that case?

@JohnC No Catan edition has 1/3 point values. This is just something we made up to determine who is winning and by how much, for the express purpose of triggering the robber equalizer rule. Every time a 7 is rolled, do the calculation described above.

Take a look at my YouTube video for a great 2 Player Settlers of Catan version: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcK5WhjRWio
“Settlers of Catan” is designed for 3 or 4 players.  When played by 2 players, the game has issues that affect play if standard rules are used. Here are some of the concerns:
•   There is less competition for territory because there is more land per player.
Solution? Less Territory!
•   In a 2 player game, once a player gets ahead in resource gathering potential (settlements and cities in good locations), it is nearly impossible for the other player to catch up.  This isn't as big of a problem in a 3 or 4 player game, since the other players tend to "gang up" on the leading player.  With only 2 players, one player can run away with the game in the early stages.
Solution? Robin Hood Robber!
•   Because there are only 2 players, there are fewer chances between turns to get Resources than when playing with 3 or 4 players.
Solution? Special features to increase chances to get Resources!
•   Player/player trading doesn't happen, since any trade helps your ONLY competitor.
Solution? Proportionally more Ports in Play!
TWO PLAYER GAME SETUP
Build the game border upside down so that no ports are showing. This will leave a Water Border, and Ports will be placed later.
Resource Tiles: TAKE ONE OF EACH RESOURCE TILE AND TURN IT UPSIDE DOWN.
The Game Board uses the following Resource Tiles:
•   3 Forests
•   3 Fields
•   3 Pastures
•   2 Hills
•   2 Mountains
•   1 Desert
•   5 Water Cards (the upside down Resource Tiles mentioned above )
Placing Resource Tiles on the Game Board: Take the 13 resource tiles and the desert tile, shuffle well, and place them in one pile, face up. Place the Water tiles (the 6 unused Resource Tiles, upside down) in another pile. Start placing tiles using the “Variable Set-Up” method as per the standard Rules, but randomize the Resource and Water cards by rolling a single die:
•   Roll of 1 or 2, place an Water tile
•   Roll of 3 to 6, place a Resource tile
Number Tokens: Remove one each of the 3, 4, 10 and 11 number tokens. In this game, combine the 2 and 12 number tokens and use them in tandem on one Resource hex. All other number tokens are used on the remaining individual Resource hexes (Desert Tiles and Water tiles do NOT get numbered).
NOTE: Using the 2 and 12 token combination on one resource gives the same odds as rolling a 3 or 11.
Place all number tiles using the “Variable Set-Up” method as per the standard Rules, remembering that the Red number tokens (the 6’s and the 8’s) CANNOT be next to each other.
HEX LAYOUT EXAMPLES:
Port Placement:  9 loose port tiles are used- Five “2:1” Port for each of the 5 Resources, plus Four “? 3:1” Port. Use the standard Port Placement locations from the regular game, with the following exceptions: if a port cannot be used because a water tile is there, then move the port to another tile with water frontage following these rules:
•   Isolated single hexes are given ports first
•   Ports are placed on the “Flat” of a hex pointing to water
•   Ports must be a minimum of 2 flats away from each other
•   No individual hex can have more than 1 port
•   No “Cove” Ports (have a U shape with 3 hexes and the port at the bottom of the u)
•   New Port locations are placed one at a time by alternate players
•   No port can be placed on a single landlocked water hex
•   Ports may be placed in an inland lake of 2 hexes or more.
Rule Modifications
•   New Set Up: Game Board is set up differently (see “Game Set-Up” section)
•   Bridge Building: Bridges can be built to connect land over water.  Ore and Wood make a Bridge. Bridges can be up to two spans in length, maximum.
•   Robin Hood Rule: When a 7 is rolled, then the player with the fewest victory points controls the robber (Robin Hood). When players have the same number of victory points, the player who rolled the dice controls the robber. Do NOT count Victory points hidden in Development Cards.  Giving control of the robber to the trailing player helps prevent the other player from running away with the game.
•   No Robber in play until each player has 3 Victory Points (not counting Victory Points hidden in Development Cards): If a 7 is rolled during this phase, re-roll.
•   No Player Trades: Players may only trade with the bank (4:1 turn-ins) or at a sea port.  No trades between players, since with only 2 players against each other it is rare to agree on trades. Since there are less resource tiles, port ratio increases.
•   Cards in Hand: The limit for the number of cards a player can hold when the robber is activated is increased from 7 to 9.  In the four player game there is ample opportunity to trade with other players between turns.  In this variant, players tend to accumulate more cards between turns, so the limit was increased accordingly.
Hope you like it!

I love that you joined the Board and Card Games community here to share your comprehensive, play tested set of rules for 2 player Settlers. Thanks! I hope you stick around and share your expertise for questions on Settlers or other games you play.

My boyfriend and I play Cities and Knights 2 player all the time. I feel like that game makes a very balanced 2 person game.
The randomness of getting Progress cards and the fact that you're not dealing with the same objectives in regular Catan make the game quite fun.
no alterations to the rules other than the barbarians don't attack on the first time the ship reaches Catan, and the robber is also delayed till then as well. everything else we play by normal rules of C&K and we haven't reached a snag yet.

Is there a slow-the-leader mechanism? Or do you find in Cities and Knights that the player who takes a substantial lead first usually wins?

Actually, when we play, i usually have a huge lead (like 4-5 points) but my bf usually catches up fast because of the different ways to get points. So its good for people who plan a few turns ahead and works for people who play turn by turn.

I frequently play C&K two-player with my family with no rule variations on 3-4 player other than the first player may place their starting city before their settlement - every now and then there will be a landslide victory by one player that is unstoppable, but for most games it runs just fine - we've all played the game for nearly 20 years now though so we're closely-matched

Online I found some unofficial rules for 2 player which were easy to use and remember. You set up the game as normal and the play is modified like this:

Each player rolls twice per turn.
If the robber is rolled, the player with the lowest number of victory points places the robber. If victory points are tied then whom ever rolled the 7 places the robber.
No trading
Play to 10 victory points

The double roll equalizes the lack of resources by only having 2 people. Robber will always strive to slow the person in the lead. Trading doesn't make sense with two people so you just get rid of it.
The other modification we tend to do is to deal the number chits face down during setup. Then after initial placements are made turn them over to finish the start board. It throws an element of randomness into the game and eliminates playing the number odds. Instead you end up playing the resources and hope for good numbers. This does backfire from time to time but makes for interesting games.

We played by these rules couple of times and the double roll make the game very unstable. The huge number of resources allows buying a lot of progress cards, which neutralizes the robber rule by using knights. Also, sometimes a person gets way too many resources when 7 doesn't roll for a while and can change them 4:1 for anything.

Me and a friend came up with a solution last night on how to play a 2-person catan game that actually worked really well and very close to the original rules.
Rules:

Instead of rolling both dice to see who goes first we both only roll one.
Instead of placing (2) settlements to begin with, we each start with (3) to fill the board more off the start.
The order we found to lay them down fairly we found worked best and most closely resembled the original was player 1 chooses 1-4-5 while player 2 gets 2-3-6 for choices.
Both players now collect up to (9) cards (depending on settlement placement) and begin the game.
Because both players are starting with now (9) cards, if a 7 is rolled on either players first roll it has no effect and that player may choose the card of their choice from the bank. Afterward 7's and the knight card work as normal.
We raised the Victory point cap to 12 instead of 10 since it really did need it for both players to have the time to compete.
Trading, we actually found that we still needed each other to trade with and after 3 games were both mutually reliant, and it felt still similar to a 3-4 person game but with less options. Starting with more initial hexes also helps to receive the necessary resources to not be so stranded.

Other options:

Something we considered was lengthening the initial longest road requirements to 7 roads.
Also something we've discussed including in this and larger group scenarios is implementing "Largest Port trader" that once you acquire (3) coastal ports you receive an additional 2 VP's.

As you can see, the rules remain essentially unchanged and just mildly modified only for the game's beginning. All three games we played were extremely close and we considered the experiment to be a success.
We found it worked best though when the desert was placed away from the coast to break up the center island more.

Clever idea to start with more settlements and 9 resources with 1 turn robber delay. The worst thing that can happen in 2 player games is 7 gets rolled early and then not for a while, allowing the player who rolled a 7 to easily walz to victory. By starting with more settlements and a bunch of resources, a roll of 7 is not so devastating on turn 2.

The Traders and Barbarians expansion includes an official two player varient that involves having two fake players (one of whom will build at the same time as a real player does) and tokens (gained by building in unfavourable locations, such as by the desert) that can force trades and make the robber flee.
A copy of the rules is available from BGG.

This is the best 2 player variant for recreating the 4 player experience :)

Have each player play two positions in the game, in alternating turn order. Disallow trading between the two positions controlled by the same player.

