text:
bridge question regarding answering opening of 1 of a major
If opener opens 1s how many hearts does responder need to respond with 2h (has 10 points).  If opener opens 1h how many spades does responder need to respond 1 spade (6-9 points)

As Peter mentions in his answer below, please update your question with information about the bidding system you are playing. For example, Standard American, Acol, Goren, etc.

I infer from the phrasing of your question that you are playing a 4-card Major  natural system such as Goren. If that is not the case please specify what system you are playing.
First, it is vital to correct your statement on the strength of the 1S response to 1H; it is not a limited strength bid of 6-9 HCP but an unlimited strength bid of 6-20+ HCP. It is absolutely forcing for one round on Opener, who is obligated to ensure that you get a second opportunity to call. While there are some unusual circumstances where an expert might make this call as a prepared bid with only 3 Spades, I would strongly recommend that you now forget I ever said that, and always treat it as showing 4 or more Spades.
Second, the principle of bidding 4-card suits up the line is a fundamental tenet of natural systems. Don't go bidding your best or strongest four card suit first; that will cause you to subsequently be lying about your overall hand shape. Bidding is a language and, just as in English, you cannot be scrambling the word order of your sentence and expect the meaning to be unchanged. "That is your cat." and "Is that your cat?" have different meanings in English, and reversing the order in which you show two suits also changes the meaning of your calls. When looking to see which denomination is the best to play in, total number of trumps is much more important than trump quality.
That being said, the 2H response to a 1S opening almost promises 5 Hearts; because, due to the above, it denies any other 4-card holding. It promises 10-20+ HCP, and either a 5-card Heart holding or a 3-4-3-3 hand shape for which either of a 1NT or 2S response was distasteful. With a flat 10 HCP I would prefer a 1NT or 2S response to bidding 2H with only 4, choosing between the two on whether my high cards were concentrated in one or two suits including spades or well distributed over at least three.  Update: In summary, when responding 2H over a 1S opening have either 5 Hearts or an extra point or two above the 10 HCP minimum.
Again - none of this applies unless you are playing a natural 4-card major system such as Goren. I suspect much of it applies to ACOL though never having played (or read much on) that system I am less familiar with it. In particular, if you are playing any of a 5-card Major system (whether Hardy or K-S style), a Forcing Club system, or Canape style responses none of the above will apply as written.

So if you had a 3-4-4-2 distribution, you'd reply to the 1S with 2D? Wouldn't you generally prefer to suggest your major first?

@zigdon: NO! Absolutely not! You must bid four card suits up the line as responder in order to not create a bidding problem, for yourself and partner, next round. If you desire more details on why this is essential, ask a question on it - a comment doesn't allow enough words to give this fundamental tenet justice.

@zigdon: Your comment is the basis of a good question - if you ask it I will answer it .


text:
How do you score failed nil bids?
Say you are playing 4 person spades, and somone bids nil and they get a book/trick what is the penalty? Does it count as a sandbag, or do they just lose the points from failing nil? Does that book count towards the partners bid?
Now in three man spades if someone bids nil and gets a book do they get a sandbag or just lose the points?

Given that there isn't exactly a single set of "official rules" for Spades, I would say that there two valid answers:
1) Tricks collected by a set (failed) NIL bid count as tricks for the partner, at which point all normal rules apply as far as sandbags, making the bid, etc. The team loses -100 (or -200 if it was a double/blind Nil) for the set nil, but scores the partner's bid normally.
2) Tricks collected by a set Nil bid are void and count for nothing. The partner must make their bid completely independently.
Players should agree on the rules ahead of play.
Personally, I've always played per #1 and would prefer that greatly. First, it makes losing the nil not quite as painful, since you can help your partner out. Second, it means that while you can take extra tricks to try to set your opponent's bid, you will risk taking sandbags for it, whereas with option 2, you could take those extra tricks with no further penalty.

I've played with #2 and it's actually a very good move to sometimes bid nil only to fail it and fail your opponent's bid. This was with a nil penalty of -50 also, so if they bid over 5 it's beneficial.

A third valid answer is to treat them as two separate bids, which means that the tricks don't help partner, and also count as sandbags.

True, that IS a third option; I just thought that was overly punishing.

How I've played is that if you fail a blind nil you get -200 plus the penalty for your partner. for example if I bet blind nil and my partner says 4 tricks. If I fail the nil we get -240. However, If I win the nil and my partner makes all the tricks we would get a score of +240

Question was about failing a Nil Bid, not failing a Blind Nil Bid.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
Inherited thousands of Magic Cards
I have inherited over 20,000 Magic cards. What is the best way to find out what they are worth for selling. Do I need to look up each card? How? Where?

Related: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/13907/how-should-i-group-rare-magic-cards-when-selling-them-online?lq=1 and http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/5458/where-can-i-sell-my-magic-the-gathering-cards?lq=1

Do you know what time frame the cards are from?  Newer cards have some clear indications of what cards might be valuable, but older cards do not.  Generally you can look at the bottom of the card and find a copyright year to give you an idea of how old the card is.

Also, are they organized at all? Do you know if there are rares, possibly kept separately? If it's just someone's boxes full of commons and uncommons it might not be as useful to try to look up values for individual cards.

Do you have any knowledge of Magic (especially rarities and sets), and how much effort are you willing to put into maximizing your profit?

Does your collection have cards older than Eighth Edition?
If not, here is a list of expensive commons and uncommons from Eighth Edition through Khans of Tarkir. It's only about a year old.

On this topic, my entire giant 10k collection is ~Ice Age and earlier (90's through early 2001). Is there any way to quickly price and sell collections from this era? Is there an easy marketplace to flip the whole thing?

Your first goal is to separate bulk from value. Bulk cards are usually valued by the inch (for example, they'll buy for $0.20 an inch, which works out to about $0.005 per card) so getting value cards out of the bulk pile is paramount in properly valuing a collection.
The first thing you'll want to do is sort the cards by set. This will make them much easier to look up. I suggest you do this with the cards upside down if you're right handed so it's easier to thumb through them. Remember that cards will naturally have some order to them, so you will likely have a lot of runs in the same pile. If you find there's too many sets, then only pick out a couple of sets per pass (ideally the ones that have the most, to reduce the amount of picking on the next pass). I sorted a collection of 10,000 cards in five passes, but I used my knowledge of the block structure to help with that.
There's a very nice guide to identifying sets on this site.
Once you have them sorted by set, you'll want to go through each set and find the value cards. Go to a website of your choosing that lists the prices by set, and filter by the price so you only see prices over a certain threshold. (When pricing collections, I use $0.75 as my threshold, since they're the ones likely to pop over $1.00 on occasion...)
Separate your commons and uncommons into one pile and your rares and mythics into another pile. This can easily be done by flipping the pile upside down and thumbing from left to right. Commons are black, uncommons are silver, rares are gold and mythics are red. Now go to your price list for the set and identify if there are any commons or uncommons over your threshold. Don't let the Lightning Bolts and Ponders get lost in your bulk pile! Next look at the number of rares or mythics in the set on your price list - if it's like 8 or less, just find those 8 by name in your rare pile. If it's more than that, sort your rare pile by name, and sort your price list by name, and go down both the list and pile at the same time. You can skip large chunks of the set this way, and you'll find that sorting by name gets a lot easier after you've done it a few times.
I find on average it takes around 1 hour per 1000 cards using this method. You end up looking at each card 4 times doing this:

Separate by block (so you only have about 20 or so piles)
Separate blocks into sets (one pile into four piles)
Separate into common/uncommon and rare/mythic
Picking out commons, or picking out /sorting for rares

So a 20,000 card collection should take around 20 hours or so to sort.
This doesn't take into account foil cards. As a general rule, just to save time, any full art card, foil card, or dual-mana producing land I will set aside and look up separately.

Note that early sets (Stronghold and before) don't have any color indicator of rarity.  If you don't know the set symbols, look up any card with a date in the 1990's on the bottom just to be safe.

