text:
Good games for playing in a bar
Sometimes, I'm sitting in a bar, hanging out with a friend or three, and we run out of things to talk about. I think "this would be a great time to play a game, but I don't have one on me." My local pub has a collection of games in the corner, but they consist of about half a chess set, half a scrabble set with a beat up board, and two thirds of a nice backgammon set.
What games are good for playing in a bar?
Some criteria that can help determine if a game will be appropriate:

Not too many fiddly little components to get lost; or easily replaceable components if they do
Somewhat resilient to spilled beer
Everything is easy to see, as bars can sometimes be a bit dark
Not too complex; after a couple of beers, remembering a lot of rules can be hard
Easily portable, and fits on a small table, or the space between two people at the bar itself

Also, please let me know if you actually have played this game in a bar, and how it went. Some games might seem good for the venue, but turn out not to be.
(note: despite the beer-and-pretzels tag, I'm not interested in solely beer and pretzels games, though those are welcome; games that are a bit deeper can be fine for bars too)

I'm not clear on what value the beer-and-pretzels tag adds here.  What other questions would have this tag?

@lilserf "Beer and pretzels" is a very common category of games, for games that are generally considered to be light fillers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer_and_pretzels_game The term might be used for games that you would play while drinking beer and eating pretzels, or it may be considered analogous, when compared to a heavier game, as beer and pretzels are to a full meal. It's light, and can fill time, but isn't really substantial. Do a Google search and you'll see that it's a common way of referring to a certain kind of game. http://www.google.com/search?q=beer+and+pretzels+game

Other question that might have this tag would be "I'm looking for a game to play with my buddies at a superbowl party" or "Are there any beer and pretzel games that have auction mechanics?" Here are some examples from BGG: http://rss.boardgamegeek.com/thread/499823/best-beer-and-pretzels-wargames http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/529521/beer-and-pretzels-horse-racing

Huh, that's not a term I've ever encountered apparently.

Beer and pretzels is also the name of a game.

@Brian - However, the wikipedia page states that it "needs references that appear in reliable third-party publications".

I think Perudo (Liar's Dice) would work great in a bar. You need 5 dice and a cup per person, the rules are easy but the game is hard, there's a lot of interaction, and playing dice and drinking traditionally go together very well.
The related game Skull can be played with bar coasters and a pen, and is one of the better games for drunk people.

I love Liar's Dice. Which variant do you play? I've seen several, but can never seem to find a group in which everyone knows the same version.

Pretty much the Perudo version (except for the Spot On rule, which incidentally sounds like a good idea): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perudo

This goes with the the tavern theme at least.  I thin it's a great choice.

I've actually played Liar's Dice (I know it as "Poker Dice") in a bar; it works very well. Beware that you take your own cup along, because bars only tend to have, well, glasses!

+1 for a game that involves drinking, dice (easily replaceable), bet mechanics (excellent for bar games) and some psychology!

Liars Dice falls into a broad category of games that I dislike because the player to the left of the worst player at the table usually wins. +1 anyway, since it fits the stated criteria.

True, you really need evenly matched opponents. Also, if the worst player is very shy, it's the player to the right who profits.

Skull and Roses, a.k.a. Skull, is similar to liars dice and can be played with coasters (if you have a pen).

It might seem surprising, but playing chess in a bar or pub can work really well, with the right people. A particularly fun social variation that I used to play a lot we called "Exchange Chess". It's not a hugely skillful game, but it tends to be quick, loud, cooperative, and leads to lots of good-natured abuse!
You have two or three boards, adjacent to each other, with alternating colours. The players on each side form a team (so there are two teams). The rules are the same as normal chess, with the following additions:

Whenever you take a piece, you pass the captured piece to your adjacent team-mate.
When it's your go, you can choose to either make a normal move, or place one of your stash of received pieces on the board. There are a couple of restrictions; you may not place your opponent directly in check with a placed piece, and you may not place a pawn on the first, seventh or eighth ranks. It's fine to place a piece to block a check on your own king.
If you get a pawn to the end of the board, you can 'queen' it. But if the pawn is captured, it is passed to the other player as a pawn, not a queen (or any other piece).
You are allowed to communicate with your team members ("Hey, it would be great if I had a bishop available right now!"), but you're not allowed to delay your game to wait for an adjacent game (this is called "stalling"). This is a gentleman's agreement; there are no hard and fast rules for stalling. Expect to be yelled at if you delay.
It's considered bad form to think for more than a few seconds for each move. Play should be fast and fluid.
If an individual game ends, chalk up the result to the winning team, and reset the board (the other boards continue to play). If you don't have enough pieces, you must use what you've got. Extra pieces beyond those of a normal game setup are not placed, but are available for placement in subsequent turns.
The winning team is the first to some number of points (5 works quite well). There tends to be a snowball effect where once one team gets the upper hand, things go rapidly downhill for the others. Having a fixed winning point, and then starting the series again with equal pieces helps keep things fun.

One of the cool things about this game is the bizarre situations that can arise. It's perfectly possible to have 4 white-squared bishops, for example. The other big advantage is that poor players have a much better chance against chess aficionados, especially if the teams are balanced, because there's a lot of unpredictability to the game. This gives the game a much wider appeal to beginners than standard chess (where, if you're a beginner, you almost always lose to even a moderately skilled amateur).

Here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bughouse_chess

This makes chess a bit like shogi. Sounds like it could be fun.

If you have nothing but a pen and a napkin, the dots game could be something super simple to pass the time. And, it doesn't require a whole lot of brain power. :)

Oh, man, I used to spend my freshman year science class in high school playing this with a friend instead of listening to the extremely boring lecturer.

An interesting variant, for when you're feeling too lazy to draw out a precise grid, is to just stick a bunch of dots in a random pattern on a piece of paper. Play as in dots and boxes, but instead of squares, any time you complete a triangle that does not contain another dot, you take it and take another turn. It works surprisingly well.

I don't know if I'd say it "doesn't require a lot of brain power" - my buddy and I used to get in some pretty intense battles of dots.  It got especially nasty once we both realized (at the same time!) that, near the end, where you are fighting over large groups of boxes, you can give up 2 boxes of your current group to prevent your opponent from getting any boxes in any of the other large groups!

In middle and high school, we went beyond dots ... I vaguely remember some sort of tank game where there were different kinds of tanks with different movement, and you shot by pressing the pencil into the paper, angling it forward, and looking at the track it left. I've no idea of the rules, and it's extremely unsuitable for bar play, even with a grease pencil ...

"Doesn't require a lot of brain power"! There are books written on this game! http://search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Dots-and-Boxes-Game/Elwyn-R-Berlekamp/e/9781568811291

A deck of cards can do wonders.  Admittedly not a single game, however that's the strength.  You can pick different games given the preferences and number of players.  Also, you can also get plastic cards which are water resistant and a single deck is quite cheap and portable.
As for actual game suggestions i like Cribbage.  It can require a separate board for scoring, but it could just as easily be written by hand.  It's a great game for two and there is a three player variant.
I also happen to be keen on Pinochle, which requires either two decks or buying a special deck.  It's a fun trick taking game with a little bidding for three or four players.

Cribbage is an excellent game for playing in the pub; indeed it would be slightly strange to play it anywhere else...

Pinochle requires meld pattern recognition, point counting accuracy, score prediction, signalling using bids & cards, and card counting (high memory load), so playing well would be very difficult as the beer flowed.

There's a whole bunch of appropriate games listed in this article on low tech game systems.

Gin Rummy is a game I have played in bars, coffee shops, on trains, and in cafes, etc. It requires nothing more than a deck of cards, a notepad and a pen/pencil. For a darker bar, you can always use vision impaired cards with big pips. Plastic cards are resilient to spilled beer.
As for difficulty, it's not very hard to learn and the rules are not overwhelming. It may be better to learn before imbibing; but once you (and others) learn the game it can be played most anywhere.
Here's a link to the basics: http://www.ehow.com/how_3998_play-gin-rummy.html

Zombie Dice
Zombie Dice is a light push-your-luck style dice game. There are several reasons I think it would work well for play in a bar.

It's simple - you can teach your friends in 30 seconds, and a few beers won't result in forgetting complex rules
It's self contained -  you don't even need paper to keep score!
It's quick - you can get in several games even if you just popped in for one drink
It's durable - a little liquid won't hurt the dice
It's compact - you don't need a big table or a lot of bar space to play

It's Farkle, but with zombies.

If you've got a little bit of table space, Saboteur would work.

Great bar games we play regularly: Icetowers (and other fast simple Icehouse games; the smaller pieces are easy to lose but also cheap to replace), Apples to Apples (the default party game choice), and Nanofictionary.
If you have a little table space, pretty-much-anything-by-Cheapass-Games, but especially Big Idea (one of the few card games that actually improves when you're slightly drunk), Give Me the Brain (and it's sequel Lord of the Fries), and Lightspeed.  Button Men is golden; you can wear the game and you only need enough table to roll five dice.  Gloom is also a favourite, if you're not too worried about stains on the cards (which would be appropriate, anyway...)

Bar games, brings back memories...
We used to play a game, but I'm not sure about the english name. It was some poker game with three dice and a cup.
The idea was that the dice (for example 4, 6 and 2) create the higest possible number (in this case 642). You called the number and the other player accepted or lifted the cup. If the call was accepted, the other player must exceed the number by rerolling one or more dice. Or pass the cup blind with a higher call. If the cup was lifted, and the call was a lie, the caller paid a point, else the lifter paid a point.
The points where represented by an extra die, starting at 6 and counting down. If you lost on a 1, you had to pay for this round of drinks.
The game was simple but fun.

I used to play this! It was called "Maxx" where I played it. Three dice was too complicated for us - we played it with two.

@Erik P: There was a 2 dice variant called Mexican or something like that. As I remember correctly 1,2 has a special meaning.