Trade opportunities will be twice as common as strict two player play.
The leading position will be targeted by the robber up to 2/4 of the time and the trailing position <1/4 of the time.
The normal board setup is appropriately sized for this many positions.
The robber can function as normal.

Have you tested this 2 player method?

I've played with 4 people in two teams of two. The trading rule was required to avoid a runaway winner situaiton.

There's a 2 player variant for Seafarers that I once found here. The starting island is basic and small.

This 2 player variant doesn't solve the slow-the-leader problem, instead this is overshadowed by the luck of the draw Discovery mechanic from Seafarers. If you like that sort of play, this might be your variant.
Set up: Players receive 2 sets of pieces (30 roads, 30 ships, 8 cities and 10 settlements). Use starting island shown. Each player places 2 settlements and 2 ships/roads and receives one of each of the 4 resources (wood, sheep, grain, and clay).
Playing the Game: Play is the same as in the standard settlers/seafarers with players alternating turns. Victory conditions are 20 victory points.
Discovery: All of the area outside of the starting island is unknown. As player build ships (and later roads, too) along edges toward an intersection where the hex tile is missing, a new tile is randomly drawn from all of the remaining tiles and placed on the board. If it is a land hex, a number chit is randomly drawn and the player receives one of that resource. If it is a port hex, the player must rotate the port so that it touches land. If no land is present, then place the port tile and if a land tile is subsequently drawn, the port is rotated so that it touches the land and then it is fixed for the remainder of the game.
Special Victory points: Players receive one addition victory point for their first settlement on each new island they colonize (regardless if the other player has already colonized it). Place a seafarers VP chit under the settlement to delineate it. As long as it is not connected by land to any other island the player has already colonized, the victory point is granted--even if later the island is connected.
The Robber and Pirate: The robber enters the game once the first desert hex is drawn (place on desert). The pirate enters the game once the first port hex is drawn (place on port). If a "seven" is rolled before the either the Robber or Pirate enters the game, only the 7-card hand size rule is enforced.

We have played a 2 player variant we designed. I will try to describe it as succinctly as I can, and if there is interest, am happy to expand.
Broadly, the idea is for each player to alternate controlling a 3rd player (P3). If P3 wins, the game is a draw.  Most aspects of alternating control of P3 are common sense and can be varied, but there is a key trading dynamic where a player may only trade with P3 by offering N cards of his own and selecting ONE random card from P3 where N equals the Nth time he is trading with P3 this turn. For example, first he trades one for a random card, then can opt to trade two for a random card, then can opt to trade 3 for a random card, etc.  The only exception to this rule is when it is P3's turn and the player controlling P3 is opting to trade with the opponent (in which case trades are done normally).
What this does is enable both players to take turns using P3 to not only interfere with their opponent and assist their own development, but more crucially develop a third player that typically sits in a tenuous balance of power with the human players. At any moment, one player usually can dump their cards onto P3 and ensure P3 moves at 1.5 to 2x the speed toward victory. If one player pulls too far ahead of their opponent, that opponent can put all his resources into forcing P3 to win and induce the draw. If both players remain in an apparent neck-and-neck race, then one may pull ahead suddenly and win, but he must convince the opponent that he is not too far in the lead or the opponent will force a draw.
It's almost like playing a chess game where it's fair to stand up and flip the table upside down and call a draw, as long as the other player cannot checkmate in 3 moves. Almost.

Wild Robber - We have also modified the Robber to become a "wild" number. The person that rolls a seven gets to choose what number is actually rolled. If you have seven cards in your hand, you must still discard until you only have seven cards left in your hand.
For example, if I roll a seven and I need bricks, then I can choose to have the seven become a five (which in this scenario the five is on a brick) and get the bricks I need. My opponent would also receive resources from the number five(i.e. wood, wool, rock, bricks, or sheep depending on where the other five is). This adds resources to the game thereby speeding it up, does not trap someone with the robber on a specific property, rewards someone for rolling a seven, encourages everyone to have their settlements on the same numbers as their opponent, and is easy to remember.

The Catan Compact now has an official variant for two players, you can read the rules here. It only needs an additional set of trade cards, aside from the base game components, but you can easily make these up by yourself if you have the non-compact version [e.g. use a standard set of cards].

This are my homemade rules, tested in several games. The trick is just: reuse the setup for four players (since that setting is widely tested) and make a limit to avoid "unbalances" toward one of the two colors.
Here i use color or colors meaning the faction that is playing and not the player (because in a 1on1 each player controls two factions).

for the first two turns (that is: each color will play two times) the robber can't be triggered, so a roll of seven means: reroll.
the robber can't be placed again in the same hexagon if a seven is rolled.
both the development cards or the ports (if the color just build a colony attached to a port) can be played/used in the next turn of the color after their construction. In one turn a color can play one development card (except victory points). Moreover if a settlement is built by a color it cannot be upgraded to a city in the same turn.
At the start of the game the colonies can be placed only on crossroads where 3 roads intersect, so no all ports at the start can be directly used. (explanation in the comments)
Each player will play two colors as they were independent (except for trading, we will see this after). So, at the start, when the player set the cycle of colors during the turn, the player that will play first will play as first and as third (deciding which color is first and which is third), the player that will play as second will do the same, playing as second and as fourth. The placement of the colonies and so on will follow the original rules for the game with four players.
remember that even if a player controls two colors each color is independent of the other and can block the other color as well, as they were enemies (so the player should be careful in the develop of the game)
the trading between the colors of the same player is without costs, but since each color is independent the benefit of a port of the color A can't be shared with the color B (in the case that both are controlled by the same player) if the color B is playing (that is: except for the trading cost, you follow the rules of catan with 4 players).
A settlements or roads can be built only if there is a clear conjunction with a previous settlement of the color. That is: given the configuration SRRR[eventual more roads] (where S is settlement or city and R is road) for the color A, that is a "long road" without settlements except for the first; if another color build a settlement (S) over this roaad, for example: SRR_S_R, then the color A cannot build other roads starting from the last road, because the last road is disconnected (due to S) from the previous settlement.
victory condition: the player that reach with a color 10 or more points win if and only if the other color that is under his control has at least 5 points (else the game continue), and, to raise the difficulty (just try and see) you can require that the other color needs 6 points at least (instead of 5). Warning if a color reach ten or more points, it becomes inactive, that is: it doesn't collect any new resource (but it can play what is remaining). (as if the game is ended with four players); else a player can just develop one color to help, afterwards, the other.
construction interrupted: a road or a city, of a given color, can be built, following the basic rules of the games, only if the place of construction is directly connected with (at least) one existing road of the same color that is not interrupted by any other color (the allied color is not ok). That is: (i) all the segments of the road are connected each other as the game requires; (ii) the road is connected with at least one village/city of the color (from which the resources, to build the new structure, come) and there is no village/city of other colors that stands between two segment of the road and that is nearer to the construction site than any other village/city of the color itself (it is like that if there is a village/city of another color, this city stops all the traffic to the construction site. Even if the other color is an allied color).
allied colors fight for prizes: if a player that control two colors has both with a road of seven segments, no color gets the reward "the longest road". Because it is like that the color are allied but not willing to let the other color "took prizes just to win the war". So the player should play carefully to not play against himself.
handicaps: if a player is too strong the other can get a bonus (don't look down to handicaps/bonus, the point of a game is have a challenge and not won with ease / lose without hope. Try them in quakelive!). For example: a player can place, at the start, cities instead of villages for each 2nd choice of each color. Still getting one resource card for every adjacent hexagon at the very start but, during the game, having since the start a city for each color. Another alternative can be place a city instead of a village for the 2nd choice of the 2nd managed color of the player (this because the 2nd choices for each color normally can use spots that are not so good as the 1st choices, and the 2nd managed color place the 2nd choice before the 1st managed color so more good spots are available). And so on, you can test out your own bonuses/handicaps.
suggestion to define the best player: the two players should play 4 subgames, rotating the colors sequence. This to allow a better distribution of the result of the dice, because in some games the dice can show very few "probable" numbers. So if the first subgame sequence is red, blue, white, yellow , then the second subgame sequence will be blue, white, yellow, red (or the alternative shift, i mean yellow, red, blue, white), the third subgame will be W, Y, R, B (or the accordingly alternative shift) and the last subgame will be Y, R, B, W (or the accordingly alternative shift). In every game the fraction of each player is counted and then the sum of every subgame define the best player. So if in the 1st subgame the player, for now called P1, with R and W makes 17 points (remember: the minimum is 15) and the other player, P2, makes 12 points; then in the second subgame P1 (always controlling the same colors) makes 14 points and P2 (again, controlling the same color of the 1st subgame) makes 15 points; in the 3rd subgame P1 makes 16 points and P2 makes 14; in the 4th subgame P1 makes 11 points and P2 makes 18 points. Then the sums are: P1 = 17/29 + 14/29 + 16/30 + 11/29 ; P2 = 12/29 + 15/29 + 14/30 + 18/29 ; where P1 = 862/435 < P2 = 878/435 , therefore P2 wins.