There is no short cut way for someone not familiar with the game.
The easiest way is to go to a reputable local game store, and offer to sell them the entire batch in bulk.
A potential easy way is to find young honest kids, who love sorting cards, and have them sort by expansion/set and rarity.  Then price the individual rares, mythic rares, and complete sets of commons and uncommons.  I have three such kids who would love to engage in such a task if you are interested.

Kids are especially a good idea if you work out a deal where they end up with a decent amount of cards. Even if there's real value and you don't want to just give it all away, you could easily give them their choice of at least a few valuable cards and most/all of the bulk commons and uncommons that you wouldn't sell for much anyway. Magic is not a cheap hobby, especially on a kid's allowance, so you could really make their day.

What is the current storage condition of the cards? Are they loosely organized by color and alphabet, or meticulously filed by expansion and collector number? The better the cards are organized, the less initial labor you'll have to do.
Start with the larger sites that operate in the 2nd hand marketplace; tcgplayer, channelfireball, etc. Find their buy lists and use it as a dig through of the collection to identify things that have a specific interest.
Consider how much energy you want to invest in selling off the cards. Consignment options may exist, or you can piecemeal via ebay.

It all depends on how much time you are willing to put into sorting cards and looking up what they are worth
You can sell the rares for bulk at 15 cents US to any dealers at PTQ's or GP's and call it a day or you can go to MTG search engines and find out what is worth more than bulk. Be prepared to not get retail for you non bulk cards though.
The biggest retailers are Star City Games and channel fireball. You can try troll and toad and card kingdom as well although I have no experience with there store.
Star City Games has a great track record. I have bought from them for years and even when the packages have to travel literally half way around the world they always arrive.
They also have a simply brilliant customer service department that always answers your questions in a timely manner.
It may be a good idea to send them an email. They do not shark people.

If you are looking to maximize your profit, doing it yourself and selling them piecemeal is the best way. If you have someone you trust that knows MTG and can help you, you can work out a deal with them. Kids might be a good idea, but that wouldn't be my first choice.
Mox Diamond and MTGPrice are two dealers I have used in the past, but local comic shops, craigslist and ebay work just as well.
With the number of cards you have, if you can identify the rares, you can get a rough estimate of what the total value of cards are that you have. If the cards are not sorted in any fashion, look for the gold set icon in the middle of the card, just below the picture and just above the body text of the card.
If your cards are sorted already by the set icon, you can set aside the cards from sets that didn't have gold/silver/black color differences and look those up individually.
For a realistic preparation, the value of 20k cards can be valued for as little as $200 (0.01 per card) to as much as several thousand. Everything hinges on what cards you have. Commons are worth little to nothing and some rares are simply rare but not of high value.
Selling these cards in bulk on ebay or to a friend is the easiest, but you have to be able to identify the number of rares to certify you aren't selling a bulk of commons and then find a buyer willing to purchase them without actually being able to take the time and sort them. This method is also the one where you will receive the least amount of money for.
My bottom line advice is to spend the time sorting them first by set then alphabetically within the set. After that, make a catalog of only the rare cards. Once you know what you have, you can then get a better idea of what you can sell them for.
You might even get lucky and find some very expensive rares that you'll want to sell individually.

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

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


text:
Different color cubes in one city
If we had a blue city with one black disease cube due to an outbreak and we pull that blue city card during epidemic infection phase, is it an outbreak?
We thought that 3 was the max #of cubes one city can have (even if they are of different colors), but I just read one of the thread here that mentioned a city with 2 red cubes and 2 black cubes, total of 4 cubes in one city.

An outbreak only occurs due to cubes of a single color:

If the city already has 3 cubes of this color, do not place a 4th cube. Instead, an outbreak of this disease occurs in the city (see Outbreaks below).

And therefore a city can have up to three cubes of each color, not just three cubes overall:

As a result of outbreaks, a city may have disease cubes of multiple colors on it; up to 3 cubes of each color. This does not affect infections.

Thanks Jefromi!! This should help our win% (currently at 20%) lol

20%? Ouch! How many Epidemic cards are you putting in the player deck? You might want to take one out just to give you more of a sense of accomplishment :)


text:
How does combat damage work when one creature blocks multiple attackers?
If I have Brave the Sands, am I allowed to block both a 6/6 flying and a 5/4 with my 1/2 Gurmag Swiftwing, and take 0 damage?

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking here. Do you want to know whether a card that says that your creatures can each block an additional creature lets a blocker block two creatures, or whether blocking creatures prevents them from dealing damage to you, or something else?

I'm sorry Murgatroid, I want to know if it is legal for me to block both of these creatures with something with only 2 toughness or if I will need enough toughness to survive at least on of the attacking creatures. I am aware I can block 2 creatures it just seems strange to be able to block 2 strong creatures with only a 1/2. Thank you for your time.

Consider the example of Hundred-Handed One. While it is monstrous, it can block 100 creatures, but it is never expected to actually reach 100 toughness.

Yes, the combination of cards you described allows you to block both creatures.
Since Brave the Sands allows you to declare your creature as a blocker for 2 separate attackers, both will be considered blocked, your Swiftwing will die, and you will receive no damage. Declaring blockers does not require that your creature be able to survive combat with any of the attackers, and both declarations and damage happen simultaneously, so there's no point where your creature will be destroyed "before" it can block the other attacker.
A couple things worth noting:
When a creature blocks multiple attackers, the defending player chooses the order in which the blocking creature's damage is dealt. In your example it doesn't make much difference since your creature couldn't kill either attacker, but if you were blocking instead with a 4/4 creature, you could either deal 4 damage to the 5/4 and destroy it, or you could deal 4 damage to the 6/6 in hopes of damaging it later that turn.
If either attacker has trample, any damage beyond your creature's toughness can be assigned to you.

Thank you very much, I can't believe the amazing people on this website!

It would be useful to add in a brief note about assigning attacker-order during the Declare Blockers step.

That sounds like a separate question and answer Hao Ye.

@LovesTha Not really - ordering attackers when a single creature is blocking multiple attackers directly affects how combat damage will occur.

@AverageUnknown "A couple things worth nothing" ?? :D

@Ian Heh. Oops.


text:
Can I play on other people's buildings in Belfort?
I assumed that I can only play on my own buildings.  Are you allowed to play on others' buildings as well in Belfort?

Correct, you may only play on the buildings that you have built.
You may play on a guild that has been purchased by another player, paying that player 1 coin.

I'm not 100% sure, but I believe the expansion add an ability to play on another players building...  I'll have to go look that up.


text:
Do creatures who come into play tapped have summoning sickness?
If I play Leviathan (and we know he comes into play tapped) and have a Puppeteer or something out to untap him, am I prevented from sacrificing the two islands and attacking the turn he came into play? In other words, if a creature comes into play tapped and you untap it, does it still have summoning sickness preventing it from attacking?

It's been a loooooooooooong time since I've seen Leviathan used in a game.

Yes, it has summoning sickness like every other creature. If you want to attack with your Leviathan the turn it enters the battlefield you'll also need to give it haste.

And it may be worth mentioning for completeness that haste is the only exception to the summoning sickness rule. For this rule it doesn't matter whether a creature is tapped or untapped, upside down, flipped, phased out, paired, etc.

@David Z, Two exceptions: Hasted creatures and non-creatures are unaffected. (Both equally suppress the symptoms of summoning sickness. Remove the Haste or animate the permanent and they'll resuming having the symptoms.) // And then there's the case of a non-creature that has been under your control since before you started your turn, but which turns into a creature.

@ikegami well, that depends on what you consider to be the rule. I'm going by 302.6 of the comprehensive rules, which only applies to creatures, and thus noncreature permanents aren't an exception, they are outside the scope of the rule.

@ikegami no, rule 302.6 says nothing about haste. Creatures with haste are able to behave in a way that directly contradicts that rule. Noncreature permanents are not. That's why haste is an exception but not being a creature isn't.

@David Z, Having haste and being not being a creature are identical in all practical aspects. You are causing harm by trying to prove a difference. Your fixating on the word exception while that's completely irrelevant. Your comment states or implies an incorrect answer to FAQ "Does an animated permanent suffer from summoning sickeness?" and the lesser FAQ "Does a permanent that loses haste suffer from summoning sickeness?"