That must be the same game. I'd never seen it in writing so I guess Mexican was shortened to Mex and then misinterpreted by me as Maxx. The (somewhat insane) counting system was: generally create the highest possible number as you explained above, except if it's two identical dice it's that number times 100, except two ones is 1000, except (2,1) (which would otherwise be the lowest combination) is "maxx" (read "infinity"). Truly a game for the somewhat inebriated...

Mia is a traditional bar or travel game. All you need is something to count points with, two dice and a opaque cup.
Daifugō is another suitable game. Nothing more than a deck of cards is required to play.
Scopa requires a 4 color 40 card deck and some way to count points.
Also many other traditional trick taking games are suitable for pubs or bars as they require little space to be played on.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest Phase 10.  The cards are fairly easy to play, and you can play it with a couple friends.  Decks are also very inexpensive so once they get really dirt, buy another one.  Having played it enough at coffee shops to wear out one set of cards, I think it fits the bill

We've played this as well; the only thing is that it can be difficult to remember what phase each person is on, so if the bar group is comprised of active drinkers, a simpler card game might be better.

Spoof
If you're really short of materiel but can scrape together three coins per player, then Spoof might be an option.
It can also be useful in working out whose round it is...

Seems like push your luck games would fit the atmosphere in a bar. The classic push your luck game is Sid Sackson's Can't Stop. I suspect if you had four dice, pencil, pen, and paper you could work out a way to play it.

Treehouse
Treehouse and other Looney Labs pyramid games are excellent for playing in a bar evnironment, in fact the game Martian Coasters was created for with this in mind.

pass the pigs!!  its compact, you just need the two pigs (they are the dice pretty much).  throw the pigs on the table, and how they land is how you score.  its very simple and can get really fun once you get into it.  and with a group its much more fun.

We've done this ... the pigs are beer-resistant, and some of the rolls lend themselves to descriptions that fit in very well with bar talk.

I have played Mao often in pub situations. A couple of decks of waterproof cards can go a long way, and my friends being who they are, they normally have a deck or two on them.
The game is flexible enough that it can be played even with the sort of incomplete decks that you tend to find at a pub. And it can be expanded to many players.
The unfortunate problem with this game is that you tend to need two or three people who know the basic rules already to bootstrap the game. Also, some people tend to find working the rules out frustrating enough to not have a good time.

Dice games work well. We used to play Greed at the bar back in college.

I like playing "Irish Dice" (for lack of a better name - I was introduced at an Irish pub).
The goal on three rolls of five dice is to get the lowest score - all sides have face value except 3s which are the wild/super side worth 0 points.
You can make it more interesting by putting a dollar on every round (though I wouldn't know anything about that from personal experience).

Darts, Pool, Shuffleboard and of course the classic: Get a beautiful woman to go home with you. I think that bringing dice or Banangrams to the bar might be mutually exclusive with the goal of the last game.

Upvoted for making me laugh.  Though, if you don't dare to dream, you might not achieve the greatest prize of all: getting a beautiful woman who loves board and card games yo go home with you!

500 if you have 4 players, its a card game with tricks.

In theory, 500 is playable with anywhere between 2 and 6 players. However, you correctly state that the commonest way to play (at least in Australia and New Zealand) is with 4 players.

Bongo is my bar favourite. It requires quick and clear thinking, so possible alcohol effects can make it rather weird.

I've played Reiner Knizia's Dice Decathlon (PDF) in many strange places, but not in a bar. All you need is 8 dice, pen and paper for keeping score, and the rules.

Bananagrams is an obvious choice. Each person plays scrabble on their own without a board. The goal is to use up all your tiles before the other people do. It's extremely portable, and very quick to play. There's also nothing that can get ruined from a spilled drink.

Bananagrams
A less well-known choice is Spot It! It looks like a children's game, but it's an all ages game. Just a deck of circular cards. Also extremely portable in its protective tin. Each card has a variety of symbols on it. Every card in the deck has exactly one symbol matching with every other card in the deck. There are a variety of different games you can play with this deck of cards. Our favorite is the bomb mode, and we modified it to make our own mode, two-fisted bomb mode. You don't even need a table to play this game, you can play standing up. Play is also extremely fast. You can get an entire round in while waiting for the bartender to make your drink, depending on the mode you have selected.

Spot It!

I've recently create an application match it to generate spot it like cards deck with some extra levels.

Seven Pennies is a simple game of chance with a tiny dash of decision-making, and it enjoyed a brief stint of popularity in the NYC and Boston bar scenes.  To play, all you need are seven coins and a flat surface.

I heartily recommend Tichu if your're exactly four players.
Wikipedia:

Tichu is a multi-genre card game; primarily a shedding game that includes elements of Bridge, Asshole (the card game), and Poker played between two teams of two players each. Teams work to accumulate points; the first team to reach a predetermined score (usually 1,000 points) is the winner.

Once upon a time, after a couple drinks too much, can be fun.

If you wish to interest those around you and provoke interaction, Icehouse Zen is an excellent choice.
It's sufficiently open to new players mid-game that anyone can join in and is nice and easy to explain.  We have ended up with several fellow drinkers joining us for a game, which is a lovely pub experience.

Paper Football (Canadian-style): You get three downs to pitch a paper football from one side of a table to the other. Spectators can run a drinking pool; whenever the score includes your number, you must drink.
Zoom Schwartz Figliano: Use specific terms and actions to pass the game from player to player; foulers drink.
One Thousand Blank White Cards: A DIY nomic card game; use the back of business cards, or scraps of paper to play. Include drinking if you want.
Forum Games: For example, "my cookie"

No Thanks! is a really fun game that would be great for playing in a bar. It's portable, simple, doesn't need lots of space, and plays very quickly (about 10-15 min per game). It's also surprisingly challenging. It has some tactical and psychological elements, as there's a degree of bluffing and risk calculation. It officially supports 3-5 players, but I've played it with 6 (just reduce the number of starting tokens) and it worked fine.

I'd highly recommend Zombie Dice, by Steve Jackson Games.  It does have custom dice, which if you're not careful can go wandering, but if you've got a table, it's great.  It's also good because games are so short, if someone else arrives, they're not stuck watching from the side for too long.  Add a little alcohol and "Braaaaaaaains", and you're in for a great game.
SJ Games also make Cthulhu dice, but I've had less success with that: it takes some time to figure out what the symbols on the dice mean, especially if you're not familiar with the Call of Cthulhu rpgs.


text:
Diplomacy "lite"?
I love Diplomacy. The alliances, intrigue, negotiation, backstabbing, and the relatively simple mechanics that help emphasize the diplomatic aspect over the game mechanics.
However, it can be hard to find a group of people to play it with; not everyone likes such a cutthroat game, it requires 7 players (I hear you can do it with fewer, but that it's not as good), and it takes up a whole day to play.
Are there any good games that have a similar diplomatic and negotiation focus, but which play quicker, require fewer players or are more flexible in player number? A game will be a good fit if the diplomatic aspect of alliances, backstabbing, and the like is a substantial or the majority of the game, with less emphasis on individual strategy, tactics, and luck.

Junta
In Junta you play leaders of a Banana republic.  Each turn the elected El Presidente hands out various offices and announces the budget for the year and who will be receiving how much.  He doesn't reveal how much he's keeping for himself though :)
If anyone is unhappy with their allocation they can arrange a coup, marshal their forces and try to unseat El Presidente.  If they don't wish to go with the open war route, they can try to assassinate any other player by guessing their location from among the 5 allowed each turn.  Assassinations are only a temporary inconvenience as your brother/uncle/cousin will be happy to take over the family business :)
The goal of the game is to get as much cash as you can into your swiss bank account.  The only way to put money into it is to go to the bank, and survive the inevitable assassination attempts.
The game will take upwards of 2 hours, but a shorter game can easily be done by not using the full money deck.  It is a lighthearted game, but full of diplomacy, bluffing, and backstabbing.  On turns without a coup (probably every other turn) there is no significant use of the board.

This looks like it has some of the right elements, but reviews and comments on BGG seem to indicate that the coups take too long and distract too much from the diplomatic aspect. Definitely worth checking out, but I'd still be interested in hearing about more games.

This sounds very similar to the board game Swärje, in which you run a political campaign full of corruption with the goal to smuggle money to your Swiss bank account. A caveat is that it is in Swedish.

A Game of Thrones
It is based on a novel and has a bunch of expansions.
Not sure if it is that much simpler though. It has more other mechanics than diplomacy, but the supporting and backstabbing part is a bit simpler. I've played it once now and it was quite fun. It 'only' took a few hours, even though it was the first time. Also the fact that not everything is executed in parallel makes it a bit easier to understand.
However, the fundamental part where you promise to your ally to do certain things and then it later turned out you did the exact opposite is still very much there. E.g. you agree to support someone's attack, put a command counter on a province and later it turns out that you didn't support him.

One major way A Game of Thrones differs from Diplomacy is that A Game of Thrones explicitly forbids private communication - if you have anything to say, you have to say it to all players. This changes the negotiation aspect quite a bit in a way that I personally prefer.

Also of note: 3-5 players (6 with an expansion)

@Mag, oh yeah, I forgot about the open negotiations thing. This indeed makes it less like Diplomacy. I still felt pretty similar to when I played Diplomacy though, when it came to alliances and backstabbing. Next to that, it makes playing the game a lot easier and faster. You don't have to hassle with going to seperate rooms the whole time. Anyway, when playing Diplomacy face-to-face (as opposed to playing through mail or online), you also can have a bit of a clue of what is going on behind your back.

This definitely qualifies as in the Diplomacy family. The rules are a bit more complicated, but it plays more quickly and requires fewer players. Open negotiations do remove some of the intrigue in Diplomacy, but I think they leave enough for it to count, and help speed the game up (having to sneak off to do secret negotiations taking up a large amount of the time in Diplomacy).