Welcome to B&CG Stack Exchange!

Can you explain why you added this rule? "At the start of the game the colonies can be placed only on crossroads where 3 roads intersect, so no ports at the start." Does starting with a port just become too powerful otherwise?

@AlexP: thanks :) , i won't post frequently anyway.
For the rule, because so the placement is harder and yes, no one will have an "head start". This avoid easy "changes" since the player controls two colors and can make internal trading without cost. (i.e: i place my color A settlements over the wool, and then the color B settlement over the port with wool)

Here are the rules of a 2-player variant of Catan that I developed with my sister. We have tested it several times and it makes for a very enjoyable game. The game will also work with 3 players if one has the 5-6 player extension to regular Catan, although we haven’t tested it yet. We have found a few 2-player variants online in which each player controls two colours, but none quite like ours.
If there are any ambiguities in the rules please see a more detailed description at https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/2436188/coalitions-catan-2-3-player-variant-catan

THE COALITIONS OF CATAN
By Stephen Pasteris and Marianna Pasteris
To play with 2 players one needs the Catan base game and to play with 3 players one needs, in addition, the 5-6 player extension.
We have 4 clans (when 2-player) or 6 clans (when 3-player). Each clan owns its own set of resource cards and development cards. For the purposes of resource production, trading, building, playing development cards, and obtaining longest road and largest army cards each clan acts like an independent player in regular Catan (each clan having its own colour).
Each player P controls 2 clans: PL and PR.
The game ends when, for some player P, both clans PL and PR have at least 10 victory points each: player P then wins the game.
If the longest road or largest army card is owned by one of Player P’s clans then the card gives both PL and PR one victory point each.
Resource cards are face up whilst development cards are face down. For a player P, PL’s cards/pieces and PR’s cards/pieces are on the left and right of player P, respectively.
Placing the initial settlements and roads is as in regular Catan. The sequence in which the clans place the initial settlements and roads is:
AL, BL, AR, BR, BR, AR, BL, AL for 2-player
AL, BL, CL, AR, BR, CR, CR, BR, AR, CL, BL, AL for 3-player
Where A, B and C are the players.
—————————————————————
In the main game, both of a player’s clans trade and build on the same turn (i.e. turns alternate between players rather than clans). Player P’s turn breaks down as follows:
1) Resource production:
Player P rolls the dice for resource production as in regular Catan. Note that, for the purposes gaining resources, each clan acts like an independent player does in regular Catan. If Player P rolls a 7 then he/she moves the robber as in regular Catan: the stolen card can be given to either PL or PR (Player P chooses)
2) Internal trade:
If both PL and PR have at least 1 resource card then Player P can choose 1 card from each of PL and PR and swap them. i.e. Clan PL can trade any one resource card for any one resource card of Clan PR. At most one such trade can happen at this stage.
3) External trade:
Clans PL and PR can both trade with the bank or harbours as in regular Catan. Note that clans cannot trade with each other at this stage. Clans belonging to different players can never trade with each other.
4) Desertion:
Clans PL and PR can remove as many cities/settlements/roads as they like, as long as when one clan removes a road one end of that road must not touch any other road, settlement or city belonging to that clan (it is ok for it to touch buildings and roads of other clans). Any removed pieces go back into the pile of unused pieces so can be used again in the future.
5) Construction:
Both clans PL and PR can build or buy development cards as in regular Catan.
Either of clans PL and PR can play at most one development card at any point during Player P’s turn, as long as it wasn’t bought on that turn.
————————————————————————
If a robber is played (via rolling a 7 or playing a knight card) by Player P then the stolen card is chosen at random: the player controlling the clan from which it is stolen hides their resource cards and cuts them. Player P (or another player if Player P is stealing from one of its own clans) is then presented with the cards face down and picks one. Note that if the robber was played by rolling a 7 then Player P can choose which clan to give the card to, whilst if it was played via a knight card then the stolen card must go to the clan that owns the knight card.
A note on the number of victory points to win:
The game ends when there is a player P in which both clans PL and PR have at least 10 victory points each (Player P then wins the game). We originally let the game end at 8 victory points each but found 10 victory points made a much more strategic game: there is more fight for land (players try to block the other player’s clans from being able to make enough settlements) and our “desertion” stage (Stage 4 of a players turn - which allows one of the player’s clans to move into the space previously owned by the other clan) becomes much more important. Because of the chance, when playing to 10 victory points, of getting a clan “boxed in”, a player can forfeit the game at any time.
Thanks to Salmon Qaisar for suggesting that, when a robber is played, a player can steal from his own clan, and how to implement this.


text:
Why are beginning to intermediate bridge players told to delay learning how to bid certain types of unusual hands?
When learning modern bidding (Standard American 5 card majors in my case), I noticed that the system's bidding techniques and common conventions described good ways of getting to a reasonable contract for most common types of hands very well, but seemed to miss with certain types of hands*. I also misbid a number of hands that experienced players at the table said were likely to end up in the wrong contract using my bidding system, and that that was okay.
Why do experienced bridge players think it is okay for a bidding system to generally result in poor contracts for certain types of hands*, urging beginning to intermediate players to delay learning how to bid these types of hands until they have much more experience?

Examples of "certain types of hands" include strong hands such as very long suits (9+ cards), 2 voids, seeming slam potential despite missing an Ace, etc. But also weak hands that intuitively seem to have potentially good pre-emptive value despite not falling into traditional weak 2 or weak 3 types of hands.

Note that this question was inspired by the following question about bidding hands with suits of extreme length, and is an attempt to make it into a clear and distinct question, appropriate for a FAQ (It is truly a question I had when learning bidding and I wish I had learned the answer much, much earlier than I actually did):
http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/6240/how-should-hands-that-are-extremely-strong-in-one-suit-10-cards-be-bid

I'm curious as to what these "certain types of hands" are.  Hands that really don't come up very often?  Obviously you don't worry about those until you've mastered the actual meat and drink of Bridge play.  (There are hands like 4-4-4-1 splits that are tricky to bid correctly that obviously do come up, but they don't come up often enough that absolute beginners need to wrap their head around their complexity, so it's the same basic principle, I feel...)

@thesunneversets Good idea - I added in a few examples. What is obvious to you (and at long last to me) is not at all obvious to many beginners and was not obvious to me in my first few years of casual play. My bidding ability in bridge was hindered for many years by not having trust in the bidding system I was purportedly attempting to follow/learn, because I knew it failed for certain types of hands. Had I known and well understood the answer to this question, I would have progressed far faster.

To best understand the answer to this question, it helps to understand the purpose of bidding and bidding systems. Bidding is an attempt by two partners to predict the number of tricks their combined hands can win in the play. The purpose of bidding is for each partnership to ascertain which contract, whether made or defeated and whether bid by them or by their opponents, would give the partnership their best scoring result.
A bidding system is the set of agreements and understandings (treatments and conventions) assigned to bids and sequences of bids used by a partnership. As a beginning player, you might think it a simple matter to develop a bidding system which, if followed, would always land each partnership in the contract which yields the highest score. In reality, no perfect system has been developed. The problem is that the number of possible hands is too large to be mapped onto a tidy bidding system that works well for all of them. There is simply not enough bidding space to develop such a system.
Since designing a perfect bidding system is (probably) impossible, compromises must be made. The way this is usually done is to divide hands into types and develop a sense for which types of hands are most common, less common, uncommon, and extremely rare. When designing a bidding system, you make darn sure that the most common types of hands are easily dealt with, landing you in the highest scoring contract 100% of the time or close to it. Then you keep modifying the bidding system to deal with ever less common types of hands.
A beginning to intermediate student of bridge will do well to follow this same path of successive levels of approximation.
For example, if you're learning the Standard American system with a pair of books by William S. Root (Commonsense Bidding, Modern Bridge Conventions), you first master the bidding basics in the first 10 chapters of the book Commonsense Bidding. Perhaps that will enable your partnership to handle 65% of all hands once you've thoroughly mastered these chapters. Then you read the rest of the book to get your partnership able to handle 86% of hands. Then you cover the one-star conventions in the next book, Modern Bridge Conventions, to get you up to 93%. Then the 2-stars get you to 96%. Then the 3-stars get you up to 97%. Beyond these 2 books you'll get into increasingly esoteric conventions that come up so rarely in play that they're very hard to remember - but may help you tackle most of the remaining 3% of hands not covered by the treatments and conventions described in these 2 books.
The actual percentage of hands covered is almost certainly different than what I just described, but the concept is valid and can be applied to learning:
The most efficient way to learn bidding in bridge is to concentrate on the most common hands first and master the treatments and conventions for that thoroughly before starting to move on to deal with successively less common hands.
A common mistake of beginners and one which I made many times is to look at a certain hand and realize that the bidding I've learned so far probably won't work well for this type of hand. So instead of doing my best to follow the treatments and conventions I've learned so far, I simply ignore the system and try to do what feels right for the hand. This not only results in many misbid hands (your partner has no idea what you're doing!) but also slows down learning how to bid if you do this frequently.
Another common issue is getting obsessed about learning how to bid a certain type of hand. Yes it's very cool to learn how to bid slams that have a missing ace but a void in that suit (Splinter bids). But this type of hand comes up maybe once per thousand deals. If you try to learn that before you've mastered the basics, you're concentrating your efforts on a 1 in 1000 occurrence before you're dealing well with types of hands that come up every time you play.
So that's why you want to delay learning how to bid certain types of hands even if it lands you in poor contracts from time to time. By learning how to bid more common types of hands first, you make more efficient use of your learning time and get more used to applying basic treatments and conventions. Once you master the basics, you can better refine your bidding system with added treatments and conventions but if you don't have a good foundation to build on top of, this is more likely to hurt than help.
I know from experience as I had to unlearn years of bad habits developed during casual play - habits that would not have formed had I understood this concept of successive levels of approximation. Once I understood this, I then fully unlearned my bad habits, and my bidding improved dramatically.