@ikegami I would say all four parts of your last comment are incorrect. In any case I think if we are to continue this it would be best to transfer to a chat room (perhaps [chat]).

Even if you untap your creature it will still have summoning sickness. According to Comprehensive Rules:

302.6. A creature's activated ability with the tap symbol or the untap symbol in its activation cost can't be activated unless the creature has been under its controller's control continuously since his or her most recent turn began. A creature can't attack unless it has been under its controller's control continuously since his or her most recent turn began. This rule is informally called the "summoning sickness" rule.

That means that your creature has 'summoning sickness' from the first turn you control that creature until your next turn.
EDIT: I misunderstood this rule a bit, I thought that a creature summoned during opponent's turn (creature with Flash ability for example) would have summoning sickness until their controller's subsequent turn, but summoning sickness is gone as soon as creature is on the battlefield at his controller's upkeep.

I think your assertion that "Even if your creature have flash, and you summon it during your opponent turn it will have 'summoning sickness', until your subsequent turn" is inaccurate. If you summon a creature on your opponents turn, it will be continuously under your control since your most recent turn (current turn) began.

@Pow-Ian thanks for the information, sorry I miss understood the rule... Edited my answer, and added clarification.

As Pow-Ian has stated, the part where you mention a creature with flash having summoning sickness until your subsuquent turn is not true. If the creature with flash also had a tap or untap symbol as part of an activated ability then that ability would still be effected by summoning sickness.

A creature summoned during opponent's turn does indeed have summoning sickness until its controller's subsequent turn. If Player A creates or gains control of a permanent on Player B's turn, it will have be affected by summoning sickness until Player A's turn whenever it's a creature without haste.

Yes, it will be unable to attack.
Summoning sickness is an informal term describing the restrictions imposed by 302.6. A complete definition of summoning sickness is:
Whenever a player gains control of a permanent, it will be affected by summoning sickness whenever the permanent is a creature without haste, until the player loses control of the permanent, or until the player's next turn (whichever comes first).
It doesn't matter how the player gained control of the permanent.

It could have been placed on the battlefield as the result of casting it.
It could have been placed on the battlefield as instructed by a spell or ability.
A continuous effect could have given control of an existing permanent to you.
It could have reverted to your control by the end of a continuous effect giving control of an existing permanent to someone else.

Nothing else matters. Specifically, untapping doesn't end or suppress summoning sickness.

302.6. A creature’s activated ability with the tap symbol or the untap symbol in its activation cost can’t be activated unless the creature has been under its controller’s control continuously since his or her most recent turn began. A creature can’t attack unless it has been under its controller’s control continuously since his or her most recent turn began. This rule is informally called the “summoning sickness” rule.
702.10b If a creature has haste, it can attack even if it hasn’t been controlled by its controller continuously since his or her most recent turn began.
702.10c If a creature has haste, its controller can activate its activated abilities whose cost includes the tap symbol or the untap symbol even if that creature hasn’t been controlled by that player continuously since his or her most recent turn began.


text:
Can I tap land for mana AFTER opponent tapped those lands if it's in the same stack?
The other player plays a spell which makes me tap 3 lands.  I want to play another instant on top of his instant using the 3 mana from the lands that will be tapped. Can I?
To simplify:

me: I have 3 lands
opponent: plays instant, taps 3 lands
me: Wants to play instant on the same stack
me: instant needs those 3 mana he is going to take

Can you clarify what you mean by "lose 3 mana"? Like, Mana Leak?

I'm sorry, tbh I can't remeber what it is, all it did was tap 3 of my mana, I was wondering if I play a card that requires mana that is now tapped is it resolved BEFORE the mana is tapped as it is now on top of that card in the stack

http://www.mtgsalvation.com/794-priority-and-the-stack.html

It sounds like your opponent played a card like Early Frost, which taps (up to) three target lands. (Side note: lands are not mana, they produce mana.) When this happens, it doesn't resolve immediately; it goes onto the stack. At that point, you have the opportunity to respond with things that can be done at "instant speed", activating abilities and playing instants.
So yes, you can respond by playing an instant, tapping those three lands for mana to pay for it. You can also simply respond by tapping the lands for mana and leaving it in your mana pool, if you'd like to play something later during the current step and phase. Either way, when Early Frost actually resolves after your spell resolves, it will still tap those three target lands, but they're already tapped, so nothing really happens.
If your opponent really wants to stop you from playing an instant with that mana, the only way they can really do it is tap your lands down at a time when you wouldn't want to play your instant. For example, if it needs to get cast during combat, they could tap your lands before combat. But it's a lot more straightforward to use it to prevent casting a non-instant spell, by tapping down lands during upkeep.

This is perfect, thank you. Unless anyone disagrees I have chosen as answer

btw, sorry about calling it mana, I get the terminology mixed sometimes

@Michael That's something almost everyone gets confused about. No worries. ;)

@Michael Yeah, a lot of people will say "tapping mana to pay for a spell" to mean using mana-producing abilities (especially if some of it is mana-producing creatures), but in rules text, everything is very precise - cards say lands when they mean lands - and that precision can help you sort things out when you have a rules question!

Jefromi's answer is absolutely correct.
But to clarify a small point: tapping your lands does not use the stack at all. This is important for spells with Split Second. If tapping lands used the stack, then you wouldn't be able to tap your lands once a Split Second spell was on the stack.

Not sure how often this would ever come up, but for what it's worth, this is in general true for mana abilities, not just tapping lands. Mana abilities are anything that could produce mana, doesn't target, and is not a planeswalker loyalty ability, so for example, this covers Llanowar Elves but not Deathrite Shaman (which targets).


text:
Is there a limit to a player's hand size in Summoner Wars?
May a player have more than 5 cards in his hand at any time? This may happen when a card allows you to draw cards instead of attacking.

No, there is no hand limit size listed in the rules, but remember that you will not draw cards at the start of your turn.

Phase 1: Draw - Draw cards until you have 5 cards in your hand (Example: if you start your turn with 3 cards in your hand you will draw 2 cards). If your Draw Pile is empty, you can no longer draw cards and must finish the game with the remaining cards on the Battlefield (including the Magic Pile) and in your hand.


text:
What to do in long games with players who are way behind?
When our group plays longer games (6+ hours), we usually choose games where players who fall behind still have chances to recover, so all players remain interested in and engaged with the game.  (Examples: Advanced Civilization, 7 Ages, the crayon rail games.)
Sometimes we want to play games where, once you fall behind, you're pretty much out of luck -- games like RuneBound or Titan, for instance.  But our gaming has a social component that is as strong as the gaming itself and we don't want to break that.  Even if dropping out of the game doesn't appreciably change the game for the remaining players (not always a safe bet!), "go read a book until someone else drops out and you can play another game on the side" is no fun.  This is particularly frustrating for people who get knocked out an hour or two into a game that's going to run for several more hours.
Sometimes when we find ourselves in this situation we call the game early, but that means we miss out on the end-game.  What other general approaches to this problem could we take?  Or are there no general approaches, and we should look within each game for house rules that allow one to continue playing at some ultimate scoring penalty?

I am at a loss for how to tag this; I didn't find anything about group dynamicss, general play, etc.  Help?

Maybe tag:etiquette? Might be worth creating a group-dynamics tag.

this is the exact reason why in my group we only play certain games as teams. This way when one team loses they can go off and play with something else.

@Pow-lan, that would make a good answer.

@Pow-Ian, I never thought about teams.  I second the suggestion to write that up as an answer, particularly if you can address how playing in a team differs from playing as an individual (other than having somebody to do something with when you fall behind :-) ).

Wow 6hrs... I think the longest single game we played was our first attempt at 6 person Greater Catan which lasted over 5 hours.

@NathanKoop, Advanced Civ and 7 Ages are nice games, but plan to spend the day. :-)  (For 7 Ages, I understand, plan to spend the weekend -- we've never played a full game, but there are logical places to cut it off so it still works.)