Republic of Rome
Plays a little quicker than Diplomacy - 4-5 hours which makes it just playable in an evening, rather than needing a full day.  The game mechanics are more complex than diplomacy, but most of them are on cards, so you only have to deal with a fairly modest set at a time.  If you can arrange for your inexperienced players not to be HRAO for the first turn or two, it's easy enough to learn, and reasonably experienced players hardly ever refer to the rules.
Especially if you play the Middle Republic or Late Republic scenario rather than the Early, it's a game all about diplomacy and negotiations between the players as they try to scramble to the top.  Early Republic is more about the players as a team trying to defeat the game-system (aka Carthage).

Great! So, sounds like it's a bit shorter than Diplomacy, and requires fewer players, and a bit more complex. Thus, I think it qualifies as a Diplomacy "lite" according to my criteria.

It's really good with five or six - you can't play with more than that (it messes up the pace of the game if you draw more than six cards a turn).  In mechanical terms, four is fine, but I don't believe that diplomatic games work with four, as 2v2 alliances tend to snowball, and 3v1 makes it too easy to bring down a leader.  Republic of Rome has a lot of random factors, so it's a game of skilled improvisation rather than long-term careful planning like Diplomacy.

Switch published as High Hand
This is very light. Build poker hands from a tableau of cards, but there is an alliance/partnership mechanic in it. It was designed by Robert Abbott, known for inventing Eleusis and Epaminondas.

Interesting. Sounds like it's very light compared to what I'm looking for, but it does have a negotiation aspect.

Quo Vadis?
Players seek to move their policians through a set of committees and eventually to sit on the Roman Senate.  To move politicians forward from each committee to the next requires a majority of members in the committee to approve it.  Players make deals with each other in a "I'll vote for you here if you vote for me there" kind of way.  The points are scored by collecting chips along the way to the senate, and the winner is the player with the most points when the senate is filled.
I haven't played the game for quite a while now, and don't own it, but I'm going to be looking out for a copy now I've remembered it!
For an 'at a glance' overview of several Board Game Geek reviews:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/344583/what-you-need-to-know-and-what-people-think-about

Empires in Arms
Could be described as Diplomacy-heavy rather than "lite".  It's a classic monster wargame, but it falls into the multi-player competitive category - most big multi-player wargames are in pre-defined teams (e.g. Axis vs Allies in WWII games).
EIA is a pretty good grand-strategic simulation of Napoleonic warfare, with a diplomatic system that has formal declarations of war, alliances and peace treaties.  You'll probably find there's too much wargame there and not enough diplomacy, but it's a classic for a reason.
It's also incredibly long - you'll do well to finish in a full weekend.

Definitely Diplomacy-heavy!  but it's my favorite game so I have to give you +1 anyways :)  It is also inflexible in player number, needing 7.  While you can play with less (down to about 4) it will not be the full experience and too much will depend on who gets to control the other 3 countries for each year.

Origins of World War I
I've played this as described in Sid Sackson's Gamut of Games.  I think it might be less negotiation than you're looking for, but one of the key mechanics is forming an alliance before the end of the game. You basically have to balance whether you think you are better off ganging up with another player to tackle the current leader. Apparently, there's a print-and-play version you can download from Board Game Geek, and there was a published version called Origins of World War II.

Yep, sounds like it's a bit lower on actual diplomacy than I would like, and a bit higher on standard gamey action resolution, but it does look like it could be considered in some ways a "diplomacy lite", so have an upvote. Also, why don't I have A Gamut of Games yet? Oh, it appears to be out of print.

@Brian, Gamut of Games is well worth tracking down. There are lots of used copies around. I even have a spare copy if you're interested in a book swap.

How about taking the negotiation and alliances mechanics into the realm of abstract strategy games? Years ago, I heard about a Shogi variant for three players with rules that automatically trigger an alliance whenever two players gang up on the third. When the alliance forms, the victim gets extra powers to defend himself. Today, I stumbled across a detailed description of Sannin Shogi. It sounds interesting as a very different approach to building alliances in a game.

Hmm. That sounds like it's a somewhat different kind of alliance than I'm looking for, if it's automatically triggered. The nice thing about Diplomacy is that the alliances are not specified at all in-game; you ally with whoever you want, and it can change whenever you want. But the structure of the game makes alliances, and backstabbing, necessary. Still, sounds like an interesting Shogi variant that I should check out.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

sort: votes


text:
Good General Strategies for Agricola?
What are some good general guidelines for strategies when playing Agricola? I know it will depend on the exact games, but are there any typical dos and/do nots?
John

This question appears to be off-topic because it is about good general strategy tips for a game. See this meta post.

@Jonathan Too broad, not off-topic.  Clearly questions about strategy in a game are not off-topic.

@bwarner Well, yes, but general strategy tips are. Off topic is where the custom close reasons lie, whether it makes much sense or not.

Pat Ludwig has mentioned some good ideas. In my opinion, the four most important things are:

Decide and work towards your food strategy early. You need a solid plan to get food. This is the foundation that gives you the breathing space to do everything else. The first couple of turns feel relaxed, because it's ages before the first harvest. Don't let that fool you! Time constricts sharply in later turns, and what you do here can make or break your later game. Getting something planted by first harvest is usually a good idea.
Don't obsess over Occupations. Most of them will theoretically help you. However you probably can't easily play more than 3 without impacting other areas. Come up with a straightforward plan (also considering your Minors), and then prioritise ruthlessly.
Have a baby as soon as possible. Extra family members are the key to getting lots done.
Be flexible. The best strategy depends heavily on what the other players decide to do. If everyone else is grabbing animals, prioritise farming. If lots of wood is available, consider a building spree. Sometimes the Occupation square is occupied for long enough to render your plan worthless. Move on. Most people have a preferred play style. But the key to winning is to realise that you often won't be able to play the game according to your desires.

As the available actions change based on the number of players, I'll say up front that this advice is primarily for the 4p game.  Also, these are general guidelines.  There are exceptions for everything!

Don't play too many occupations!  No more than 3 before the first harvest.  2 is probably better.
Reed/Stone/Food is the best square in the game.  Stone is very scarce, reed isn't common.
Try to be the first person to build, and to get Family Growth
4p has more food available than 3p and 5p.  It is OK to take a few chances with food in 4p
Don't fence before the first harvest.  Ideally you want to play 2 fence actions in the game
Do your best to take advantage of everything your cards allow.  Try to get an improvement after Family Growth, Renovation and getting starting player.
Good Major improvements to shoot for are the Well and the first Fireplace.
When in doubt buy a major, they are good VPs
Pay attention to any cards that award bonuses at the end of the game.  Make sure you get yours, and try to steal an opponents if possible (Reeve, Church Warden, House Steward)
Work towards a food engine that noone else is using
Don't overvalue renovating.  If you have to spend 3 actions to gather materials and another to renovate, it isn't worth it.

I play a very similar strategy and do pretty well.  I focus on getting Family Growth done as quickly (and often) as possible.  Also the end of game bonus points can rack up quickly so I like that point too.

You don't say whether you're playing with the Farmers of the Moor expansion; if so, the following suggestion may not apply, as having to heat your 4-room wooden house becomes quite an operation, but:
In the standard game, I'd say that growing your family is THE dominant strategy, especially playing against newbies.  If you can accumulate 10 wood and 4 reed and build two extra rooms (ideally, in one action) shortly after the first harvest, then grow your family twice in advance of most of the other players, all the extra actions you'll be getting will soon give you an insuperable advantage.
Having said that, the real key to winning Agricola is to slurp up and make best use of undervalued resources; so, if everyone is dead set on building rooms, do something different!  Rather than battling strenuously for wood, be the first to 2 clay, build the Fireplace and see your food problems vanish when you pick up a flock of sheep that no one else could do anything with...
One thing that newbies often don't spot is that, while getting food through baking bread or slaughtering animals are both fine, especially when backed up with Occupations and/or Minor Improvements, there is a third way, the way of Major Improvements.  The Basketmaker's Workshop in particular is great at providing both food and victory points, in the many games where players undervalue reed because, after they've built a room or two, it doesn't do very much.
Taking of Major Improvements, notice that the Well is often cheaper and better than renovating to Stone; and if you get it early enough provides you with a nice little food bonus too.  Don't get fixated on renovation, unless you can get a really good Major Improvement (or in the last round, Fences) on the side.
I concur with other posters who advise not to get hung up on Occupations too much.  Unless an Occupation is going to save you two or more subsequent actions in the course of the game, it's questionable whether you should be playing it at all.  As such, there are some which are obviously good to play (hello Field Watchman etc), but oh so many that are traps, when you could be doing something properly constructive on your farm.  Then again, it can be worth using the Occupation square early on, just to make sure other players don't get their busted cards out too easily!  Since your first Occupation costs no food, of course, and Occupations are usually at their best when played early.  But if the player to your right is hogging the space, don't worry, just smile and grab the Wood that he's foolishly neglecting to take.
That's enough for the time being I think!