Note that thesunnneverset's answer was also very good and very worth reading. It was difficult to choose which answer to accept.

I'm going to go for a "so simple it's possibly insulting" answer here.  Hopefully it won't actually be taken amiss!
Bridge is a complicated game.  There's a lot to take in, and in many ways there is no end to the amount of obsessive fine-tuning you can do to your system.  A beginning player who has just brought a fat Bridge tome and read bits and pieces of the theory will probably blunder in and get a lot of things wrong the first few times they play.
As such, their more experienced mentor may subscribe to a Keep It Simple, Stupid philosophy.  It's all very well to be enthusiastic about Jacoby Transfers and splinter raises to the 4 level over 1NT, which are in the latest chapter you've read, but these things are precision tools that are used in quite specific circumstances that don't come up very often.  If you are devoting brain-space to them before you've mastered the art of bidding and defending simple 3NT contracts, you are almost certainly putting the cart before the horse.
It's much more useful to get good at basic Bridge before you start cogitating about the best techniques for winning rare outlying scenarios.  In fact, I'd go so far as to say that you will have a much better chance of understanding these rare-outlying-scenario techniques, why they're needed and how they work, after you've really gotten a feel for "basic" "simple" Bridge.  Beforehand, they actually stand a strong chance of screwing up the way you play.
Also, anyone who feels compelled to spend a long time panicking about how they'd deal with being dealt a 12- or 13-card suit should probably take a crash course in basic probability.  Understanding probability is a big part of being good at Bridge.  I'd feel a lot more comfortable playing with a partner who doesn't think one-in-a-million chances are worth taking in the course of the play :P

Right. There's nothing wrong with saying after a hand, "Sorry about that, I've never had that kind of hand before!" As long as you're straightforward about your experience, a good partner will understand if you can't manage a hand as well as you'd like - that's a natural part of learning any game. If they don't understand, well ... maybe your problem isn't the hand!

I had a hard time choosing which answer to accept because I thought both this one and my own answer were excellent and helpful to the beginning-to-intermediate bridge player. I might even change my mind later. What tipped the balance slightly in favor of choosing my own answer was I explained more of the broader context (purpose of bidding and bidding systems). I wish there were a way I could accept both answers though as I think they both say the same thing in different ways. Some will prefer one. Some will prefer the other. Some will appreciate both styles of answer.

It's fine, asking questions you plan to answer yourself is a bit eccentric (and not really incentivised by the Stack Overflow points mechanic, AFAIK?) but I have nothing against you choosing the answer you prefer - especially when it did get more upvotes ;)

What they are saying is "don't learn this, yet".
You need more bridge experience, and you don't want to spend all your time reading books, you need to take it out in practice, go out and play, see what goes wrong, etc.
You learn the game to play it, after all. You want to learn some simple bidding techniques to start off with so you can go out there and play. Playing duplicate is actually the best way to learn, as you then really do get to know when you have scored badly on the hand. With rubber you will probably just blame the luck of the cards. And you won't get the hand print-outs to look at to see what you could have done.
Mastering the competitive auction will do you well and in most books that is sadly neglected. Even in the most complex bidding systems notes, which I personally can never follow myself, there is very little about what to do when the opponents intervene.
In fact Mike Lawrence once suggested that it is extremely advantageous to open the bidding as much as possible because opponents' methods when the opposition open the bidding are far less discussed than those when they open. Whilst he knows a lot better than me, my own personal style is to keep 1-level opening bids sound and limited exactly so we know where we stand when the opponents enter the auction.
By the way, to really improve your bidding, learn to recognise situations where:
- Your partner has made a decision and
- Your opinion at this point is not sought.
If partner is expecting you to pass then do so. Don't think about it. And certainly if you do think about it, do what partner is expecting you to do. Even if it ends up being the wrong thing this time, it will probably be better for your partnership in the long run.
Another thing you need to learn is when partner has come into the auction to compete or push them, not to keep on bidding until you get doubled for a large amount. Yes, raise with support if you feel partner wants to know about it, but don't punish partner.
Do these and for one, you'll find it easier to keep partners and secondarily, if you master these aspects of competitive bidding you will be a bigger winner at the table, and can work more on improving your card-play.

The unusual types of hands require "judgment," and an intuitive feel for what is right. Those are things that beginning players lack, by definition.
The only way of teaching such hands to beginners is by "rote," because the logic will not be obvious. That will only confuse a beginner, who is being taught things for which the logic is obvious. If teaching certain types of hands would only create that kind of confusion, it's better not to teach it all.
Or put another way, for those hands, by the time you could teach someone how to bid them, that person might possibly have figured out a solution on their own; that's how "advanced" some hands are.

For the same reason that you don't teach a 4th grader that the actual approach velocity of a train going 100 mph from Chicago to New York and a train going 120 mph from New York to Chicago is (v1 + v2)/(1 + v1v2/c^2).
There are many situations where it's better to walk before you run. I've seen far too many beginning bridge players think that they have game or slam just because they have a long suit, only to go down 5 doubled.
Patience, grasshopper. Patience.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
For Shield ability, does Riot Trooper gain 1 power token per figure, or just 1 total?
The wording on Riot Trooper deployment cards is literally:

Shield: At the end of your activation, if you have no block power token, gain 1 block power token.

As per Card Interpretations on page 2 of the rules reference, "you" refers to a figure.
Does this mean that just after the end of each activation, each of the two Riot Trooper figures will have a block power token on it (even if both ended the activation with no block power tokens)?

Each figure would gain a block power token.
In addition to what the original rulebook says on page 2, page 4 of Heart of the Empire's rulebook, says this about power tokens:

Various cards and abilities in Heart of the Empire allow figures to gain power tokens.

So power tokens are bounded to a figure and not the player who controls it.
In this case, if you control two Riot Troopers who depleted their block power tokens, both of them would gain their own token. If controlling two Riot Troopers and just one of them lost all of its block power tokens, he would win a new one.

At the end of each Riot Trooper figure's activation, that figure gains a block power token if it doesn't have one.

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


text:
What pauper cards are legal in MTGO but not paper?
I am trying to collect most cards relevant to pauper. All cards that have ever been printed at the common level on paper are legal for pauper, except for 10 cards on the pauper ban list.
Because MTGO pauper is more popular than paper pauper, and because it is so easily available electronically, it is easy to find data and analysis on the most frequently used cards in pauper. I did this.
The problem is that there are some cards, such as Chainer's Edict, that are common on MTGO but have never been printed as paper commons. They are therefore not legal for play with paper pauper.
Is there a list maintained of cards printed at common for MTGO, but not paper? If so, please provide link. If there is no such list but it turns out to be very few cards, then the answer should contain that short list of cards, followed by "as of x date."
Note: For the exact opposite list of cards, see: What pauper cards are legal in paper but not MTGO

I would still count Chainer's Edict as allowed for paper aswell, because gatherer counts the Vintage Masters as a print aswell. The rules state : Example: Counterspell was a common card in Seventh Edition Core Set online. Counterspell was reprinted in Masters Edition II with an uncommon expansion symbol. Both versions of the card can now be used in pauper.

@Lyrion Can you think of a more clear example than Chainer's Edict to use in the question?

Hmm, not really. But to be fair, I would allow any common, even the mtgo only ones for paper pauper. A print is still a print even if it is online only.

-1. The question in its current form is not very useful, because the answers to it will quickly go out of date. A more useful question would be "How can I find what pauper cards are legal in MTGO but not paper?"