When playing games that are supposed to eliminate some of the players and then speed up, you can always play as teams.
In my group games with that kind of mechanic do not work, we are simply either too competitive or too strategic to come to an entertaining experience for everyone.
This lead us to play in teams so that if one 'player' loses there are always two people that can start playing something else to be entertained while the rest sort out what happens next.
You can play in teams in two ways.
The first way is a strict team. Two people per avatar army or whatever else represents a player in a game. In games that take a long time to play because of strategy or because of a dominance mechanic, this works out because it lessens the amount of players and it gives you a chance to collaborate and play in a style that you may not normally play.
In our group we have players that are volatile and risky and players that are very reserved. Usually when we make teams we put one reserved and one volatile together. It leads to very interesting game play.
The second way to play teams is to play a cooperative version of a game. That is to say each 'player' on a team gets his own avatar/army whatever represents a player in a game, and for all intents and purposes, they must win together.
This leads to very interesting play also because you must choose sometimes to forget about your own ambitions and do something to help your struggling teammate to get to a better place in the game.
We frequently play that this alliance is only skin deep however. When there is only one 'team' left (2 players), it becomes a rather quick game of 'back stab your brother' to see who ultimately wins.
This is my favorite kind of 'team' play because you are going to help your 'teammate' but only enough that once you two have eliminated the competition you can still compete with one another. It gives you a reason to play with another player but only enough motivation to keep them from losing, not outright ensure they prosper.
With this mechanic added to a game you need to add some simple rules:

As long as you and your team mate are not the only players in the game, you may not take actions against one another. That is to say you can't fight each other or otherwise do things that would detriment the other player unless the only action you can take is to do so.
If a single member of an opposing team is eliminated, the other member of the team is eliminated also.

I do admit that this leads to a fair amount of people who cede once they are on the remaining team, but that is OK because there is still a clear winner and everyone got to play together.
Your mileage may very but we have had lots of fun playing this way.

The games you are talking about are ones that possess a positive feedback loop for players who are in the lead, causing them to continue to be in the lead in an exponential way.  This is generally considered bad game design for the exact reason you are implying.  As such, you have two simple options:

Stop playing these games, due to their flaw.
Create house rules to improve them.

The latter may be more difficult than you think, however, and the idea you've suggested only exacerbates the problem.  As an example, the game The Scepter of Zavandor was heavily inspired by an earlier game, Outpost.  While Outpost had an exponential growth mechanic with nothing to curb the positive feedback, Scepter had a mechanic that slightly inconvenienced players who were in the lead while benefiting players who were behind.  These effects were not substantial enough to punish the winning players or desensitize them from continuing to try and win, but it did act as a Comeback Mechanic to an extent.  These types of mechanics are more prevalent in modern games, such as X-Factor in Marvel vs Capcom 3.  If you wish to improve the games you are playing, use these mechanics as a baseline.

Make the first eliminated player be "the banker." When more than one player is eliminated, they should start another game.
Like the banker in Monopoly, they'll hand out all cards/tokens, make change, and manipulate pieces that aren't controlled by a player directly. It's not that fun, but it keeps them participating, and they can heckle all-the-while.
Alternatively, you can have them join another team as an adviser. This can be awkward for games with hidden information (I don't want a poker adviser), but with the right social dynamic, it can be pretty fun to be someone's Grand Vizier or Minister of Agriculture.

We let players who lose team up with other players. As more players get eliminated our teams get larger and the game gets more intense. As a bonus this preserves all the mechanics of the original game.

In games where it is safe for players to drop out, but there's a tendency for them to cling to life for a while with no chance of winning, the most effective modification may in fact be to encourage them to drop out. This could be a metagame thing (saying "it's fine to concede") or an in-game thing (house rules to help put losing players out of their misery).
Obviously it's not perfect, but especially if you can manage to get two players knocked out, they can start a quick side game while the others finish. And sometimes games are faster with fewer players, so it may also help reduce the amount of time they have to wait.

In college, I played Diplomacy as a member of a "club," so we had "social" constraints for everyone to end the game together so we could go on to the next thing as a group.
To keep the game at six hours, rather than "all night," we had a house rule for a "minority-majority" victory. That is, any three people (a minority out of seven) could declare a team victory with a total of 18 supply centers (a majority). To keep people in the game, we had a further rule that if someone was down to their last supply center, you couldn't take it away from him, except on a fall turn, and as part of a projected 18 center majority. If you couldn't assemble the  majority, the supply center had to be returned to him.
The rules meant 1) a shorter game 2) everyone had a "chance," to win by joining a winning team but 3) more supply centers meant a better chance to be on a winning team.

A more devious way to solve this problem without changing any rules would be like in the game of risk. When we play we try to trap players up against the borders of the stronger enemy players borders. at this point we pile up troops on their border to contain them, and offer them peace if they agree to invade the larger players continents  thus reducing the number of troops needed to hold up the fronts allowing more aggressive play in other areas. this allows the other player a goal to fight for and you can help decrease the numbers of the larger player in that zone to allow them to more easily push with fewer armies, also allowing you to keep them from owning their own continent. at the end of the game the largest player just mops up all the smaller players and then its over.
Another thing we tend to do with house rules is we would allow people to continue drawing cards in risk. this allows them to continue making matches and gaining troops that can be used to break out of a hard place.
We have also been known to allow losers to collect a small amount of armies per turn and every time its supposed to be their turn the roll the dice. if they get double sixes they are allowed to attack any space on the board in an attempt to weasel their way back into the game.

This sounds like it's going to extend the game, much like handing out money on Free Parking in Monopoly. It gives the doomed player something to do, and it tears down the current winner, but doesn't give the doomed player any significant chance of winning -- they're just going to have three bonus hours of staring at a hopeless position.


text:
What happens if you Forge nothing?

If I play a Forge and for whatever reason choose "none" as the amount of cards trashed (say if I played it via Golem by accident), do I gain anything? I could see 2 possibilities:

Don't gain because nothing was trashed
Gain a cost 0

If you have a gold lamp this could be a good move.

The Prosperity rules cover this exact situation:

Forge - "Any number" includes zero. If you trash no cards, you have to gain
  a card costing 0 if you can.

You would have to gain a copper or a curse

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


text:
Does my Carbonite Cousin need feeding?
For Christmas, I received Agricola - The Goodies. It's a fun expansion that provides new themed farm boards, shaped resources and animals, stickers for your people, and four interesting decks of cards. One of the decks is called the X-Deck, and adds random events that trigger when you take stone. Here's one of them:
Carbonite Cousin

The family member taking this Action is frozen in Carbonite. He will be rescued during the Returning Home phase 3 rounds from now. At that time, place a Claim marker on any Action space of your choice. At the beginning of the following round, put the Family member on that Action space and carry out the action before the starting player takes his or her first action.

I have three questions.

Does my Carbonite Cousin need feeding each harvest that he's not in my house?
Does he still take up a space in the house (e.g. for family growth)?
If the game ends before he is rescued, what is his status? Does he still count towards my people score at the end?

Yes to all three.
There would have to be exceptions listed on the card, or in the rules insert to do otherwise.  There are none.
We can make assumptions based on what we "know" being frozen in carbonite means, however the current game rules do not support that.

Unless the text given above is only partial, it sounds as if the Carbonite-encased cousin would still take actions while frozen!  Can this really be true?  If so, it's like no Carbonite I've ever encountered before...

@thesunneversets, the way I read the card text, it sounds like he's stuck and can't come home (hence the need to be rescued).  If he never comes home, he can't take actions, right?  Also, I think you can make a semi-logical case for "Yes to all three" points, but it might be interesting to see how "No" to any of them plays out.

@kristo: We can assume he's stuck, because that's obviously what Carbonite does to you, but if so we might as well also assume that he doesn't need feeding, because that's also the nature of the Carbonite beast.  I haven't gotten The Goodies yet, but it does seem a lot sillier than "proper" Agricola, perhaps even to the extent of the exact interpretation of the rules being arguable.  My initial impulse is that the Cousin would take up space and count as a person, but not need feeding, just because of the precedent set by Han Solo, but it's totally a gut reaction!