You need to have a plan for food. You should choose one of these options and work hard towards it:

Animals - You want to get the first Fireplace, probably take a bunch of Sheep once they've accumulated up to about 4 and cook most of them. Sets you up well for the later game. You'll want to start breeding soon, so you'll need lots of wood for stables/pastures.
Bread - Can be tricky if you don't have a helpful Occupation or Minor Improvement. Some people go as far as to say you should never aim to bake bread unless you have a good Occ/Imp, but I wouldn't agree. Nonetheless, generally it's vital to get the Clay Oven, and there's only one, so you need to get 1 Stone and 3 Clay ASAP. It helps a lot that you get a free bake when you build the Clay Oven - really try to have a grain on hand when you build it. Try to get grain sown as soon as possible, preferably into two or three fields.
Vegetables - It's hard to completely feed your family with Vegetables, unless you have the Lettuce Patch, but they can form a good sizeable chunk of a balanced diet. You definitely want a Cooking Hearth to maximise their value. It starts too late if you have to wait for the "Take 1 Vegetable" space, so you need a card like the Hobby Farmer or Grocer to really do this well. Others like the Potato Dibber or Window Box can make this much more effective.
Accumulators - Travelling Players and Fishing are not really sustainable sources of food normally, but with a good occupation or two like Dancer or Fisherman, you can get quite a lot of food from these.
Other Cards - With cards like Berry Picker, Sycophant or Patron+Bookshelf, you can obtain quite a lot of your food from unconventional sources. You're not likely to be fighting other people for it, which is good, but you will have to get animals and vegetables at some point to get a decent score, so you can't completely neglect those aspects.

Agricola is about turn management.  Everything comes down to making the best use of your turns and every action you make has an opportunity cost.  The different numbers of players should also change your strategy.  There are some general guidelines that you can use to improve your play.

Know exactly how many turns you have until the next harvest, and know how many shots at each space you will get.  Both will help you decide the most important move to make.
The less players there are in the game, the more denial should be a part of your strategy.  Ignore denial until the very last turn in a five player game and deny right from the start in a two player game.
Know which resources are most limited and are in most demand.
Picking starting player at the right time can be extremely important, but remember that it is a wasted turn.  Always have a strong reason to do so.  Don't be afraid to change strategies if someone else is denying you that spot.
People are important, but only for their extra turns.  Always consider the actual value of getting an extra mouth to feed in the late game.  Sometimes taking the wood can be more valuable.
Don't forget other people's professions.  A single profession could change the resource balance and demand.
The last three spaces are the most valuable for points.  In the mid-game, try to ensure that you will be well positioned to exploit these locations.
Sometimes an opportunity will present itself that you might not see if you are dead set on a particular path.  Be flexible and always reassess your options.  It may actually be worth facing starvation if it will net you 4 or more victory points.
The early game is about building a food engine and getting an extra family member as quickly as possible.
The mid game is about cleaning up a lot of -1 VPs and expanding your food engine.
The late game is about squeezing extra VPs out of the game where ever you can.
Don't ignore vegetables.  The sooner you sow them the better.

I try to get as many ppl as possible and at least 1 or each scoring category.

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


text:
Domaine - How does the Chancery work?
When a player takes a card from the Chancery, can he only take the top card, or can he look through the entire pile from the Chancery and picks a card he wants (except the one he just sold).

Just to save anyone else this trouble.  This isn't a question about Dominion :)  I wasted a bit of time looking for the Chancery card in Dominion just now.... It might be time to go to bed...

From the full rules on Mayfair Games site:

Note: If you sell an action card, you may not chose to draw that card when you refill your hand to 3 cards at the end of your turn.  You may chose any other card in the Chancery, or draw from the action deck.


text:
Quarriors' Deathdealer and expert culling
When we started using the expert culling rule in Quarriors, we found a confusing interaction with the Deathdealer. It's special ability is:

When Deathdealer scores, you may trade Deathdealer for one die from any other player's Used Pile.

However, the expert culling rule says that you can only score a creature if you cull that creature's die. How can you swap it and cull it?

The consensus on BGG is summed up in this post:

when scoring the death dealer, you would have two "when deathdealer scores" effects that would trigger. 1) cull for points. 2) trade dice.

If two "when x scores" effects happen at the same time, the active player has to choose which one resolves first. In most cases, this should not be a problem, but for deathdealer the choices are mutually exclusive. If you trade first, you no longer have a dice in your possession to cull. If you cull first, you no longer have a dice in your possession to trade. Thus, you either trade deathdealer or cull it for points.

Our proposal for how to use this creature with the expert culling rule is that when it's in your ready area at the start of your turn, you choose one of the following actions:

Score the 2 glory, and cull the Deathdealer die.
Trade Deathdealer for one die from any other player's Used Pile.
Just move the Deathdealer to your Used Pile.

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


text:
What components does "everybody" have?
When designing a board game to publish on the web, what components are safe to assume that most people will already have in their collection?

chess
checkers
six-sided dice
playing cards
pen & paper
coins
simple play pieces (meeples or other incarnations)

Especially pen & paper are extremely versatile. I would add "a printer" to that, which gives you some features that pen & paper don't have.

I'd leave chess out...

I would also leave out checkers.

You can look at what the Cheapass games come with and what they suggest you borrow from other games. Typically they assume players have:

Dice
Pawns / meeples / etc
Counters such as coins / beads / etc
Pen and paper
A stack of paper money

pens/pencils
paper
dice
playing cards
coins

I'll state the obvious ones:

Chess
Checkers
Six-sided dice

Only six-sided dice for most people, though.  If you need D10s or something, then you limit your audience.

Dominoes are a strange addition to the list; I wouldn't think of them as universal.

Thanks for the feedback, @Richard and @Jadasc. I've incorporated it in my answer.

Dominoes are common but not so common you can expect people to have them. Yes, they might be easy to find (not so sure anyway), but only if you really knew in advance you needed them...

Nearly everybody has "play money" around in some form or another - from Monopoly, Life, or similar games
Many households that lack a chess set will still have pawns from Sorry, Parcheesi, etc..

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


text:
Can Quarriors' Ghostly Spirit be destroyed more than once?
The Ghostly Spirit's special ability is:

When Ghostly Spirit is destroyed, you may cull 1 Basic Quiddity Die to return Ghostly Spirit to your Ready Area (for free).

For example, let's say that I've got a level 1 Ghostly Spirit and an Assistant in my ready area, and my opponent attacks me with strength 4. I defend first with my Ghostly Spirit and it's destroyed, but then what? Can I cull a quiddity die to return it to my ready area and then use it to defend again? Or do I have to finish defending, let my Assistant be destroyed, and then cull a quiddity die to return my Ghostly Spirit to my ready area?
If you can cull the die before finishing the defense, we've had situations where a player culled several dice in one turn.

According to the Quiltimate Quedition rules at the top of page 7:

If an effect or ability prevents a Creature’s destruction or returns a destroyed Creature to your Ready Area (such as a Life Charm), you may not assign any more damage to that Creature this turn.

So you can't use the same die more than once in a single defence.


text:
Source for significant historical events
I'm designing a game that involves identifying historical events, and I'm looking for an online source that I can use to generate a set of event cards.
For my prototype, I'm using a copy of the game Chronology, but to publish a print-and-play version, I'd need to find or create my own set of cards. If I could find an online source with a permissive licence, that might not be too much work. Other games like Chronology that could be used for prototyping would also be helpful.

The best source I've found so far is the Wikipedia timelines.

I would look at The Timetables of History. Even though they are on low-tech dead trees, the cross-concern linking of people and events is awesome. I have used these books for RPG purposes and general entertainment reading for decades.
I find that the Timetables provide better information (and inspiration!) than the Wikipedia timelines because of the way they connect events, people, and ideas. Especially for game design, the Timetables of History can help you unravel the skeins of history so you know which strings to tug on for desired results.

I agree, they're great for inspiration, and I've used them to play Blind Dates. Unfortunately, they would be more labour intensive than I was hoping for if I'm just going to web publish this.

It's Amero-centric, but you could use the cards from Chrononauts as a good starting place.  That link lists everything that happened in real life, but not any of the alternate timeline cards.

Thanks, that's a good start. I'm still hoping for something bigger.

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


text:
Why is this tsumego solution wrong?
I'm trying to understand why my solution to this tsumego is incorrect. It's "Basic problem #26" from Tsumego Pro and looks like this:
$$ ----------------------------
$$ . . . . . . . . X . O X . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . X O . O O O |
$$ . . . . . . . X . X O O X . |
$$ . . . . , . . . . X X X X . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |
$$ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |

The built-in correct solution is this:
$$ ----------------
$$ . . X 3 O # 1 2 |
$$ . . X O . O O O |
$$ . X . X O O X . |
$$ . . . X X X X . |

(alternatively, after (2), with black playing at the marked position again and white taking once more by playing at (1), and only then black playing at (3)). I understand why this solution is correct, just not why mine isn't.
The following is my solution, which the program marks as incorrect.
$$ ----------------
$$ . . X 1 O X 2 . |
$$ . . X O . O O O |
$$ . X . X O O X . |
$$ . . . X X X X . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |

(white's response at (2) is built into the program, the rest of the white moves aren't).
$$ ----------------
$$ . . X X O . O . |
$$ . . X O a O O O |
$$ . X . X O O X b |
$$ . . . X X X X . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |

If black now takes the ko at (a), the only thing white can do (that I can see) is play at (b) in order to try escaping on the right side. It can't play anywhere on its inside because that would essentially be suicide, and because for black winning the ko means connecting its two groups, I don't see any possible white threat that black would have to respond to.
$$ ----------------
$$ . . X X O . O . |
$$ . . X O 3 O O O |
$$ . X . X O O X 4 |
$$ . . . X X X X . |
$$ . . . . . . . . |

$$ ----------------
$$ . . X X O . O . |
$$ . . X 5 X O O O |
$$ . X . X O O X O |
$$ . . . X X X X 6 |
$$ . . . . . . 7 8 |
$$ . . . . . . 9 0 |

This could now continue all the way to the bottom of the board (not shown), at which point the white group has no liberties left except for the eye-and-a-half at the top. If white decides to stop running away, I still don't see anything forcing it could play to stop black from closing (e.g. at (10)).
In the end black can take:
$$m37
$$ ----------------
$$ . . X X O 1 O 3 |
$$ . . X X X O O O |
$$ . X . X O O X O |
$$ . . . X X X X O |
$$ . . . . . . X O |
$$ . . . . . . X O |

with no useful response (38) for white.
What is it that I'm missing? Where could white have lived?