@Rainbolt The question does ask for a maintained list elsewhere if possible. If that doesn't exist and you ask how to find out, the answer is going to be "here are the online-only sets; check every common in them" which is in the end even less useful than an out of date answer.

You can find a comprehensive breakdown of the differences between paper pauper and MTGO pauper here:
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/other-formats/paper-pauper-and-peasant/662888-differences-between-mtgo-and-paper
There are 387 cards that have been printed as commons but aren't available as such online.

I have a program that lets me do weird queries, this was an interesting one to code.  Here are the results:
Adarkar Sentinel                  Addle                             Aeolipile
Afterlife                         Alluring Scent                    Anaba Ancestor
Anaba Spirit Crafter              Armored Griffin                   Arrogant Wurm
Balduvian Conjurer                Barktooth Warbeard                Battle Screech
Beetleback Chief                  Bone Flute                        Brass Man
Brilliant Plan                    Brindle Shoat                     Chainer's Edict
Circular Logic                    Citanul Druid                     Claws of Wirewood
Coal Golem                        Dauthi Mercenary                  Death Spark
Demonic Torment                   Desperate Charge                  Drift of the Dead
Ebony Horse                       Elephant Guide                    Elven Lyre
Exile                             Fellwar Stone                     Feral Thallid
Fire Drake                        Flying Carpet                     Foul Spirit
Gilded Light                      Glasses of Urza                   Goblin Commando
Goblin Firestarter                Goblin General                    Gravebind
Heavy Fog                         Hunting Cheetah                   Hyalopterous Lemure
Icatian Lieutenant                Icatian Phalanx                   Icequake
Icy Prison                        Ironhoof Ox                       Jedit Ojanen
Jerrard of the Closed Fist        Just Fate                         Killer Whale
Kjeldoran Elite Guard             Kjeldoran Skycaptain              Knights of Thorn
Kobold Taskmaster                 Lady Orca                         Lava Flow
Lesser Werewolf                   Library of Leng                   Lightning Blow
Mana Prism                        Mightstone                        Mistmoon Griffin
Oasis                             Obsianus Golem                    Ogre Taskmaster
Onulet                            Peach Garden Oath                 Phantasmal Forces
Phantasmal Mount                  Phantom Monster                   Predatory Nightstalker
Primal Clay                       Ramirez DePietro                  Red Cliffs Armada
Righteous Avengers                River Merfolk                     Rockslide Ambush
Roots                             Royal Trooper                     Sea Sprite
Shield Sphere                     Shu Elite Companions              Shu General
Shu Soldier-Farmers               Shyft                             Sir Shandlar of Eberyn
Sivitri Scarzam                   Skirge Familiar                   Skirk Drill Sergeant
Slashing Tiger                    Sol Grail                         Soltari Emissary
Spoils of Victory                 Strategic Planning                Tangle
Tawnos's Wand                     Telekinesis                       Thallid Devourer
The Lady of the Mountain          Thermokarst                       Thrull Retainer
Tobias Andrion                    Torsten Von Ursus                 Tribute to the Wild
Trip Wire                         Wall of Kelp                      Wall of Light
Wanderlust                        Warp Artifact                     Wei Elite Companions
Whiteout                          Wu Longbowman

EDIT: forgot Tempest Remastered:
Armor Sliver                      Barbed Sliver                     Bottle Gnomes
Elven Rite                        Horned Sliver                     Mnemonic Sliver
Patchwork Gnomes                  Skyshaper                         Staunch Defenders
Telethopter                       Verdigris                         Whispers of the Muse

What's the logic/source data behind this list?

Query all cards in MED, ME2, ME3, ME4, and VMA, if the printing was at common, search all other printings, if no common printings were found, output the card name.

I think something didn't go quite right with the query. I asked a similar question on reddit a few hours ago, asking especially for cards that really matter. In addition to Chainer's Edict, other cards mentioned were Goblin Grenade, Desert, Pyrotechnics, and Sinkhole. Can you refine the query?

@JoeGolton Those cards you mentioned are common in their physical printings, but not in their virtual ones.  The list you're looking for is the opposite of that, right?  Cards that are common in virtual printings, but have no physial printings at common?

Yes you're right. I've been flipping back and forth between the two this morning and got it backwards. Thanks for the list!!

as a programmer, i'm interested: what are you using to run queries? do you have an sql-like relational database full of cards and info? where did you get your data dump? i ask because i frequently end up stymied by gatherer's extremely limited search criteria.

@WoodrowBarlow I have a java library I wrote that builds Card objects from JSON that contains all relevant game/printing information.  It's still in development (and I'm sort of taking a break from it right now) but it's in a sufficiently workable state that I can use it to do tasks like this.  I have it hosted here on GitHub, if you'd like to provide any feedback I'd certainly appreciate it!

neat! i'll check it out.

According to magiccards.info, the sets that were only "printed" online are MTGO Masters Edition I through IV and Vintage Masters. This search page lists all 376 cards that were printed as common in one of those sets. You can see on the right side of each card listing the rarities the cards were printed at in other sets. I haven't looked through the whole list, but as a sample, 7 of the 20 cards on the first page were only printed as commons online.

What about Tempest Remastered?

I don't know. magiccards.info doesn't have it in the list of sets to search.

They have to have been common in one of those 6 MTGO only sets, but uncommon or better in every other set, not all of the 376 commons from the 5 sets you checked are not pauper legal in paper due to other sets.

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


text:
How do you evaluate a building or plot quest?
Some plot quests and buildings are clearly better than others. Is there a way to at least approximately quantify how much better?

While I see both question and answer as valuable, why are you both asking the question and filling in the answer? is this normal?

@karmington I happened to figure this out recently so thought I would share. If anyone has suggestions to improve the answer or provide a better one, so much the better. Doesn't happen often but stack overflow encourages this by having a button for displaying space to provide an answer while asking a question. I used that feature.

@karmington - it's not typical, but it is normal and permitted.  Anyone, including the asker, can post an answer, and as long as it's useful information it should be good.  There are "reference" questions on this site for common questions (that attracted lots of duplicates) that were created the same way.

@karmington, SE's purpose is to build a database of useful Questions and Answers. To that end, it can be useful to share things one learns on one's own, especially if it's a very specific question and therefore easily searched for. (Loosely quoting a comment by Miller)

A small note: your question asks to quantify "exactly how much better" but your answer (though it says "yes" at the top) is really about approximations and rules of thumb. You might want to edit the question to invite other similarly approximate answers.

@Jefromi Good point. I just changed "exactly" to "approximately."

Yes. In fact, it's a great way to learn the financial concept of return on investment (ROI).
First you must understand the game's currency:
4 coins = 2 oranges or blacks = 1 white or purple
The most obvious way to understand where this conversion comes from is by observing that on the first turn of the game, an agent can be placed to obtain 4 coins, 2 oranges or 2 blacks, or 1 purple or white. You can then plug in any of these conversions to realize that most intrigue cards and same-costed buildings are roughly equal when you convert them to coin-equivalents.
Completing a quest is the main way to gather victory points, and if you look carefully at quests (except plot quests), you will notice that there is a simple formula that calculates victory points for most of them:
coins + 2 x (oranges or blacks) + 4 x (whites or purples) + 2
To simplify the analysis, I assume that all cubes are consumed by quests, because any cubes left over are not worth as much.
Some of the higher value quests are slightly better. For example all the 25 point ones give you +5 instead of +2.
However, given that they are so similar, and given that there is a cost of essentially 2 VPs to get a quest, I will assume for the rest of this post that:
4 VPs = 4 coins = 2 oranges or blacks = 1 white or purple
In other words, if you gather 2 oranges from 1 action, that is a 4VP move. If you go on a building that converts 2 blacks into 3 whites, you just changed 4 VPs into 12 VPs, so that was an 8 VP move.
If you understand everything so far, then you can easily figure out values for buildings. Examples:
House of Wonder: This building costs 4 coins (4VP), but yields 2 coins every time someone places an agent there. It is a very good building to place an agent on, so it is safe to assume that at least one agent will be placed there each turn. If you take the building on turn 1, you spend 4VPs but get the one 1VP that was sitting on the building, so you've spent a net of 3VPs. In return you get 2 VPs per turn times 8 turns, so 2 x 8 = 16 VPs. So that is a 13 VP move. That is a very good move on turn one - an investment of 3VP gets 16 VP.
However, you get a lower return on investment if you play it later in the game. Let's say you play the building on turn 7 and it has 3 VPs sitting on it. You only have to pay a net of 1 VP, but you will get only 4 VP back, so it is a 3VP move which means is generally below average (unless you hold the lord that gets a 6VP bonus for every building).
It turns out that most buildings costing 4 follow that same formula. Buildings costing 8 generally yield 4 VPs per turn, so they are actually a higher VP move on turn 1 than a 4 cost building, if you can afford to get them.
One building stands above the rest:  Yawning Portal. For an investment of 3 VP (you won't get it for less as competent players won't let this go untaken), you get 4 VP per turn at the minimum. However, this is so good to put an agent on (one of the best) that you will typically get the income from it more than once on many turns, due to various intrigue cards, ongoing quests, or buildings that allow extra agent placements on the same space. If you manage to get it on turn 1, then a normal game might get 12 agents landing there for 48 VPs. In other words, this is a 45 VP move.
You can do similar types of analysis for the plot quests. One of the best plot quests is Bloster Griffon Calvary. If you can generate 2 bonus orange cubes each turn, that is the equivalent of 4VP per turn.
Obviously, the earlier you get a plot quest or building, the better the return on investment. To quantify, use the above math. You do have to make an estimate about how much the card or building will be used.
One last comment: The above math is oversimplified to at least enable comparing competing buildings. It's more complex however when you consider that introducing a building to the game also helps the players who place agents on it. Yawning Portal expands the economy for everyone. While the owner benefits most, other players also benefit with a similar total number of VPs introduced into the game, but divided among the players. I say this because the normal move is a 4VP move, but placing an agent on Yawning Portal is an 8 VP move. Therefore, while a player taking Yawning Portal may net out 45 VP over the course of the game, in a 3 player game the other players may benefit by 24VP each, so the relative benefit is 21VP. Still very good, but not as astoundingly good as indicated by the simplified analysis above indicated.