@thesunneversets - Yes, that's the full card text (you can see all the cards in a JPG on the BBG link). And yes, the Han Solo precedent is why I thought it was an interesting question... ;)

All the discussion about possible alternatives has led me to conclude that this is the best answer.  Anyone who's seen Empire Strikes Back knows what being frozen in carbonite means, but trying to reconcile the rules with that is just too much work for one card.

1 Does my Carbonite Cousin need feeding each harvest that he's not in my house?

No.  He's frozen in carbonite.  As Threepio says "He should be quite well-protected -- if he survives the freezing process, that is."

2 Does he still take up a space in the house (e.g. for family growth)?

No.  As Han Solo said, the point is: "To freeze a being solid, then hang him on a wall like some trophy?".  Wall art doesn't need a bedroom.

3 If the game ends before he is rescued, what is his status? Does he still count towards my people score at the end?

No, as Leia says: "He's trapped in that thing forever unless somebody releases him."
See the Wookiepedia for more information.

Very good! I particularly like the use of quotes as evidence. ;)

I would agree with your sensible arguments, but (2) really does open a can of worms when the Carbonite Cousin returns to a house that has no space for him, that I can't get my head around...

@thesunneversets, you could play it like Family Growth without space.  Two kids can share a room in that case.  The x-deck shakes things up so much that I think such a house rule would be reasonable.

I know The Goodies is "just a bit of fun" compared to, say, Farmers of the Moor, but I simply can't believe that Carbonite Cousin is meant to work as per the phrasing above.  Losing a family member FOR THREE ROUNDS - four rounds, if the initial action taken stopped the family member from doing something actually useful - is in no way compensated for by a one-shot Taster-type action four rounds later.
Full disclosure: I don't actually own The Goodies yet.  Am I missing a whole bunch of new rules that would help this card make any kind of sense in terms of the Agricola rules?
If not, here's how I would make this card remotely playable.  Obviously, none of your Family Members are "cousins".  The first two are man and wife, the others are their children, and marryin' cousins may be legal in some parts, but not in my neck of the woods.  Ergo, the Carbonite Cousin cannot be an actual family member.  I would rule that the Carbonite Cousin be represented by a Guest Token, that is rescued three turns later and carries out an action out of gratitude the turn after that, as per the card.
This eliminates any worries about whether the Cousin needs feeding and accommodating, whether he scores points at the end of the game, and whether he has to go to the Infirmary if his carbonite prison is not heated for a turn.  Even more pertinently, it turns the card into something that might be playable by someone other than a total Star Wars obsessive!

You really aren't going to like some of the other cards in the X-Deck!  Rebel - The family member taking this action is not available for the rest of the game.  It still requires housing and food.  It is worth 5VP though.  Carbontite Cousin is worth 3.

Aha, 3 extra victory points does go some way towards offsetting the hassle of being encased in Carbonite... still doesn't seem enough though.  If this is a risk of taking Stone with the Goodies in play I think I'd be avoiding those spaces quite strenuously... :D

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


text:
Additional questions for Cranium?
My group of friends really enjoys playing Cranium, but we played it so often that we all more or less memorized the questions and have plans for all the activities.
Is there more content available for Cranium, and if so, where can it be found?

There are booster packs for Cranium that add more cards for each category. For example, this set and this set.
You could also check out the Cranium WOW edition. It has a whole new set of cards. I've played this version and a lot of the red cards seemed easier than the original version of the game.


text:
In the Final Battle, do all spells have to be recast each round of combat?

Investigators Refresh
  At the beginning of a round of combat with an Ancient
  One, the investigators may refresh their cards, use any
  character abilities, and adjust their skill sliders as though
  it were the Upkeep Phase. Next, the first player marker
  should be passed to the left. Finally, they may trade
  items among themselves as if they were in the same
  location (see “Trading Equipment” later in these rules).

Is this really an upkeep phase in every single respect, or is it a psuedo-upkeep phase with slightly different rules? Do spells have to recast every round? Dread Curse of Azathoth says it lasts until end of combat, and the rules specifically say investigators may refresh cards. If they chose not to refresh a spell would it mean that the spell would continue in effect, possibly for the whole battle without having to be recast at all?
EDIT: in addition, if investigators have blessings, do they need to roll to see if they discard them every round of combat?

I've reposted the question you added in a separate question here: http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/24954/in-arkham-horror-do-i-have-to-perform-the-upkeep-action-for-the-blessing-card-d

From page 16 of the rulebook

A spell or weapon that gives you a
  bonus (even one that says it lasts
  until the end of combat) only
  continues to give you the bonus while
  you devote the required number of
  hands to it. You can choose to switch
  weapons/spells in later combat rounds,
  but as soon as you “release” a spell
  or weapon, it stops working for you.
  Similarly, spells that are refreshed
  (such as at the beginning of each
  combat round in the final battle)
  cease to work and must be re-cast.

And from page 6

Some cards exhaust themselves when used, which
  means that they are turned face down for the remainder
  of the turn. At the start of the Upkeep Phase, each player
  refreshes those cards by turning them face up. Simply
  remember that you can use face-up cards and that you
  cannot use face-down cards until you turn them face up
  again during the next Upkeep Phase.

So, exhausted spells are refreshed every round during the final battle and thus need to be recast. It's much simpler to think of the final battle as a combination of multiple combats through which damage carries over.


text:
What techniques do high level SET players use when looking at a layout of cards?
I've played SET a few times now and have noticed some general strategies arise. At the beginning, I try to take in the distribution of the 4 characteristics so I can figure out if I should be looking for sets that are all different or all the same in each of them. If there are a lot a purple cards, some green, and 3 or less red cards, the most likely sets are going to be either all purple, or involve those red cards, so I should probably either look for all purple sets or look at the red cards, see what green cards I could combine with them, and finally see if the final purple card is present. If the distributions are pretty even, then I should probably look at another characteristic or look for 3-different color sets.
However, beyond this, I am at a loss of how to advance my strategy. I could try to do a more thorough analysis of each of the 4 characteristic distributions, but this takes time and only tells me where the most likely sets are to be found, so I sometimes wonder if I would be better off just looking randomly for sets from the very beginning.
What are some good strategies for SET? Specifically, how can I tell when I should look for sets randomly rather than try to use intuition?

For purposes of describing things, I'm going to divide sets in "easy" sets -- those with 2 or 3 matching characteristics and only 1 or 2 non-matching ones, and "hard" sets -- those with NO matching characteristics.  I think this corresponds to how hard the sets are to spot for most people -- the easy sets will get spotted right away by most people, while the hard sets are hard to see even when they're pointed out.
So when the cards are first revealed, I glance at them without concentrating on any particular card to see if there's an easy set.  If there is, it will generally get spotted by someone immediately.  If I don't see an easy set after a second or two, I start looking for a hard set.  First step there is to figure out which attributes are rare in the array -- if there's only a single red card or only a single solid card, any hard set will necessarily include that card.  Any attribute that appears on only two or three cards means that one of those cards will be in any hard sets.  This generally means you can narrow things down to 5-10 pairs of cards that differ in all attributes, and any possible hard set must include one of those pairs.  Then for each of those pairs, figure out what the third matching card is, and see if its on the table.
The process above will generally only take around 10 seconds or so.  By that point, if noone has seen a set there probably isn't one, but you can start looking for sets with 1 matching characteristic -- Look for the single most common characteristic on the table, and see if any three of those form a set.

Yes, I use the same strategy, and I win often, if I play this way. Another tip is to fix more than one such feature, e.g. there may be only one solid card, and many green ones, then it is worth to start making sets with one solid and one non-green cards, and then search for the third matching card among the greens.