In tsumegos where you should kill a group, the best (and thus correct) answer is always the solution where you kill unconditionally (if possible). Only if there is no unconditional kill the ko would be the best (correct) solution.
The basic idea is that a tsumego is a local fighting position which you should solve without knowledge of the rest of the board. In your example, the rest of the board could either be that white has more ko threats or that black has more ko threats. Thus, your solution would depend on the unknown rest of the board, whereas the unconditional kill works always.
In general, if there is a position with equal outcome you should always prefer the way without ko. Even if you have more ko threats now, the position might change over time and therefore it is better to avoid the ko from the beginning.

The Black move 1 reduces the "three in a row" from two eyes to one. White cannot protect his "second" eye at 3 until he kills the marked stone (in red) with 2, because it would be self atari. Black then quashes the potential second eye with 3, and White is dead (for sure).
If Black plays 1 at 3, White will play in the middle of "three in a row" to create a sure eye in the corner, and "half" an eye on the third space from the edge. To prevent the "half" eye from becoming a second eye, Black has to fight a ko at A. He's likely to win it, and kill the White group, but White will be able to make a ko threat elsewhere on the board to get several points of compensation. Having to fight a ko to kill the White group (and losing "several" points) is not nearly as good as killing it for sure, as above, without additional loss, which is why the second answer is incorrect.


text:
Does the Diplowinn variant play similarly to the original Diplomacy?
The Diplomacy Variant Bank contains a huge number of variants on Diplomacy, ranging from completely different maps and powers, to minor tweaks of the rules.  I was searching for a variant that would play well face-to-face, while being shorter than the original and I came across Diplowinn.
I tried Googling for this and didn't come up with much in the way of reviews or game reports.  I want to know whether Diplowinn has any problems compared to the original.  In particular, does this version result in draws more or less frequently.
Also the description says that stabbing is more attractive in this variant.  Is that the case, and does it consequently feel nastier to play?
Judging by the lack of references on the internet I'm not too expectant of a good answer, and so I'll endeavour to play this variant the next time I get a chance.

I've never played it, but it seems like it gives a huge advantage to whoever has an early lead.  This would make it very hard for a coalition to take them out, which to me ruins the entire purpose of Diplomacy.  You might as well just say that whoever is leading in 1904 wins.

Hello @tttppp from 5+ years later!,
I actually called my buddies up to try this variant after seeing your question as the variant looked intersting. Our game lasted about 3 hours (around a table) and was very satisfying as we often stop games around 1910 due to stalemates. It is necessary to note that Italy and Turkey (countries that usually turtle until their neighbors get invaded) were easily overran when they ended up trapped with 4 Supply Centers. It was relatively easy for England to solo the game in 1906 as he did not require too many troops to defend. And those that did, were fleets in the Atlantic which doubled as offensive fleets. Stabbing was very common in our game as you run out of nearby SCs to pick up. Based on the game we played, I would say it would be less likely to see a draw when powers such as the conservative 2-4 SC players get eliminated slowly.
I know this answer comes 5 years after your question but I hope it helps!

Thank you for this answer!  It is indeed about five years too late for the event I planned, but never-the-less really interesting to read about your findings.  A three hour variant sounds pretty good to me, even if it's less balanced than the original!


text:
Can sheep farmer perform multiple exchanges at once?
We were playing Agricola last night and I ran into an unusual situation. I had three pastures, each able to contain four animals. I also had the House Goat minor improvement, which means I was not allowed to store any animals in my house. I had a total of eight sheep, and no other animals.
I had the Sheep Farmer occupation, and wanted to use its ability twice to convert six sheep to two boar and two cattle.  My question is, do the conversions have to be sequential, or can they be synchronous? In the first case I cannot store both the boar and the cattle as I have five sheep after the first swap which take two of my pastures. In the latter case I end up with a breeding pair of each type of animal.

The card doesn't say you can do multiple conversions at the same time, so they have to be sequential.
However, in other situations, it's established that you don't have to have room for animals if you're going to immediately use them for something else. For instance, if you receive animals from an action space, you can immediately afterwards cook them, without having to find room for them in between.
I would argue that the Sheep Farmer works the same way. In this case, you can use it twice in succession, without having to take animal storage limits in account.
I'll add a ruling to this effect to the next edition of the Unofficial Agricola Compendium, which many players consider to be almost authoritative.

Where is the logic for Agricola stated that because the card doesn't say you can do multiple conversions at the same time, they have to be sequential?  Maybe because it doesn't say they have to be sequential, they can be done simultaneously.  I agree with your end result, but I'm not sure that the card logic works that way.

These kind of timing problems aren't well defined in Agricola, so the best you can do is to chose one interpretation of the cards, and stick with it. And interpreting cards is easiest if you assume that no cards are ever executed simultaneously.


text:
How does the "Special Orders" special event card work?
The "Special Orders" card states:

During this turn, the current player may move one other player's pawn (with permission) as if it were his own.

I have read this and the rule book (which gives further clarifications), but I am still unclear on the interaction of this card and the abilities of the different roles.
I am looking for a concise description of how the card works, which covers cases such as the following:

Generalist moving the medic through a cured disease,
Medic moving the generalist through a cured disease,
Troubleshooter moving operations expert by direct flight,
Someone moving the dispatcher, attempting to move a third player using their power,
...

For bonus points I would be interested in any interactions with other special events that are relevant (i.e. confusion that I haven't had yet!)

Barely worth mentioning (but you said bonus points!): anyone moving the containment specialist would remove a cube from every city the specialist enters with 2 or more cubes.

It's the dispatcher ability minus bringing people together.  For example, you can use it to move the containment specialist or (with a cure) the medic through cities to remove cubes.  We've done this to get double duty out of the medic late in the game when we were racing the board.
You are using your own move actions (and any constraints or benefits they bring) to move the other player.  (You spend your own cards for flights, for example.)  The other player's abilities are relevant if they are effects of moving, but not if they involve actions.
To address your cases:

Generalist moving the medic through a cured disease: cubes are removed; gets to move five times.
Medic moving the generalist through a cured disease: no effect (the medic didn't enter the city), four moves.
Troubleshooter moving ops expert by direct flight: Troubleshooter reveals the correct card rather than discarding it (his ability); but doesn't get to use an arbitrary card if at a research station (the ops expert's ability).
Someone moving the dispatcher, attempting to move a third player: no, you don't get access yourself to the other player's special abilities.  (But you could just move that third player instead with this action.)

See this thread on Boardgame Geek, particularly the comments from Tom Lehmann, the co-designer of On the Brink.  (Thanks to @tremby for pointing this out in a comment.)

I still need a little extra clarification. "Troubleshooter moving ops expert by direct flight: he reveals the correct card rather than discarding it (his ability)": can you replace the "he" and "his" with role names? I think you mean the troubleshooter (the one giving the special orders) in both cases but the illustration in my set shows a woman, so I want to make sure.

Ah, see this thread (in particular the comments from Tom Lehmann, the co-designer of On the Brink) where this is all confirmed. This might be good to add to the answer. https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/445371/special-orders


text:
How many cubes can the containment specialist remove in Pandemic On The Brink
The Containment Specialist role card says the following:

When you enter a city with 2 or more cubes of the same color, remove 1 cube.

We played yesterday with the mutation purple disease, and had a city with two red and two purple cubes.  When the Containment Specialist entered that city we weren't sure whether we could remove one cube in total, or one cube of each colour.
In the instance, we opted to allow the removal of one of each colour, but still ended up losing because we ran out of cubes.
How many cubes should we have removed?

One cube from each disease with 2 or more cubes
The "On the Brink" rulebook states this on page 3:

If there are multiple diseases with 2 or more cubes present, remove 1 cube from each such disease.


text:
Eurogames suitable for playing outside
We're planning a camping holiday and are expecting to be outside for a fair amount of it.  Most of the board games we enjoy have lots of small pieces, or require cards to be displayed on the table.  Are there any Eurogames that would stand up to a strong gust of wind?

closing per our policy against game rec/shopping questions.

Travel Editions
There are travel editions of some very good boardgames that are specifically designed to have more durable board states than the standard games. For example...

Settlers of Catan plays 3 or 4
Ingenious plays 2

I've played the Ticket to Ride Card Game on a train - I think you could probably manage it outdoors, if you had a card table or something. A bungee cord strapped across each face of the tabletop could help everyone secure their cards and could be used to secure boards for games that have pieces substantial enough to survive some breezes.
I'm not sure if it's a "Eurogame", but Abalone is an abstract with substantial, heavy pieces. At least, my '80s vintage edition is.
Dice games might be a good choice. Zombie Dice would be a great choice for a quick game outside, especially after a few beers have dulled everyone's strategic minds a bit. But Roll Through the Ages is an excellent game by any standard! I've only played the iPhone implementation, but game state is maintained with pegs, not pieces, so it should naturally be wind-resistant:

As you've realized yourself games with light parts will be susceptible to wind. This is difficult to answer as it always depends on the strength of the wind but let me try...

Blokus - By the time those tiles fly off the board you probably don't want to play outside anymore anyway...
Mesopotamia - Might be borderline with the wooden pieces but the board itself should hold together well enough.
Bohnanza - There are cards but with some stones or other items on top they should stay put.
Tavel variants of games - Most of them will have pieces that are either magnetic or get stuck into the board.
Amazing Labyrinth - Aside from the treasure cards there shouldn't be much of a problem.
Trick taking card games - Not really euro games but since the cards don't stay on display for long they should work quite well.

Other than looking for particular games, you can look for ways to play your current games outside.