It seems like the core thing here that needs explaining is the assumption - how did you conclude that VP value? Does it include the cost of placing agents in order to convert those resources into VP? (It appears not.) Also, are you ignoring the resources/VP the other players get by using your buildings?

Ah, the other players part is in the last paragraph. It seems like it's probably worth mentioning earlier than that; if your estimates are off by a factor of two, you might be better off with a scaled down rule of thumb for buildings?

@Jefromi Which assumption are your referring to, the 4 coins = 2 orange or black = 1 white or purple assumption? Or something else? And what do you mean by cost of placing agents - do you mean opportunity cost or the literal cost of coins to buy a building? If literal cost, I did include that in my explanation.

The VP/resource conversion, yes - it's not terribly clear that you're just inverting the previously mentioned quest VP formula. And I meant opportunity cost, not literal cost; at first glance I suppose your baseline under your assumptions would be ~4VP per agent (for taking resources elsewhere), but since filling out quests tends to involve going for specific resources, some of which may be scarce, it could be substantially higher. (That is, it's unusual to be able to freely convert resources into VP via quests.)

@Jefromi Ok thanks for feedback. I put in an extra paragraph after the initial formula, explaining how to derive it. Not sure if it would help the answer to go into opportunity cost. I think one can look at every alternative on the board and see which yields the highest VP, which yields second-highest VP, and so on. As for being able to freely convert resources into VP via quests - I have found that to be the case in most games. Get many quests and gather many resources in the early part of the game, and just make sure to begin completing them all by turn 6 or 7.

Let me try again: it's unusual to be able to freely convert arbitrary resources into VP via quests. There are generally things you need and things you don't; there are plentiful and scarce resources. If you have all your quests for most of the game up front, you're definitely playing in order to get only what you need, and so there are inevitably resources that are worth much more or much less to you. In turn, this skews the buildings. Your approximations are best-case scenarios, and in a real game they might be that good, or they might be half that good.

(I'm not saying they're not useful, just that in practice you kind of have to take all this then ignore half of it based on the real situations you encounter.)

@Jefromi I do get what you're saying about the other issues that crop up during the game. The most pressing is mandatory quests which can hit you on turn 7 and 8 and completely muck up your plans. There is also that possibility that the buildings coming into play are very weak and/or inflexible which makes it harder to do the arbitrary resource conversion. All that being said, my experience so far with this game is that paying attention to the VP equivalent of your choices (and in some cases get really lucky like going first in the game and taking Yawning Portal as first move) wins games.


text:
How do you find not-quite-club level human opponents to regularly play bridge with?
What's a good way to to go about finding human bridge players (kids or adults) that is less intense than what you find at duplicate bridge clubs, but more competitive and learning oriented than playing rubber bridge with friends once every few months?
Though I've played (and enjoyed the challenge/competitiveness of) duplicate bridge at clubs in the past, my 6-year old bridge-loving son is nowhere near the level of bidding, play, or (especially) maturity where a club would be appropriate. The etiquette alone would prove too stifling.
I've also met several people throughout my life with a desire to play bridge at a level of play that was less intense than that found at a typical U.S. duplicate bridge club, but more intense and learning oriented than what you can get from casual play with friends a few times per year.
I'm interested in answers that involve 4 people (kids, adults, or some mix of both) physically getting together. I already know about bridge software and online bridge options and while we use bridge software some as a learning tool, that's not what I'm after with this question.

I don't think 6 year olds are the only ones who don't go to bridge clubs - they're a bit intense for a lot of casual players, and your question is pretty much applicable for them too.

@Jefromi I liked your idea so I added an extra couple sentences to the end of my question. If all the answers end up being to the more general question, then I can reword the question later.

This is possibly too localized.

@Aryabhata By too localized do you mean the mention of S.F. Bay Area or do you mean the overall scope of the question? I wasn't trying to ask about just the S.F. Bay Area but if it came across that way, I'll edit the question. As for the overall scope of question, I've run across several people during my life with an interest in playing bridge more seriously but not quite to the level of joining a duplicate club. None of us have found a way to consistently accommodate the not-quite-club level of bridge play.

@JoeGolton: Too localized in the sense, the answers you get will likely not apply to other people who might have the same problem.

@Aryabhata Thanks very much for your feedback, both of you. I substantially revised the question to shift the emphasis from little kids to settings for not-quite-club level of bridge play.

I play rubber and duplicate bridge with like-minded friends, not through highly-organized "clubs".  It's highly sociable, low-stress  and not a little drunken by the end of the day!  Unfortunately I just don't know how to provide any kind of useful answer to your question: I believe lots of people want to play Bridge "for fun", but can't think of any better way to locate those than ask around... or try to convert your current friends!

Your question intrigues me because I'm an oddity--a purely sociable bridge player who has written about bridge history and I've done a lot of THINKING about bridge as popular culture--where it is, where it's going, what it needs to do if it is ever to become the mass fad it once was.  My experience writing a book about the pop culture of sociable bridge, and a blogezine as well (http://bridgetable.net), tells me you're not alone. You have lots of kindred spirits out there. There's much dissatisfaction with the bridge Establishment and today's bridge world.
I think the only answer is YOU (with others) organizing something (via the internet and Meet Up) between the world of sociable players (like me) who have no organization whatever AND the ACBL world.
Launch a website, come up with a set of standards/rules for your ideal way of playing duplicate bridge that would be good for your young son as well, give it a catchy name, and start and promote to people who agree with you. Who knows, you could be the creator of something new in bridge that goes national at some point. Who knows? Maybe someone else with feelings like you has already launched a website to reach others like you? Read again about Ely Culbertson--he told the bridge Estabishment to go to hell and just promoted bridge the way he knew it would work rather than go along with the Establishment. He's my hero.
I'll bet if you Googled "How to start a national organization via the internet" you'd find all kinds of instructions. Come to think of it--I should do that myself for MY "cause" too!
Create a few Google Alerts of selected key words and phrases and see what you find. That's how I find content for my blog, I have Google Alerts for "play bridge" and "nonagenarian" (because part 4 of my blog is looking for bridge-playing 90-plussers, and do I ever find them!!) That's how I found you in fact.
I'll bet a Google Alert for "play duplicate bridge" and "play duplicate bridge without masters points" or even the words you used in your question "play less intense duplicate bridge" -- do that for a month and see what you come up with. Can create as many Google Alerts as you want.
My progress with my cause (that sociable bridge survive after the bridge-playing old ladies like me (91) are dead and gone) goes slowly. BUT I'm OLD and TECH ILLITERATE (have to have a Virtual Assistant or I could never do a blog) while YOU are YOUNG and like most of the young into twittering and facebook and all that stuff I loathe doing. Even so, got a couple of very good breaks these past two weeks that may make a huge difference eventually in my subscriber list. Anyway, what I do is one of my bucket list causes and makes life interesting for a nonagenarian.

Welcome to the site and thanks for your contribution from the historical perspective. I hope you contribute more to our bridge questions and answers. Stack Exchange is almost the opposite of Twitter/Facebook which discuss fleeting thoughts of the moment. Think of collaborative effort to leave behind a terrific database of reference style questions and answers. While I love the content you contributed, I think it could be even better if edited somewhat to become a little more concise in some parts, while the Ely Culbertson part is expanded, thus nudging this into a format we're all used to.

What a pleasure to hear from someone still so enthusiastic about the game, and who remembers good old Ely.