So I'm still rather new at Set (Very new in fact), but I'm sufficiently annoyed at not already being good at it that I've been doing my best to figure out how to play well.
My observation is that advanced set players seem to find it very hard to get into the mindset of beginning set players because they've acquired so much intuition about the game that they don't adopt a conscious strategy. This is where advice like "You just need to learn to see the patterns" comes from. It's almost certainly the right way to play, but it's not very useful advice when you're trying to get to grips with it and want an explicit strategy to learn from!
So, speaking as someone who is not yet at that stage, here is roughly the strategy I seem to be adopting. It's definitely far from optimal, and it's more of a crutch to get me into pure pattern matching mode, but it works tolerably well:
Observation: Given any two Set cards there is exactly one other card with which they form a set.
Proof: Look at each of the characteristics. If they're the same, then the third card has that same characteristic too. If they're different then the third card has the single instance of that characteristic they don't have (e.g. if they're green and purple then it must be red).
Being able to work out this third card quickly (and there's no simple way to do that other than practice) seems to be very useful. Part of why it's useful is that when new cards are laid down if you can quickly work out what cards they would form sets with (there will be six such cards for every set of 3 laid down) you can go "Oh! That's already on the board. Set!" immediately (it's useful to have a good memory of what's already on the board)
Call the approach "Pick two cards, see if their third is on the board" pair matching.
Now, using that as the only part of your strategy would be pretty slow. Even that's not useless though. If you find yourself stuck it's not completely crazy to just start picking pairs of cards at random, and do pair matching to them. It's a good way to spot hard to notice sets, but it's definitely not the most efficient strategy writ large. Call this strategy A.
Here is roughly what I do:
Step 1: Identify some classes of Set that are impossible. I find a good starting point here is to look within numbers: Is it possible that there is a set with only 3, is there a set with only 2, is there a set with only 1? There's no reason you have to start with numbers - all the characteristics are logically interchangeable - I just find this one easier to do visually.
Step 2: If you've found a characteristic which you can keep constant (like number) and it looks like there might be a set in there, adopt strategy A on it for a bit and see if you find anything. If you find something the board has changed, go back to Step 1. If not, go through to step 3 - either giving up and looking at the whole board again or focusing it on this specific set of cards.
Step 3: If you haven't found any sets so far, you can probably now identify some "Key cards". For example if you've determined that all of a characteristic has to be different, you can pick the value which appears least often. So if you're looking for sets where the quantity is different for each and there's only a single 1 card on the board you know that this card has to appear in all the sets you're looking for. Similarly if there are only two one of these cards has to be in each set. Pick a key card, ideally based on most likely to appear, but at random is fine too.
Step 4: You now have your key card. Start looking for cards to pair with this and pair match on them. Initially your search will be random but you're very likely to start ruling out classes of things. Like "This obviously can't be paired with anything filled because it's empty and there are no hashes on the board". Use that to direct your search.
Step 5: If you're still stuck, try and go back an identify another characteristic you could use. e.g. see if you might be able to find one where the characteristic is the same where you were looking for it different, or swap to another value of it. Repeat from step 2.
I think that's about it. Sorry, I feel like this was a very opaque description of what I do, but hopefully some of it was useful. Feel free to ask any questions and I'll try to clarify.

Many good set players don't use explicit strategies, focusing instead on tapping into their subconscious.
It's about getting into a good flow state and staying there. Calm down, let go of explicit searches, and just allow your subconscious find the sets. Distracting your conscious mind can help, too -- a lot of people do better if they chat about something else while they play.

+1 I was going to point something like this out. The question includes a weird dichotomy: random vs intuition. I think what he's calling random is intuition to me. I stare at the cards and somehow just notice a set, and save the explicit searching for when it looks likely there's at most a couple sets there.

If you have a high level of experience, you reach a point where you just know the SETs. When you're at that point, it's a matter of recognizing them when they appear.
Math intermission, skip if you're not interested:

Since a SET has 4 characteristics that are either all different or all the same, we can build groups of SET variants. 4 same is impossible (because the same card would appear repeatedly). 3 same results in 27 possibilities since the order of the all different characteristic doesn't matter. The different characteristic can be either one of the four, so we have a total number of 27*4 = 108 distinct 3 same SETs. For 2 same, the different characteristics can combine in 6 (3!) ways, resulting in a total of 54, the distribution of the characteristics into the same/different category can happen in 6 ways, so the total number of distinct 2 same SETs is 54*6 = 324. Next, 1 same sets. Here, the different characteristics combine in 3!*3! = 36 ways and each of the four can be the different one, totaling to 108*4 = 432 distinct 1 same SETs. Lastly, the all different SETs combine in 3!*3!*3! = 216 ways. This means there is a total of 1080 distinct SETs.
  Another way to calculate it has been suggested by Chris Dodd: There are 81 cards, each of which can be combined with any of the remaining 80 cards to form a pair. For each pair, there is exactly one card that makes it a SET, so the total number of SETs is 81*80*1; this figure includes multiples with reversed order, of which there are 6 (there are 6 ways to arrange 3 cards), so the total number of distinct SETs is 81*80/6 = 1080.

Memorizing and recognizing 1080 SETs of 3 cards isn't actually that hard if you invest a lot of time.

In reality, though, few people have the time and skills to apply this "strategy" (if you can call it a strategy) reliably. Many answers here have already described some approaches, and in the end, it comes down to analyzing the field related to each of the characteristics in a specific order. What order you pick depends on 3 things, sorted from most relevant to least relevant:

Your own visual recognition skills. Some people find it easier to classify things by color, others easily see numbers, yet others can identify shapes quickly and lastly, some people are fastest in seeing filling. Combinations are also possible, for example, combining number and filling comes down to identifying the amount of ink on the card (or the ratio of color and white background). Your order will generally be from easiest to hardest.
The overall distribution of characteristics. This is something you can only achieve with experience and training. High level players can identify characteristics with a good distribution with just a glance over the entire field. With enough practice, you can do this for every characteristic at once in just a split second. A "good distribution" is when at least one option is very rare. Examples of good distributions are 3 red, 9 green or 1 one, 7 two, 4 three. The options with few (3-5) are quickly checked for SETs, the options with very few (0-2) can't even result in a SET. If one option doesn't appear, mixed SETs in that characteristic are impossible. This way, several options can be discarded quickly so you have to search only the relevant options.
The other players' search patterns. This one is highly strategic and only applies if you either know some of the players at your table or the game is already running and you're adapting your strategy mid-game. Basically, based on the SETs they found and the time they took to do so, you can deduce the search pattern they use. Then you either copy that pattern, hoping to be slightly faster and denying them their SETs; or you adapt an entirely different pattern, hoping to get lucky and be dealt more SETs that fit your pattern than ones that fit theirs.

One last important point is what you do when new cards appear (either because a SET has been found or everyone agreed there are none). In that case, it's important to have an overview of important missing cards. If one specific card would complete several SETs, chances are many are just waiting for it to appear. You will also often come across "nearly-SETs" where one card needs to be only slightly different (for example, 1 1 1, red green purple, empty empty solid, hash hash hash). Keeping them in mind and watching out for such cards to appear will give you an edge over those who just start searching when the new cards hit the field. Similarly, memorizing the cards that are gone already will help you get away from dead ends that can't be completed any more. If you know, at least roughly, which cards are still in the deck and which are gone, you can loosely predict the next cards and be prepared.

Sources:

Personal practical experience
Personal theoretical analysis of the game and its mechanics
Observations of high level players
Conversations with the Champion and Runner-up of the German Nationals

Your math is off as it counts sets that differ in attributes as the same even if the combinations of the differing attributes are differing.  There are actually 1080 possible sets.

You're right. But how did you get 1080? I recalculated, taking into account the differing attributes, and got 972.

For every pair of cards, there's exactly one card that matches the pair to make a set.  Since there are 8180/2 pairs in the deck, and each set contains 3 pairs, there are (8180)/(2*3) sets...

I made an arithmetic error. Now my method also yields 1080. Thanks for your input!

If you play a lot, you start doing it unconsciously anyway. Knowing and consciously doing it goes a long way!