Replace paper money with poker chips
Use small figurines or pewter pieces instead of lightweight pawns
Place the board inside of a larger container/box so that pieces will not fall into the grass
Paper weights (or your legs) can keep cards pinned down
Bring rain prevention gear; standard board game boxes don't like getting wet

Other tips:

Remind people to play more casual; the environment will be different and that should feel good not stressful
Feel comfortable asking people for information. Don't make people lean over everything to read what is before you; just tell them when they want to know
If people seem more interested in running around playing frisbee or exploring that is okay; board games are great fun but don't pressure people into playing them

The Climbers - Doesn't involve any cards or lightweight pieces that can fly away. You build a large mountain ouf sturdy wooden blocks that have six differently colored sides. Pawns can only travel on their same color or neutral gray, with the objective of reaching the highest point. You get to pick up pieces of the mountain, changing their placement and orientation to allow for more moves, but at no point does it get into a situation where playing outside would be a problem. In fact, this game benefits from being able to take a look at the mountain from all angles, and people may be more willing to get up on their feet to consider moves than they would being glued to a dining room chair at a big table.

Puzzle Strike works well outside since the chips are much less susceptible to wind than cards in similar deck-building games (like Dominion).


text:
Surveyor's Map in Agricola Farmers of the Moor
In a game we just finished one player used the Surveyor's Map minor improvement.  When the field came up in round 11, he couldn't place it adjacently to his existing fields.  Should we have allowed him to place it elsewhere?

As far as I know there is no official ruling on this. However, most people seem to agree that the field should still obey the general rule for placing fields, i.e. it needs to be placed orthogonal to an existing field. This is for example the ruling for Surveyor's Map on page 28 of the unofficial Agricola compendium:

Surveyor's Map M018
Place a field tile on the space for round 11, a moor tile on round 12, and a forest tile > on round 13. At the start of the rounds, you must either place the tile on an empty space in your farm or return it to the supply.
=> Placing the field tile does not count as a ploughing action.
=> If you already have fields, you must place the field tile adjacent to an existing field.

Excellent - thank you!  This is a new addition to the compendium in version 9.0 - we checked our version 8.0 copy.


text:
Multiplayer timer for board games
I'm interested to know if there exists something like a chess timer, but for an arbitrary number of players.  I would like to use this for games such as Carcassonne and Settlers of Catan, where each player's turn is largely independent of the other player's involvement.
Assuming there is a product like this I would like to hear whether you have found it helpful to play with, or whether you think it causes more problems than it solves.

The G8 Game Timer sounds like what you're looking for, and Greg Aleknevicus has has a very nice review of it in The Games Journal. It seems like it might be hard to come by these days, as its out of stock in many stores, though it appears the manufacturer still sells them directly.
From the review:

To my mind the device only really works well when playing games in which the players take sequential, non-interactive turns of several minutes duration. While this might seem rather restrictive there are lots of games that do fall into this category. Also, it's precisely these games in which a timer is most useful. The aforementioned Tikal is one such example and Vinci is another with which it worked quite well. Ultimately, I can't really say whether I recommend this or not. Not because I don't think it's a worthy piece of game equipment, it is. Rather, because its usefulness will depend so much on the particular game and group that's using it.

As mentioned in the review, a timer is less useful in certain games. Games that involve lots of interaction with other players during your turn, such as trading in Settlers of Catan, mean that the length of your turn doesn't depend only on how fast you play, but also on how fast your opponents make decisions. I don't think that Settlers of Catan would work well with a timer.
You also need to consider what you do when a player runs out of time; do you simply eliminate them from the game? In a two player game, when you run out of time you lose, and the other player wins; in some multiplayer games, elimination can disproportionately benefit one player over the other ones.
Then there are games in which people's turns generally go fast enough that the timer is more of a distraction than a benefit. I would put Carcassonne in this category; it doesn't usually take long for someone to place a single tile. If people are taking too long, there's a simple house rule that I use: people draw their tile at the end of their previous turn, instead of the start of the next one. That way, they have everyone else's turn to think about where they want to place it, and the board only changes a bit by the time it gets back around to them.
That said, there are some games in which the timer would be useful. Games in which elimination doesn't disrupt the game, which have long turns in which each player plays independently of the others, and which are prone to analysis paralysis.

I bought one a few years ago, and it died on me. It was pretty nice while it lasted.

You can give VP penalties for going over time if you use the "total time per player" method.  This avoids the game-dynamic changing too much.  For example, in Vinci, 1 point per (part) minute over is quite effective at speeding people up.

I thought it was worth adding an update to this that I ended up using a free Android app for this:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=de.schwider.multiplayertimer
It works very well, and is able to switch to time whoever the phone is pointed at by using the phone's compass. It also calls out the name of whoever's turn it is.

I don't know if they exist, but it is fairly easy to create using kitchen clocks or stopwatches. One for each player. Or it can be programmed on the computer.

When playing for fun with friends I wouldn't use a timer to limit someone, after all not everyone has the same favorite game and spend different amount of times on it so they'll know the combinations faster/slower. It just feels (for me) wrong and more competitive then a social fun thing which is why I play them at all. So I'd vote for not using them.
Anyway if you disagree then there's always those small sand timers that even comes with some games (drawing games I think?) you can pick up a few of those for multiplayer where each has his own I suppose. 1 min sand timer on Amazon is like $1-2 a piece.

and they sell them at walmart, too - in the cooking section :)

As mentioned above, there are several timer apps that turn your smartphone into a timer for board games. This one is pretty cool and has some lock screen functionality: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.multiphonetimer.multiphonetimer

Could you possibly add some more details for your recommendation to explain why you choose to recommend this one over others (and whether you've tried others)?

I liked that you didn't have to unlock your phone to switch players so the focus stayed on playing


text:
How does drafting work in The Champion of the Wild?
We bought a copy of The Champion of the Wild first edition, and totally missed the second edition funding campaign.  One of the new things in the second edition is four new game modes involving drafting.
It looks like these should be playable with the first edition set, but we couldn't find details of the rules. In particular does the drafting happen before or after the events are revealed?  Or maybe are the two things interleaved, with some events being revealed at different stages of the draft?  Is this the same for all of the four variants?


text:
How does the two room penalty work in Grand Austria Hotel?
One of the Emperor Tiles for Grand Austria Hotel looks like this:

The rules contain the following explanation for the penalty:

Penalty: You must remove 2 occupied rooms from your Hotel board. These must be the occupied room in the highest possible row and the next possible room below it, if any.

Does this mean that if I have two occupied rooms in the top row then should I choose which to lose?  Assuming I get to choose which occupied room in the top row I lose then am I allowed to pick based on what's below it?  Finally, if the room below it isn't occupied then do I have to lose a room below that instead? (i.e. does "below" mean "adjacent and below" or "aligned and below"?)

I think the intention here is you must do whats worst for you.
If you have two rooms on the same highest level and one has an occupied room beneath it the you must choose the one where you can lose both.  You would only get a choice if the conditions was met more than once.
Below means 'aligned and below'.   Look at the picture you posted.  The rooms crossed out are in the same aligned column whilst the ones not below are not crossed out.

By "aligned and below" I was trying to imply that this penalty could skip a row.  So if you have a full room on the left of the top (4th) floor, the room below was empty and the room below that was full then maybe you should lose the rooms from the 2nd and 4th floors?  Does that sound right to you?

if the wording is next 'possible' room I'd say yes.   I want to play this game but its the only game my friends ever argued about as we couldn't agree on how the passing rules worked.

The wording does say "possible" yes (I've quoted the rules in the question).
I think I understand how the passing rules work. If you add a question about it then I'm happy to try to answer it.


text:
What is the best play in two player Downfall?
Downfall (or Downspin/"New Downfall") is a two player game published in 1970 with perfect information.*  The rules are quite simple and generally we play with ten disks each in the normal order.
I am interested to know if anyone has already solved this game (or a variant of it) to find out which player should win and what the best set of moves is.
Also - do different editions have different wheel configurations?  From what I could find out they all had the same configuration.
* In practice, due to the design of the game then it can be hard to remember all the information.  Also note that some variants have a randomised starting position or four players.


text:
Can the pirate be placed on the edge of the board?
In "The Seafarers of Catan" the pirate can be used to steal resources from another player by putting him on a hex adjacent to one of their ships. Is it also allowed to place the pirate on the water frame around the edge of the board? In certain circumstances this is the only water next to a player's ships.

Even though Pat provided a formal rule that states that the pirate should be placed only on hexes I want to argue that placing it on the border should be allowed. Simply because the border represents (incomplete) hexes. Also it clearly provides places for boats, settlements and cities there where the normal hexes align with it. The border that my family and I use  even has hex shapes drawn on it, most likely suggesting that they are in fact hexes. Please refer to the photo below. We played a Seafarer's scenario including the Cities&Knights extension. Notice the look of the border, and also notice that the pirate is on the border as we have always played it like this.

Yes, I would suggest that it's possible! The frame is just a convenience feature of newer editions and was originally composed of normal water hexes.

This is very interesting, thanks. Do you have links to images of older seafarers editions without frames?

This image shows an old frame that still has a clear visible representation of the hexes. And maybe it helps to know that the computer game does not distinguish between frame and middle hexes?

Yup, that's the border my family and I use. See my answer as well.

No,
The rules state (p6):

Like the Robber, you place the pirate in the center of any hex you choose— except that you may only place it on a sea hex.

The frame is not composed of hexes, you cannot place the pirate on it.

@user1873 - note that the Almanac defines Coast so that roads/ships/cities can be built between land hexes and the frame by the rules as written.