Many of the larger clubs have an evening or two a week set aside for beginners or "improvers", which sounds like the sort of thing you are looking for. My own has a very popular evening where an experienced player gives a short talk on a topic and everyone then proceeds to forget it all in the excitement.
Find your local club and ask. They won't bite. (No point giving you my club's contact details as its a long way from California.)

I am a life-long player and evangelist for bridge, who has enjoyed success at many levels of play from tournaments to kitchens. Like your son, I learned the basics of bridge at 6 or 7 (in my case from Goren's AutoBridge), but went another 10 years before encountering a group of like-minded individuals in high school.
A major obstacle IMHO to wider acceptance of bridge (in North America - it is thriving in other parts of the world) is the perceived need to play the full current game as invented by Vanderbilt. Bridge (meaning Auction Bridge and Plafonde and other variations including Auction Whist and Contract Whist) was already a mass phenomenon before Vanderbilt's new Contract scoring table. The ability to gradually step up to more challenging variations of the game may have been a key driver of Bridge's popular success from the '30's through the '60's.
I suggest playing not just Contract Bridge with your son, but exposing him to whichever variation is playable by the opponents at hand. Play a Whist variant with less serious players from your group; play Auction Bridge with opponents interested in a slightly greater challenge, and wait to see if any of your regular group decides to step up to Contract. Play 9-5-2 Whist when three people are waiting for a fourth to show up.
Play some Poker, to help your son learn the elements of bluffing both as allowed, and as not allowed, in Bridge, so he can better distinguish them. Play some Rummy to work on his card memory.
Oswald Jacoby and Howard Schenken were not only amongst the very top world-class bridge players of their time, but also widely regarded as the best Backgammon and Gin Rummy players, respectively of their generation. While I believe Bridge to be a more multi-dimensional game than either of these, both of these will strengthen specific aspects of your son's bridge playing.
If need be, play simple Hearts or one of the many German-derived trick-taking games described in any good Hoyle. All of these games will teach your son card-playing skills that carry over well to Contract Bridge. The opportunity to observe opponents in these many different, yet similar< environments will encourage card-reading, and opponent-reading skill development by your son. All the top players are amazing technicians, but the very best have an ability to read opponents that is often uncanny, and which I believe comes from exposure to opponents in wider circumstances than just the Contract Bridge table.
But above all, play a card game.
Talleyrand, on observing 4 young women who refused to learn Whist:

What a sorry old age you are preparing for yourselves.

I would look for a bridge "circle." That would be a social club where bridge is played, but is not dedicated exclusively to playing bridge.
A bridge club (that plays exclusively bridge) is one that attracts dedicated people. From the look of your question, that's "too much" for you needs. What you want is a location where bridge is played, but people are out for a "good time," and not necessarily to play bridge.

Alternatively online would be non-threatening.  Such as teaching tables on www.bridgebaseonline.com

The question explicitly rules out online or computer-based bridge.


text:
Database of chess games for evaluating ranking systems?
I would like to test my ranking system based on information theory.
I need a database of games with outcomes and ranks of the single players.
Where can I find this?

There was a Kaggle competition sponsored by the FIDE looking for an alternative to the current ELO system. The link is:
http://www.kaggle.com/c/ChessRatings2
The dataset has over a million actual games covering ~50k players. There's also discussions of the alternative approaches used (the competition itself is now over) and scoreboard of metrics to see how well your ranking system compares.

There is actually a rather large DB of chess games at http://chesstempo.com.  I'm not sure how open they are with it, but it could be a good starting point.

You could also try ChessGames.com. There is at least one API for accessing the data: Chess::Games::DotCom on metacapn.

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


text:
What does the expansion symbol of From the Vault: Transform mean?
What does the expansion symbol of From the Vault: Transform depicts? Looks like feathers in a circle to me.
MTG Gamepedia says:

"The cards use their original transformation symbols. However, the
  expansion symbol is uniquely mirrored in color on the cards' back
  sides."

And Wikipedia lists it as

unrevealed

in the Expansion Symbol column at List of Magic: The Gathering Sets article

Not sure what you mean by the Wikipedia Quote?

The quote is merely referring to the fact the expansion symbols colours on the front are inverted on the back. The standard is for expansion symbols to be the same regardless of what side they are printed on, so this difference in colour makes the set symbol unique.
I suspect that the symbol is supposed to be the back of a werewolf in front of a moon. Though the expansion only contains one werewolf, werewolves are a core part of the transform mechanic and featured heavily in the mechanics debut during Innistrad.
Front (Orange background, Black lines):

Back (Black background, Orange lines):

If I understand right, the question was what it represents, and the OP just quoted those things by way of showing research effort.

Indeed my question is "What it represents."

@GadDLord I edited in my interpretation. I think I am not far off as the shape seems pretty similar to Ravager of the Fells back. But it is pretty abstract so we will see...


text:
Does Harvey Walters' ability to reduce Sanity loss by 1 break the game?
The professor has an ability to reduce san loss by 1. Therefore, he is able to cast any number of spells for free! Is this meant to be so overpowering?

Page 4 on Arkham Horror FAQ from the Fantasy Flight website:

Q: Does the Strong Mind ability (reduce all Sanity loss
  by 1) of the professor, Harvey Walters, apply to the casting of spells?
A: No. The professor’s ability works on losses, not costs.
  The same distinction applies to the gangster, Michael
  McGlen, and his ability to reduce Stamina losses.

According to the Arkham Horror Wiki, a later expansion clarified that the ability does not apply to spells or any other voluntary san loss, only involuntary. Therefore, he's not actually meant to be so powerful. If there's errata for the base game, I couldn't find any.


text:
Does the medic remove cubes of the final cured disease (and thus eradicate it) before the game ends in a win?
Consider a scenario in which your group is doing absurdly well. Three diseases have been eradicated, and while the fourth disease — Red — has not yet been cured, it has been contained to a single city, in which the Medic is already present.
Then it happens. The Operations Expert, holding three red cards, moves to a Research Center where the Researcher, holding two red cards, is already present. The Operations Expert takes those two red cards and then cures the final disease. You've won!
But since the Medic is in the only city still infected by the (now cured) Red Fever, that one is instantly treated as well.
Have you now won with full eradication? Or did the game already end once the fourth disease was cured?

Yes, according to Matt Leacock (one of the game's designers) on a BGG thread for Pandemic Legacy Season 1, the disease is eradicated. The medic's ability is immediate, so the cubes are cured and the disease eradicated. Pandemic Legacy Season 1 has rules very similar to those of Pandemic, so I wouldn't hesitate applying this ruling to the regular Pandemic.
Note that in Legacy, unlike vanilla Pandemic, eradicating a disease has consequences in terms of game-end upgrades, so the timing of things is quite important.

See the last page of the rules, it says

If a disease has been cured, he automatically removes all cubes of that color from a city, simply by entering it or being there. This does not take an action.

the page before says

The players win as soon as cures to all 4 diseases are discovered.

Link to the rules from the publishers website: https://images.zmangames.com/filer_public/e6/75/e6757883-0976-467a-85f3-c383f1bae17c/zm7101_rules_2018_web.pdf

While this is useful in most cases this does not answer the question if the game ends as soon as the final cure happens or if the medics ability still has time to eradicate the final disease. The question even mentions this ability to treat the disease in the area around the medic just by being there.

as a not-english-native-speaker I assumed it means "if the disease are cured (done cured: "check win: checked. won! games ends") - than afterwards - the medic removes the cubes ( but here not needed anymore, already won)" ... but this is not my native language, so maybe somebody else who can read between the lines in his own language can give this assumptions more ground. Also the rulebook says "The players win as soon as cures to all 4 diseases are discovered.", ill update my answer to include it.

What you have there is correct but the question is what happens first. Does the medic remove the cubes and the disease get eradicated? Or does the game end? While you are correct in stating that the game is won either way there is a difference in winning with all diseases eradicated and winning with 3.

"As soon" seems to happen faster than "automatic", at least in my limited understanding - but lets leave it to the philologists ... maybe a good question for english.stackexchange.com ?

I am guessing that question about the wording is why the question was asked and why the game designer clarified it on board game geek.


text:
Can the anti-whale tile be used to defend against the giant squid?
In Survive: Escape from Atlantis with the giant squid mini-expansion, the whales and squids are treated as being roughly the same critter.  Does this mean that the anti-whale tiles can be used to defend against marauding squids?

Yes, you can use the anti-whale tiles to defend against the giant squid.
Although I was unable to find a FAQ for the game on Stronghold-Games website, Kevin Nesbitt who is a credited designer of one of Survives other mini expansions said the following:

The Giant Squid and Whale are meant to be largely interchangeable, at least in how they are brought into and out of play. Since a player must select either a whale OR a Giant Squid, they may also choose to harpoon either by play of the defensive whale tile (but only one "harpooning" per tile, please!)


text:
Can the first zombie player spawn the second zombie player's zombies?
With the card "There's too many", in a two zombie player game, can zombie player 1 spawn zombie player 2's zombies if their remaining figures are out or are they forced to move the existing ones already on the board?