Often times the best strategy is to not over think a strategy. I tend to go for base things that don't make me think much. Colors are easier for me to match than shapes, shapes easier than numbers, and numbers or counts last of all. I would figure out which patterns are easiest for you to discern given the pressure of time and work down from there to the hardest ones.
Keep in mind that the better strategy overall isn't to look for patterns faster than your opponents. It's to look for patterns your opponents are not looking for. Color is one of those things a lot of players latch on to because it is easy to see. However, once color patterns are gone it becomes more difficult to latch onto other patterns. Cards that are prime numbers is not a pattern that most people would look for but one that could give you an edge if you happen to be attuned to picking them out.
Take the deck and just do a solo game from time to time. Familiarize yourself with the cards and the possible patterns you could make. Then figure out which ones are the easiest for you to see and your game style will come through.


text:
Playing with the characters from the base and the Dark City expansion for Citadels.
In 3 player Citadels, each player chooses 2 characters. I've found I liked picking 2 characters so much that I've modified the game to be able to do it with any number of players. All I had to do was sleeve the all the characters and add my own in with the others. Picking 2 characters makes the game a little quicker, adds more strategy, and makes the game more interesting in general. I'm curious about how some of the characters from the Dark City expansion would work when combined with the characters from the original game instead of substituted. Cards with a star go after cards without, making the wizard kind of like a 3.5 while the magician is just a 3.

Here's what I've got so far for my analysis of the combinations:
Witch and Assassin: No problems that I've found, but this is one combination I'm not 100% sure about. Players get more options to attack their opponents, which keeps everyone on their toes. The assassin goes before the witch, who can't steal his power, so if the witch can always be assassinated if one player is afraid of having their power stolen.
Tax Collector and Thief: No problems, although I never play with the tax collector. Its a fairly good character, but it just adds a drag to the whole game and takes away the fun and intensity.
Wizard and Magician: The wizard is nice because you can steal a card without having to give up whatever is in your hand, but the magician lets you steal more and get rid of those districts you don't want. They don't tend to conflict much, and its interesting to watch the wizard steal back cards the magician took. Do they tend to balance well?
King and Emperor: literally can't be done due to the crown conflict.
Abbot and Bishop: This is where things start to really change. Having 2 blue characters makes blue districts more valuable, especially since there aren't 2 green or 2 yellow characters. I'm a little hesitant to combine them as it throws off the balance of districts. The abbot's actually pretty weak as well. Are there any issues with using both of these?
Alchemist and Merchant: No conflicts, but since the alchemist doesn't get money from green districts it will throw the balance off if you use both blue characters or both red characters. Its pretty interesting to play with both.
Architect and Navigator: No problems at all, fairly different characters that combine well.
Diplomat and Warlord: This was another big one. The diplomat tends to be a bit better than the warlord, even with the house rule that the Warlord gets to take the destroyed district into his hand. The warlord's only good if you don't mind wasting your gold to deter someone else instead of actually helping yourself. Do these combine well?

Would any of these combination have a detrimental affect on the game? How greatly would they change the game? Are my ideas anywhere near accurate?

I think that your statement concerning the combination of the cards is fairly accurate. If I had to do it, I think I would come up with the same result (except the last point that I will develop). But as it has been said, this variant has some drawbacks :

Increasing the chances of an attack by adding 3 offensive cards (Witch, Magician, Diplomat) out of 7. In my experience, I love Citadels for everyone want to avoid the dreaded attack at the wrong time that will ruin your game. Increasing the number of offensive cards is not a good point. Again, this is only my opinion, and I have never tried this variant. You may argue that this could be slightly compensated by adding the Artist and the Queen, but you then have to decide how you know that the Queen is next to the King (placement of characters in a player's own courtyard).
Modifying the balance between colors. Of course, if you have 4 red buildings, it will be very risky to choose the red characters, but if several players manage to focus on one of the two new "unbalanced" colors, the game will simply shift towards a game of luck : whoever manages to get a huge amount of coins then take the "cards" characters. This is like in the normal game, but will become slightly more hectic (which is not bad per se) and lose some balance in the colors.
The King/Emperor, according to me, loses all interest because of the combos for the other two colors (and the fact there are more green buidings). It may depend on the rule for distributing the characters on the next turn of course. As I see it, you have two options : you make players choose a first time for their first character and then a second time. What you can do to reinforce the power of the King is make players choose both characters at the same time, but I'm concerned about the general balance of this method.
To avoid the conflict with the King, one could propose that the Emperor picks in Second whatever place he's at. It would also help solving point 1 by adding a non-agressive card.

In conclusion, I would say this variant is certainly interesting but would create some minor balance issues that can be solved by some tricks that I mentionned. But it would be interesting to hear from people that actually have tried something like that.

It's an interesting idea. I haven't tried this myself, but I'm not certain I'd personally want to. I agree with your assessment that having two characters that benefit blue and red districts but only one that benefit green or yellow could be problematic, mostly because all card draws are random (well, unless you've got a good memory and Magician frequently). However, if you don't use those extra cards, you're disproportionately increasing the percentage of "attack" characters, which seems like it would slow the game down (though, as you say, selecting two characters each turn would speed the game up, so I guess maybe it would even out).
As far as being detrimental, I suppose it depends on what you like about Citadels. I personally think the attacks are at just the right frequency already and wouldn't want to introduce much more chaos into the game than already exists in the design. Then again, if you like the wild swing aspects and your group plays this primarily as a "take that" style game, I'd imagine this would work well.


text:
Games that can be played with just normal playing cards that are engrossing enough for a hardcore gamer
Are there any games with depth similar to Dominion or Puerto Rico that can be played with standard1 playing cards? More than 1 deck is fine. A good answer should have plentiful, diverse opportunities for strategy and analysis; flexibility in number of players, friendliness to new players, lack of empty spaces during the game-play, and general intensity are all a plus.
1: 4 suits, 12 cards each

Don't standard playing cards have 4 suits, 13 cards each?

I generally enjoy trick-taking games as they involve a bit more strategy than "pick a card that's the same color".  Examples include Hearts, Spades, Pinochle, Oh Hell, etc.
The interesting elements to me are keeping track of what cards have been played, what order to play your cards in to achieve your goal, and trying to figure out your opponents' strategy.

I haven't played Spades in forever, but I'd still call it one of my favorites. Pulling a blind nil is quite the thrill. Even Hearts allows you to pull a stunt by shooting the moon.

Pinochle does require a special deck (or two regular ones you can combine)

My favourite trick-taking game is 500. Of course, being a New Zealander, this is no surprise. I went to Mensa gatherings to play 500; forget the intellectual stuff! :-P

Bridge.
This lacks in flexibility in number of players, and friendliness to new players, but it has a lot of strategy once you get the hang of it.

Bridge is one of the greatest games of all time.  If you can get past needing an exact multiple of 4 players to play, and the fact that there's quite a lot of information to assimilate before you can really start enjoying yourself, and the fact that you have to play with a partner and have some kind of system that you both broadly comprehend... if you can get past all of these things, you'll never regret the time you spent getting into Bridge.  It's escaping back into real life again that's the hard part!

Most definitely. Once you've learnt the basics, there is an endless quantity of other things to learn, try out, tweak and add. Plus there are always those freak hands which generate good stories to tell other bridge fans! Like that time I picked up 9 spades and 4 clubs...

The system you have to have with your partner is what always made me doubt Bridge; it seems like convoluted semi-legal table talk that everyone knows about but tacitly ignores

What Michael said. Needing to share a system and using it to transmit information is a fatal flaw in Bridge, in my opinion.

@michael: People don't ignore it: it's part of the game.  You don't look down on people for trying to trade resources in Catan.  Yes, it's a different way of doing things than most other card games.  But it allows you to do strategies that aren't possible in those games.

the information encoding and exchange element often is the game, with the play almost inevitable once dummies hand is seen. granted i can see how this would appeal more to meta-gaming fans and code geeks

Card games with traditional decks of cards mostly fall into either trick-taking games (Whist-family games like Bridge, Pinochle, Euchre, Spades, or Hearts) and melding games (Rummy-family games like Gin, Go Fish, or Canasta). There are exceptions, but they are less well known and will likely not meet the accessibility criteria because of the learning curve.
In general, from my experience trick taking games are quicker to learn and play faster, and strategy is largely confined to individual hands (although your success in each hand will affect how you play the next). The king of trick-taking games is Bridge, and for the devoted student will be very rewarding, but learning the subtleties of bidding and play can be daunting, and expert play requires a partner that you have practiced with. Spades is more approachable to the beginner, has a fair amount of team strategy, and as has been noted has the potentially thrilling and aggressive play.
Melding games are equally varied in style, but in general tend "feel" longer and more strategic. My personal favorite is Canasta, popular enough in the 50s to challenge Bridge for the most popular four-handed game. Played with two decks of cards it has many strategic options around when to go out, what styles of melds to make, and taking the entire discard pile (risky, but potentially very lucrative!) On the other end of the spectrum is Cribbage, which is a fast-playing melding game which can be played either four- or (more commonly) two-handed. Not a lot of strategy across hands, and a fair amount of luck, but quick to learn and has some interesting strategic choices as well.
Ultimately, you will not find games with traditional packs of cards to be as deeply strategic as a game like Dominion, simply because there is less variability in play, and early missteps are less likely to punish you in the end-game. If you want to find card-based games that are interesting yet approachable, I recommend looking at a number of custom card games such as Fluxx, Bottle Imp, Citadel, or Innovation (a new game for 2010 that's garnering a lot of praise).