@user1873 - "When a terrain hex borders on the sea (i.e., a frame piece), it is called a “coast.” You can build a road along a coast. "  This counters your strict interpretation that roads cannot be placed on the edge border.


text:
Is there a Diplomacy variant that does not contain stalemate lines?
The standard Diplomacy game can often end up locked in a stalemate, with one player pushing for 18 territories, and two or more defenders trying to stop them.  There are already many articles about this, including a useful visual index to stalemate positions.  However, I have so far failed to find a Diplomacy map that was designed to prevent stalemates.
Firstly is it even possible to have such a map using the standard rules?  Maybe there is logical reasoning that proves that a stalemateless board does not exist?
If it is possible, has it already been done?  Does the lack of stalemate lines make the game more dynamic, or does it mean players have to be more edgy about attacking?
If it is not possible to create such a map, is there a variant that avoids stalemates with some other change to the rules?  In one of the articles I saw it mentioned that "it is difficult to see" how certain variants could allow stalemates, but have any variants been designed with this goal in mind?

Erlend Janbu's variant South America v. 3.2 for four players was designed with the explicit aim "to create a variant where there are no stalemate lines." In a 2001 article on the variant he admits that he does not know for sure whether there is a stalemate line in his variant, but "I and others have searched, and after 100 games, no game has ended in a stalemate." He claims in that article that only "[f]ew variants are stalemate-free," but unfortunately he does not name any. Until one could prove that there is indeed a stalemate line in the South America variant, the answers to your main questions should be positive: yes, it is possible to design a stalemate-free board and yes, it has been done before.
As to how the lack of stalemates would affect the game, it might be worth reading what Andy Schwarz has written on his variant Hundred (based on the Hundred Year's War). As he wrote in an article from 1996, "eliminating draws was a big part of the design of Hundred." This has encouraged solo wins and alliances-shifts, making the game very dynamic. This should also apply to any variant which reduces or eliminates stalemates.
As to variants which avoid stalemates by means of changes to the rules, Stephen Agar wrote about this specifically in his article from 1992, "Designing Maps for Diplomacy Variants," where he notes that "[s]ome variants avoid stalemate lines through the rule mechanics." The only example which he gives is the Multiplicity variant, where multiple units can occupy a single space.

Thank you for this. I think it's the closest to a complete answer that can be hoped for-it certainly contains a lot of information I didn't find out when I investigated this myself!

Somewhat trivially, the Pure variant has no stalemate lines.

This is a simple traditional variant of diplomacy. There are the usual
  seven countries. There are seven spaces on the board - one
  corresponding to each country - its home supply center. These spaces
  are all connected by land one with another. Initially, each player
  begins with one army in his home supply center.
The objective of the game is to accumulate four supply centers.

Thanks, this proves such variants exist! I hadn't thought of this answer before.

I've considered playing diplomacy with the 35th supply center to make an odd number. But haven't been able to persuade others to play with this variation.
That would be Egypt. It's not on the "official" map but it can be "inferred" (or extrapolated) as being in the southeast corner of the board, between Syria and Libya (with the latter being next to Tunis), and bounded by sea by the Eastern Mediterranean.
IMHO, it would open up the game by creating another route to and from the eastern Mediterranean. It would give life to the so-called Lepanto opening (Italy and Austria-Hungary vs. Turkey), making the game more fun for the Italy and Austria-Hungary players, otherwise the two most difficult and least fun countries to play.

Interesting thought; never saw this before.

Does this help to prevent stalemate situations?  I would have thought that having a map that is more dense in supply centres would increase the number of stalemate positions.

@tttppp: All OTHER things being equal, what you said is true. But one more supply center makes it easier to get "18 out of 35" than "18 out of 34" because 35 is an odd number.

@TomAu Ah, ok. I missed that you're adding Libya as an extra empty region too.  This is an interesting answer, but I'd still be interested in whether a stalemateless board exists.

Roland Röllig created the epic Gilgamesch variant -- a highly fantasy-enriched Diplomacy game: With buildings, Magic Spells, Army fusion, Heros and so on. It is not proven, but because of the complexity I am very sure that there are no stalemate lines. The existence of Heros alone probably prevents that.
Oh by the way: The rule book I have has 180 pgs... But its great!
On the standard map you should play it remotely, it just takes too long. But we played it on a Standard Dippy map once and had quite a "quick" game.

Thanks for sharing this - I had no idea that some Diplomacy variants were that complex!

Well, from the basic rules Std Dippy is one of the simplest "complex games" there is, maybe only beaten by Bridge -- the rules are general, apply to everything and there is only a handful of special cases. The trick is, what these "simple rules" can do and interact. And Gilgamesch is taking it to the limit: Lots of detail-rules -- and the rule-book tried to cover all interaction contingencies. And that makes 180 pages. Good game, though. Really.

One variant that I've seen used was to allow real-world bribery. That is, the lone player offering real cash money to one or two players to let them win. (This bought me dinner more than once.)
Another is to set a time limit; at the time limit, the player closest to victory is declared the winner.

Here is a rule variant that I believe would prevent long-term stalemates:

After two full years (Spring-Fall-Build; Spring-Fall-Build)) of
  stalemate, the weakest country on the board collapses into civil
  disorder and the controlling player receives that finishing position.
  Repeat as often as necessary.

Essentially that is what happened to the Russian and Ottoman empires in WWI.


text:
Hero Quest type games
What other kinds of games are like Hero Quest...? In that, what other games are around with a degree of character development (although not the depth of something like D&D), items etc, that actually takes place on a board...?
I'm not chasing something like Munchkin Quest, as your character does not carry over from session to session.

Boy, there's a game that could use a re-release like Space Hulk did.

This has been the ultimate gateway game for getting into REAL RPG's.

closing this as not a great example of a shopping rec question.

I've never been convinced that shopping rec questions are necessarily a bad thing in any stackExchange site, but particularly in one devoted to board games perhaps there is an argument for allowing them.

I think of the greatest of this kind is Descent: Journeys in the Dark especially with Road to Legend expansion which makes carrying over your characters between sessions slightly easier.

While these are good games, they may be a little hard-core for a casual Hero-Quest player.

should be Journeys in the Dark...?

OH YEAH. That's awesome. GOOD JOB

Yeah, sorry for the typo.

There has been a D&D board game.

This is actually a lot like the old HeroQuest. Not too heavy, and very much fun!

The next expansion will allow you to carry your character much like HeroQuest too.  Excellent board game, worth its relatively inexpensive price.

Descent is definitely the good current choice, especially with either of it's campaign expansions.  (You don't need both campaigns; they largely overlap so one is enough, unles you play it roughly every night for a year.)  Although, get one of the standard expansions Well of Darkness or Altar of Despair first; the campaign plays much better with the treachery cards from those expansions.
For a simpler, faster (and harder!) option, Descent's 'kid brother' Doom can work well.
(While we're on the family, Descent's older uncle Runebound is a bit less Hero-Questy but may still match what you're looking for.)

Descent is a great game, but it's designed to play every level almost from scratch, unlike Hero Quest. While the Road to Legend expansion allows for a campaign, its game play suffers a lot and gets very boring soon.
Unlike Descent, in Doom you keep your character as the game progresses. It has similar, simpler, rules. If you don't mind dying over and over ^^

A very similar is World in Shades

Welcome to the site!  Please have a look at our How To Answer page.  We vastly prefer substantive answers over short blurbs, which is probably why you have attracted a couple down votes.


text:
Warhammer 40K backstory
Is there any backstory to the different races in Warhammer 40K...?

Why not ask on the Sci-Fi stackexchange site?

A basic introduction is available via Games Workshop, and a general overview can be found on the Warhammer_40,000 page on Wikipedia.
Beyond that, there is an enormous amount of information available in the Codexes.  Games workshop produces a Codex for each race which contains a lot of backstory as well as units and rules specific to that race.

There's also a huge amount of backstory in issues of White Dwarf magazine, and the Black Library range of novels.

You can also hit up the Lexicanum for relatively detailed historical entries;  just bear in mind that being a wiki, there is some information on there that is of disputed quality.

On the official part, GW has also the Astronomican with some articles
On the unnoficial, apart from the already mentioned Lexicanum, warhammer40k.wikia.com has also a lot of background (generic, not as unit-level deep as Lexicanum).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warhammer_40,000_species

Could you please expand on this at all? A single link shouldn't really suffice as an answer


text:
How would you "study" Risk?
This question is not about a particular situation in the game, but rather how to study the game in the sense of if I wanted to learn Scrabble, I would spend time focusing on how certain uncommon letters can be used in words of length X or the goals of different strategies.
If no one had ever played Risk before, how would we go about learning to evaluate which moves are better for a particular situation?

This is purely off the top of my head, but the following come to mind:

Learn the most likely die rolls
Look at paths of contact (eg, you can only get to Australia through Siam)
Find "choke points" (building off the contact paths)
Note that Continent bonuses are in proportion to not only size, but difficulty in holding/winning them
Gameplay can be wildly different with two players instead of 3, 4, 5, or 6

ultimately all games devolve into 2 player games, but knowing how to handle the higher number of players is key to surviving long enough to be in the final pairing

The Neutral player in a 2 player game can have some interesting consequences when playing strictly

because they are not required to be eliminated to win, you might only attack to gain a Risk card
depending on how the cards were dealt, they can be used to your (or the other player's) advantage as a buffer to weaken attacks (or strengthen defense), forcing the attacker to expend more armies to defeat the defender

Everything else I can think of come with time and practice:

like when to attack / when not to attack

for example, if your contact territories are heavily defended, but your non-contact territories only have one or two armies, it may be a Bad Idea™ to attack from there if the enemy territories are moderately-well defended (ie, they could attack back form multiple directions easily against a weakened contact territory and wipe-out the middle of your holdings)

when to hold cards / when to turn them in

for example, if you know that your opponent must turn his cards in on his next turn (he has 5, and therefore has a set), but you have the option (perhaps you have a set, but you have four cards, and can therefore wait a turn), it may be worthwhile holding yours till after he turns his in to get the next-higher army value from them
in my experience, holding your trades only notably impacts the game early on (before the turn-in exceeds 10 armies)

etc

And don't forget the psychology of the game, too:

Some players "want" Africa and will do [almost] anything to get/keep it (for example)
Aggressive vs non-aggressive play styles
etc

Can you expand on the middle section, about how to actually learn from time and practice?  Like for instance if I could record the moves in every game, how would I then use that information to get better?  How would I develop a strategy for when to hold/turn in cards from time and practice?