No.
According to the rules:

If there are two Zombie Players, each of them has a separate Zombie Pool of 7 Zombies each. One player takes all the Green Zombies, the other all of the Brown Zombies. Players may never use Zombies from the other player's pool (only their own color of Zombie).

It wouldn't matter if you could, since you are only allowed to place zombies if you roll higher than the number of zombies you personally control.
The rules state the following:

Place Starting Zombies -  The Zombie Player starts the game with 2d6 Zombies on the board (or 1d6 each if there are two Zombie Players). Place the rolled number of Zombies on the board from your Zombie Pool. [...] If there are two Zombie Players, they are only limited in this way by their own color of Zombie (that is, the two players may double up Zombies on a Spawning Pit before each pit has a Zombie on it). (page 8)
3) Roll To Spawn New Zombies - [...] If there are two Zombie players, each of them instead only rolls 1d6, needing to roll over the number of Zombies that they personally control on the board. (page 9)

Since each player starts with 6 zombies of their color, and you need to roll a 1d6 higher than the number you personally control, you cannot roller higher than '6'.

I beleive the card being asked about allows you to spawn additional zombies without havbing to roll for them


text:
Opening bid in first seat
opening bid, I have:
S: AKQ9873
H: AQ
D: xx
C: Qx

Could I ever justify opening 4 spades?
I have more than eight tricks in my own hand, with seven of them in spades. At the same time, I fear the weakness of my minor suit doubletons.

Who are you intending to pre-empt out of the auctions? Partner?

What is the [house-rules] tag here for?

@SevenSidedDie: I think the OP knows that his bidding system is, shall we say, "unconventional" but was wondering if it might be appropriate or at least acceptable in an informal "home" game with players that shared his mind set.

@TomAu Ah. That would be the wrong use for the tag still, but it would explain why it might have been chosen in the first place.

Tl;dr: No, bid 1♠.
There are many different sets of bidding conventions in bridge. In the one I learned (some further information here: http://www.rpbridge.net/3j00.htm), 4♠ is a preemptive bid that signals a very long spade suit (which you have) and several points below the regular opening strength of 12 high card points. Your hand is too strong for that (even if you play where the unprotected Qs aren't worth points), so you should bid 1♠ instead and then further tell your partner about your amazing spade suit by rebidding it at your next opportunity, probably jumping a level when you do so (e.g. 1♠ - 2♣ - 3♠).
While other conventions may differ somewhat, it is unlikely that any will tell you to open 4♠ with that hand. This is because, although your hand is quite likely to make 4♠, if your partner has any strength you might be able to make a slam instead, but if you start the bidding high then there's very little bidding space for you and your partner to figure that out.

Also the 4S opening categorically denies defensive values outside the bid suit, which this hand has a fair bit of.

That particular hand should certainly be opened 1♠.  4♠ is a preempt, as has been noted; it's often a preempt-to-make, meaning a hand that you think has a decent shot at actually making 4♠, but only because of the distribution.  However, if you'd make that bid with this hand, how will your partner know whether it's appropriate to bid on to slam?
There is a good convention for handling "strong and long" hands like this, though; NAMYATS.  I play that it requires eight cards in the suit, but some play it with seven, and splits the bidding this way:

8 cards, 6-7 tricks: 4♠
8 cards, 8-8.5 tricks: 4♦, with your partner then having the choice of either accepting the transfer (just bidding 4♠), bidding 4♥to give some options (you will then bid 4♠, and he/she can either pass to have you play the hand or can bid on to show a "strong" hand). Also on the table is 4NT (typically a form of Blackwood, though you can play other things there) or 5 of another suit (usually either showing or asking for control, perhaps a splinter-type bid).   Advanced partnerships will have very specific meanings for these bids (and often specific to the partnership), and will also have an agreement to tailor hands that are allowed to bid NAMYATS to their bidding system and style.

The same applies for hearts (with clubs being the strong bid).  This allows you to tell your partner the difference between a "good" 4♠ and a "poor" one, and gives your partner some very powerful responses.

Your hand is too strong to open four spades.
You might bid like that with AKQ9873 of spades and no other honors. That's because you will be able to take seven tricks in your own hand, but have "no defense" outside of spades. Your ace will likely take one trick against a presumed singleton, but the opponents have a small slam, if partner has nothing.If playing "strong" pre-empts, I might bid four spades with AKQ9873 of spades and Qx of clubs, but two little hearts instead of AQ, in fourth seat, but not first.
With one additional ace in your hand and two queens outside of spades, the opponents do not have a potential slam, and probably no game, since your weakness is in the minor suits. So you don't worry about partner having "nothing," because you can defeat, and probably double your opponents on your own if they tried to outbid you for a game. You have the spade suit, so they will have to bid the game at the five level.
In that case, bid "normally" with one spade, and give partner a chance to respond naturally, since you are in first seat. If you start too high, you are "preempting" partner, not the opponents. With so many extra points coming from extra trumps and "distribution," someone (partner or opponent) is going to bid. Unless this is a very weak group, you will not be passed out. (And if you are, you might want to find another group.)
One other thing: your hand is almost, but not quite good enough for a "demand" bid of two clubs, that forces partner to bid two diamonds (or higher) unless the opponents intervene. Change the queen of clubs to the ace, or a small diamond into the king, and I would bid two clubs. That is a "lower" bid that leaves more room for partner's response than four spades. Depending on what partner has (and bids), you would likely either play the hand, or double the opponents for a profit if you were strong enough to bid two clubs.

Let's be clear - the hand is a DK short of a 2C opening. You have to have enough defensive values to double opponents profitably if they outbid you, else you are punishing partner. If partner has 4 spades and out the opponents likely have a red suit slam and you will get stuck guessing whether to take out or leave in partner's double.

@PieterGeerkens: Amplified my statements, following your suggestions.

Good. You could also note that: 1) This is a 50 point deck, and so 1S is never getting passed out; and 2) an opening 2C promises that either we buy the hand or opponents will be doubled. The absence of a singleton in your hand is a significant flaw, because if partner has one that gives the opponents a 10-card fit.


text:
What tactical/strategic decisions can you make in D&D: The Legend of Drizzt board game?
There are a couple of decisions you can make, like what starting powers you want for your character, and which character you choose, but everything else seems like it is already predetermined or random.
If you don't explore edges of the cavern, you get an encounter card. If you do explore the edges of the cavern, you reveal monsters that attack you first (I suppose you sometimes get to determine which player the monster attacks).
Choices for which Item/Daily Power are equally as obvious (the weapon with the highest chance deal damage). Perhaps the only choice that requires any kind of difficult decision is when to use your Daily Power.
Am I missing something, or is there little if any strategy/tactics in this game?

After playing the "Wrath of Ashardalon" game (same system, different scenario), the biggest strategy that came to my mind is sticking together/splitting the party. If you split the party, you can explore more rooms (hopefully getting to the boss quicker), but you have more monsters (and encounters and monsters with ecounters) to deal with. If you stay together, encounters that affect a whole room can cause a lot more headache.
Having only played a couple times, I'm certainly no expert on it, but I'd say choosing how to split the party is a main tactic of the game.

Sure, there are few strategy options in the game, but there are a couple things you might have not considered as strategic elements:

Stances: Some characters have "stances" available. Many are relevant even to actions happening in other people's turn (or during villain phase). A few examples:

One stance I like (from Drizzt IIRC) is a counterattack that's activated the next time an enemy attacks you.
Bruenor may heal instead of moving (if you chose the card). And even if you don't need much healing, this is a good option because it won't trigger an event if you don't end on an edge.

Group coordination: Since most scenarios are cooperative, there's room for a strategy among players; for example:

"I'll leave my monster for you to kill so you can flip a card and heal me in your turn".
Or something as simple as which edge to explore so that the next player can reach an edge with his movement.
Do we explore an edge or get an event? (knowing that exploring might also trigger an event; or that the monster may be worse than the event)
Do we pay XP to avoid an event or save the XP for a rainy day? (rainy tile?)

Villain actions: Sometimes a villain's action could result in different interpretations; for example:

A villain will often "attack the nearest hero". When two heroes are equally distant, the active player (the one controlling the villain) must decide who the villain will attack. Sometimes if a specific character is injured, the game could be lost (no healing surges).
On some rare cases, when there are still healing surges available, your strategy for winning will include figuring out who gets knocked down first, who gets knocked down second, etc.

Even in these scenarios the strategy you can achieve is not really complex (even limited). And barring rule-interpretation stuff, most times you'll just be choosing between two options.