I have a friend who plays a lot of Euchre. He's a hard-core card player -- always has a deck in his pocket -- and this is his favorite game. I only played a few times with him, but it was lots of fun. There's a lot of strategy in trying to figure out which cards to play when, and in what order. You're playing with a teammate (across the table), so there's that aspect of the strategy too (since you can't really communicate with them without your opponents overhearing).
He plays Sheepshead too (can't post the link 'cause I don't have enough reputation, it's on Wikipedia). I never played with him though, so I can't speak to it. I think it's similar to Euchre.

Give 500 a try. It's Euchre with bidding.

The one thing I found that made Euchre considerably less challenging than other card games I've played is the small size of the deck. It does meet most of the OP's needs, but I'm just not sure that as a trick-taking game, it'll provide enough of a challenge for a hardcore gamer.

Truco is very popular in Argentina, although it is played with a spanish deck. Playing 2 vs 2 or 3 vs 3 it is much better than 1 on 1.

I grew up playing Egyptian Ratscrew in high school, and I've never met a single person who didn't have a blast playing it.
Fast paced, multi-player, and anyone can join or be eliminated, and even "respawn" by rejoining the game at random. excellent, exciting game :)

+1 While I don't think this is the sort of engrossing the OP had in mind, I whole-heartedly support this game:  It's a lot of fun.  NOTE: do NOT play with your good deck of cards, as cards can be damaged

I spent 10 years posting one free print-and-play game each month.  Many of these games used simple, commonly found components – like a standard Poker deck.  Of those games, there are a few that may fit your needs:
• Up 'N Over ( http://www.invisible-city.com/play/24/up-and-over ): 2 to 5 players.  Take turns playing to a stack in the center, trying to get the sum to 21 on your turn, or force the player to your left to go over 21.  Royal cards are ), -2, or -4 points.  Aces are 1 or 11.  Has more strategy than you'll initially think.
• Dungeon ( http://www.invisible-city.com/play/392/dungeon-update ): 2 to 4 players.  Play cards in sequence to escape from a dungeon.  Play cards on other players as monsters, or to cause cave-ins.
• Uncontrolled Squid ( http://www.invisible-city.com/play/211/uncontrolled-squid ): 2 to 8 (or more) players.  Team-based bidding game.
• Druid's Duel ( http://www.invisible-city.com/play/470/druids-duel ): Bluffing / Strategy game for 2 to 4 players.  Pick a form and a strategy, reveal your choices, and figure out what happens.
I hope you find something you like!

If you have three players, David Parlett's Ninety-Nine is a terrific trick-taking game with an elegant gimmick:  the suits correspond to numbers, and you must declare how many tricks you intend to take each hand by secretly discarding three cards.  This makes figuring out how to bid what you want to bid almost as hard a problem as figuring out what your bid should be and how to make it.
Another unusual and ingenious game is Robert Abbott's Eleusis, one of the few real inductive-reasoning games.  (Zendo, which borrows liberally from Eleusis, is another.)  In this game, one player formulates a secret rule, and the other players ask questions, by playing cards, in order to determine what the rule is.  It can be really, really hard - a fairly easy rule to guess is "red cards are only legal if played immediately after cards whose rank is even; black cards are only legal if played immediately after cards whose rank is odd."

My friends and I used to have a lot of fun playing Kimps on the bus - it is not a game of strategy, but of psychology.
The rules are simple:  You play in pairs of two (usually for four people).  You each get four cards.  Then the dealer throws four cards on the table, and everyone trades cards from their hand for ones on the table, trying to make four-of-a-kind.  There are no turns - everyone just grabs whatever cards they want, as fast as they can.  When everyone is done with the cards on the table, they get discarded and four more are placed down.
When someone finally gets four-of-a-kind, they have to get their partner to say "Kimps!"  (You are allowed to discuss signals ahead of time).  If you believe someone on the other team has four-of-a-kind, you need to say "Stop Kimps!" before that person's partner can say "Kimps."
If someone says "Kimps" and their partner has a four-of-a-kind (or they say "Stop Kimps" and either of the opponents has four-of-a-kind), that team wins.  If they're wrong, the other team wins.
The psychology comes from:  what cards did each person already pick up?  Are they actually collecting those cards, or are they trying to trick me?  How can I trick my opponents?  If someone is doing something suspicious, do they have Kimps, or are they trying to fool me?  You have to make this decision fast, because if you notice the signal, chances are their partner did too!

If you're looking for speed and intensity, along with being beginner friendly, there are a lot of fast card games out there. Nertz allows for massive amounts of parallel play with each player playing from their own standard deck of cards and into the common area (easier if the cards have different backs).
There are also dozens of variations of fast paced Uno type games that can be played with a regular deck of cards which are sped up by allowing for out of turn plays. Mao is an Uno variation where players are required to be silent during play, and the winner of each round creates a new unspoken rule which they can enforce by penalizing unwitting rule breakers with extra cards.
A similar fast paced game is Egyptian Ratscrew, but elimination of players may not be as inclusive as desirable for a group.

Whist, specifically, has always been my family's favorite.  Definitely plenty of strategy, plus massive differences between 2-person, 3-person and 4-person whist.  Highly recommended.
The problem with most of the other games listed is either there isn't enough strategy or they just plain aren't fun.

I was reaching for the upvote after the first sentence.  The second sentence killed it for me though.  I'd prefer you see you state the games and give a more reasoned answer on why they "just plain aren't fun" when clearly a lot of people enjoy playing them.

We play a lot of cheat. There's a fair amount of strategy that can go into it, but it's dead easy to learn. For 3-8 players.

There is another trick-game which hasn't been mentioned which I find very satisfying from a strategic point of view.
Briscola chiamata, a 5-player variant of briscola, has rules and a basic strategy easy enough to get started in 5 minutes, but the trump bidding makes the game unique, and the blind partnering mean you have to watch every move carefully, leaving no empty space and adding a “detective game”-like dimension.
(you don't really need a 40-card deck: you can just take a standard deck and take out the 8s, 9s, and 10s).
I know the 5 player requirement is a bit tough, but it's worth it!
When I find myself with an odd number of friends (so we are 4 or 6 in total) I prefer instead to play Pinnacola. It is a rummy-derived game.
You play it with two 52-cards decks, deal 13 cards to each player, then plays just like Rummy, with a number of differences:

Teams of two, sitting alternating
Your melds are separated from the other team's
Sequences can 'loop', like this:  JQKA23
You can pick up already played jokers by substituting the card they are acting as.
The discard pile... is not a pile, but all the cards in it must be visible (they are put in a stripe). When you have to draw, you can draw a single card from the stock or pick up the last n cards provided you then play at least the nth.
Scoring: 100 points if you got out. Count points for your melds, subtract points for what you were left with, according to this:

2-5: 5 points
6-10, J, Q, K: 10 points
Aces: 15 points
Jokers: 25 points
4-cards books doubles its value
6-cards (or longer) sequences without a joker in it doubles its value.
If you manage to do a 13-card sequence (without jokers in it), it's called a Pinnacola, and you automatically won.

And that's it.

Throughout college, my friends and I loved playing this 5-player variant of Rook:
http://www.georgejas.com/rook/