@NickLarsen - done :)

The thing that seperates the newbies from the intermediate players in RISK is:
KNOW WHEN TO STOP ATTACKING.
Essentially, the inexperienced player will look at the board, look at the forces he has, the forces the enemy has, realize that he has enough men to carry the day, and attack.  He is, however, looking at the wrong pieces.
Instead, a player should look at the forces he has, the forces the enemy has, and then consider how many of his men would survive his planned attack, comparing those pieces to how many men the enemy will have available to retaliate with on his next turn.  Its not enough to take territory (except for throwaway attacks for the sake of a Risk Card).  One must take the territory with sufficient survivors to hold it next turn.

Can you expand on the process for determining when to stop attacking?

I fleshed out a little bit more what I meant.

It is helpful to know your odds of winning any given battle over a territory. Doing that involves quite a bit more than just learning the most likely die rolls. This paper from Mathematics Magazine: www4.stat.ncsu.edu/~jaosborn/research/osborne.mathmag.pdf gives some nice charts and tables and an overall pretty readable analysis of win/lose odds, and expected losses.

http://www.totaldiplomacy.com/
This is a nice site with more information on Risk strategies than I thought was possible :) I remember spending several hours procrastinating reading over this site. They also sell a book which looks good, though I can't say I've read it.


text:
Scrabble computer version that uses the new dictionary? (OSPD4/OTCWL2)
Is there a version of the computer Scrabble game that uses the new dictionary (not really new anymore, came out in 2006)?  I know about ISC, but we're looking for something that my technophobic mother-in-law can use to play against her computer.  Any suggestions?

Facebook Scrabble uses the new dictionary.
This can also be played via your iPhone (connects to the same same servers, so players on different platforms may play).  The iPhone version has single-player.
Quadplex is another site that hosts Scrabble.


text:
What is Ol' George's Nail Wail?
This has been sitting on the bookshelf in my parents' house since I was a kid, and to this day, I still have no idea what it is or how to play:

It was given to us by my grandma, and the best my dad can remember is that "it's a puzzle of some sort". He claims to have solved it once, but can't recall anything beyond that.
I tried Googling "Ol' George's Nail Wail" to no avail. Here are a couple more pics from other angles:

Are the nails all the same length and just the holes are different depths? I could see a puzzle like this using different length nails combined with different depth holes and the end goal is to get all the nails in neatly like in your picture.

@AndyTinkham Good guess, but I just checked, and all the nails are the same length.

It looks like a "nail balance" puzzle. It is very similar to some of the results of this Google Image Search.

That's it!! Thanks a ton. And now, here is Ol' George's Nail Wail, SOLVED: https://i.sstatic.net/yckYe.jpg

I just purchased one of these from an antique store yesterday. It's a puzzle called nail  balance. You can Google nail balance and find out how to do the puzzle. Included is a picture of the solution.


text:
How many cards per booster pack in the Core M12 Sealed Booster Box?
I want to buy a booster box to hold some office drafts.
I remember booster packs as having 15 cards per pack, which is in line with what Wikipedia says:

Starting with the Shards of Alara block, booster packs for both Core Sets and Expansions began to contain 1 land, 10 commons, 3 uncommons, either 1 rare (7/8 chance) or 1 mythic rare (1/8 chance)

But the Amazon page for the Core M12 Sealed Booster Box says that there are "10 Cards/Pack".
Did something change, or is the Amazon page wrong?

It's probably an error, as M12 only had 15 card booster packs (as can be seen in any online store catalog like this one). As far as I could find, the last core set to have smaller boosters was M11 with 6-card packs.

Indeed. All M12 boosters contain 15 cards.

I have seen the 6 card boosters in big-box stores for M13. But yes, I've never seen nor heard of a 10 card booster pack for any recent set (or actually, any set).

@corsiKa I answered this before m13 came out :p Still haven't found a single m12 booster pack with less than 15 cards.


text:
Texas Hold'Em Heads-Up Blind Structure
Why does the Dealer post the small blind and the other player post the big blind?
Normally the person to the left of the dealer will post the small blind then the second player to the left of the dealer will post the big blind.
So why does this switch when going heads-up?
Quote from Wikipedia

When only two players remain, special 'head-to-head' or 'heads up' rules are enforced and the blinds are posted differently. In this case, the person with the dealer button posts the small blind, while his/her opponent places the big blind. The dealer acts first before the flop. After the flop, the dealer acts last and continues to do so for the remainder of the hand.

Basically, as Wikipedia hints at, to make sure that a different player acts first before that flop than after the flop — just as in non-heads-up, where “Under The Gun” (the player after the Big Blind) acts first before the flop, and the Small Blind acts first after the flop.
In heads up, if the non-dealer would post the Small Blind and the dealer the Big Blind, then the non-dealer would act first both before and after the flop.
I guess it would be possible to “reverse” the rule, and instead “simply” let the dealer act first after the flop, but that would be a rule exception after the flop, so if someone would make a mistake in the order of play it would probably be more complicated to “clean up” or “reverse” that mistake after the flop than before it.

Your answer doesn't address why the blinds are also different.  This is to address the fact that dealing is supposed to be the inherent advantage, thus the dealer loses less money when he folds his starting hand (the most likely outcome in proper heads up play)

Reverse the rule and let the dealer act first after the flop?  The button is supposed to be the position of power.  Acting first is not preferred.

The reason for the difference is tied to concept of blinds, which are simply mandatory initial bets to ensure there is some money at play for every hand.
In regular rounds (of three or more players), the small blind (one seat to the left of the button/dealer) is effectively the first bet (the small blind amount) and the big blind (two seats to the left of the button/dealer) is effectively the first raise doubling the first bet (to the big blind amount).  Everyone else must at least call the big blind amount or fold, and the dealer is the advantaged position by going last and has the option to fold with no money played.
In the heads-up showdown (two players left), the dealer is still the advantaged position because the dealer only has the small blind committed at the outset of the hand, whereas the other player is already in with the big blind.  Thus, even though the dealer "goes first" technically, it is the other player who has effectively "gone first" because they are in the pot with more money (the big blind) and the dealer can still fold without having to meet the big blind.
Net result, because of the unique rules for heads-up play, is that the dealer is always the advantaged position, and that would not be preserved otherwise.
Hope this helps!

Nice response. I would add that while it does seem advantageous to see what the other player does first and while one can argue being SB and BB evens out quickly in the rapid play of hands, in practice in heads-up, correct play is often much more aggressive resulting in the SB being the power position in the preflop round.

The dealer will always get the advantage of being able to put pressure on the big blind, by possibly raising, before the big blind has any play.

Let's accept the dealer should be last to act post flop.  Otherwise the button would be the non-button.
You have two blinds - sb and bb.  The button has to be one.
The sb is 1/2 the bb and are forced bets to start the action and that is the order of the action. It would just make no sense to have the bb before the sb. That would violate betting rules and mess up the game in a lot of ways.  The sb is a 1/2 bet and the bb is raise to the standard bet.
Preflop let's say the bb acted first and it was folded to the bb.  The bb could just raise 1 bb and give the sb 4:1 pot odds on a steal.  Acting first would give the bb too much power.  It balance of power between the blinds and also consistent with the rules of betting in general.  If you took this to heads up and bb bet first a small raise would give the sb terrible odds and the sb would be forced to play extremely tight - it would be a messed up boring game that would take forever.
So now it comes down to who is the sb?  Preflop bb must be last to act for reasons given above.  As far as the button is concerned a 1/2 bet (sb) is less committed (forced) which is good but giving up last to act preflop is bad.
So down to why give the button the sb?  It is good for the game.  You want action and it creates (fair) action.  The button does not want to fold preflop because the button has position post flop.  By folding the button is giving up position.  If the sb was not the button you would have a lot more folds to the initial bet preflop - why invest more money in a pot when you are going to have to play out of position - just get out cheap and wait for the button.  I know it sounds strange but giving the bb to the button would give it too much power (even though it would have a forced full bet).


text:
Tournament and League Rules For Dominion
Where can I find official tournament and league rules for Dominion?

There are intentionally no official tournament rules for Dominion.
There is a long, meandering discussion of tournament rules for Dominion on BGG.
I was pretty happy with the tournament rules used for Dominion at the 2010 World Boardgaming Championship.  Two things that it got right were

An emphasis on game placement rather than points per game to determine advancers
Playing two games per round and reversing seating order between games

But don't expect anything near consensus on the best tournament rules for Dominion.


text:
What happens when playing a single Treasure Map?
I'm wondering if I can play a Scheme Card and then a Treasure Map and put the Treasure Map back on top of my deck at clean up.  But I can only put the Treasure Map back on top if it's in play and not trashed.
So if you play a single Treasure Map with a 2nd Treasure Map not in your hand, does it get trashed or does it only get trashed when you trash 2 Treasure Maps?

In general, you can answer questions by being really stubborn about trying to do what the cards say. More specifically, you do exactly what it says to do on the card, in the order it says it, and you do as much of it as you can. (In this case, you try to trash two, you can only trash one, and... there you are.)

No,
The single Treasure map will get trashed first before you can Scheme it.  From the Seaside rules:

Treasure Map - You can play this without another Treasure Map
  in your hand; if you do, you trash this and gain nothing.

Scheme reads:

At the start of Clean-up this turn, you may choose an Action card you have in play. If you discard it from play this turn, put it on your deck.

If the Treasure Map stays in your hand, it is not a valid target for Scheme.  If you play the single Treasure Map, it will trash itself before Scheme triggers at the start of Clean-up.