text:
How can I clearly detail all possible destinations from every point of the map in my game?
I'm making a game about traveling the world and I stumbled across one big problem, so I hoped you could give me some good suggestions.
In my game players can choose to which cities they want to go on the map in a limited radius. I thought I could just draw lines from each city to each destination, but I ended up with a really confusing map. My next idea was to write down all destinations where a player can go from a given city, but this approach wasn't illustrative enough so players couldn't think ahead where to move next.
What are your suggestions?

How many nodes are we talking about?  On average, how many outbound connections from one of them?  (Pandemic does this well for 48 cities and ~4 av. connections.)

Is it a fixed distance on the map? Like you can travel to any city within 500 miles of your current location? You can use a plastic or cardboard "template" similar to the ones in miniatures games — basically a cutout that you overlay on the map, and anything inside it is "close enough" for travel. This has some drawbacks, though:

Not knowing where you can move without measuring each move causes confusion and lost time when players try to plan more than one move ahead.
Moving a big disk around the game board is likely to knock over pieces.

Without knowing more about your game, though, my first impulse is to ask: do you need the complexity here? If the range of possible moves is too complex to represent graphically, maybe it's too complex to easily follow along in play. Maybe there are too many nodes in the graph. Maybe a more abstractly representational game board will be easier to understand (think about subway maps vs. street maps)?
If the decisions players make are usually going to be obvious — if they're using their full movement every turn, for instance — you should consider simplifying away the waypoints no one is going to want to visit anyway.

Great points! The cutout would be perfect if I didn't have to place pieces on the map. I guess I'll have to take your advice and simplify my map. Thanks!

@AlpineFreak You could go the Android route and give each player a cardboard arc (like a pair of compasses). If they can reach a location with it from their current location, they can move there. If mechanics allow for different distances to be covered, you could allow players to "upgrade" their vehicle (i.e. use a bigger arc). Here's a picture of the Android components I'm referring to: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/412954/android

I would also go for a redesign of that mechanic. Allow travel only between neighboring cities, associate a cost with traveling each connection, and give the player a budget to spend.

I would suggest putting hexes on the map.  Players can then know how far one city is from another by counting the hexes.  As long as the numbers are small such as 4 or 5 it would not provide too much complexity.
This is how Railways of the World solves this problem, and it works really well
The advantage of hexes over any other shape is that they remove any problems with diagonal movement.  Cities are a natural distance apart from any angle.  Counting the smallest number of hexes to get from one stop to another is always accurate.

It sounds like the problem is that the connections are not just to the nearest neighbours. graphs/networks can get pretty messy pretty quickly in these sort of circumstances.
I'd limit the connections to just the nearest neighbours but maybe allow the player to travel to more than just the next node, assuming this can be made to work with the rest of the game?

Another possibility is to cut down the number of lines, but use numbers to denote distance. Then you could allow people to travel multiple routes, so long as the total distance is less than X.

The travel mechanic used in Journey Through Europe might work for you.
Several cities have airports that allow you to fly to any other airport on the map, but the map is divided into six regions and there is a cost associated with flying from one region to another.
For normal movement, each city is connected to nearby cities and each line is treated as a space like in a normal board game. So, the player roles dice and can only travel as far as the dice roll allows and they have to travel through cities. This could easily be co-oped that each player has a designated range (a set number of spaces they can move), so while they can't just travel directly to any city on the map, they can use their range to travel on the roads closer to their destination, and they always land on a city.
I also like the idea of making the board covered in hexes, allowing players to travel in almost any direction up to their total movement.

Two suggestions depending on your scenario:
1) If actual linear geographical distance between the cities isn't important, then you can take your graph of connected cities and connect them by different modes of transportation, so small boats for rivers, roads for cars, train tracks, airports, etc.  You can give each city different backgrounds and icons saying which is which and just tell the player they can only move between cities with the same icon.  (This can also be abstractly represented with colors of numbers, only going between cities with a matching color or number)
2) If geographical realism is important (As it would be if you're trying to depict, say, the whole actual earth) then I would consider that a messy map is indicative of a game design problem, namely, that there are too many choices for the player.  Therefore, I would restrict their choices using an additional game mechanic.  Depending on your game's genre you could have something like Scheduled caravans or specific source->destination plane tickets, printed on cards, which the users draws and them must choose between.  You can divide the board into regions, and have a separate pile for each region, thus limited the choices of travel to your desired radius, but also allowing overlaps.

I would consider using a schematic map as opposed to a realistic map. Read up on the London Tube Map for an idea of how you could go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_map This way it should free you to place valid travel points closer to each other without having to deal with the realism of a "map" because accuracy is probably not as critical for game play. A good example of this in games is a Ticket To Ride map. Even tho the design of the board looks like a map of the USA it is actually a schematic map with city destinations close to their actual locations.

Provide your players with a thin ruler that shows (is the length of) the allowed distance to be traveled. You could also put markings on the ruler to allow for different movement radii.

Depending on the complexity of your map, you might be able to actually print faint circles directly on it, rather than lines to all of the locations within the circles. (But I personally prefer Hyppy's solution to that.)

Perhaps change the rules slightly. Something like this might work (depending on the game): divide the cities into regions, allow travel to any city in the same region, and mark only the routes which go between different regions. This could cut down quite dramatically on the number of routes you need to mark, without changing the actual possible moves too much.


text:
In Small World, how does the Spirits' ability apply to already declined races?
I have a small question regarding the "Spirit special power" (quote from the rules: You may thus end up with two different races in decline on map at the same time and score for them both.)
If I have a race in decline and I want to put my second race in decline ex. "Trolls with spirit", will I keep my old race in decline with my new race in decline (because of my spirit special power) or will that rule only take effect for the next race put in decline?

The official rules (PDF) say (emphasis mine):

When the Race tokens associated with your
  Spirit Special Power go into Decline, they
  never count toward the limit stated in
  Entering In Decline (p. 6) regarding having a
  single In Decline race on the map at any
  given time. You may thus end up with two different races In
  Decline on the map at the same time and score for them both.

This means that when your active Spirits go into decline, they do not push out an existing declined race. If in the future you decline another race, the old race will then be removed, and so on.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
How do you protect your Munchkin cards?
I love playing Munchkin, but haven't found a good way to protect the cards. So, how do you protect your beloved Munchkin cards?

While I hate the Munchkin game...
the cards are of one of the standard card sizes.
Mayday Games makes sleeves intended for card game play. In about 100 hours of play, I've shed 2 sleeves on my dominion set, and both of those because someone riffle-shuffled lengthwise. You'll need to shuffle sideways, rather than lengthways, but sleeving the cards is your best option. Their data sheet says the purple size are correct for Munchkin, and the green size for Munchkin Quest. It also says you'll need two packs per munchkin 168-card box.

This is really useful for people choosing card sizes for their own games!

Munchkin cards are one of the standard card sizes so you should be able to pick up some card sleeves at a LGS or big-box store even.

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


text:
Battlestar Galactica: why Pegasus sympathiser is better
I've heard the sympathiser in Pegasus Expansion is far more interesting to play than the one in the basic game. What makes it so different?

For context: In basic BSG, as you know, in 5-player, the ratio between humans to Cylons is 3-2. This usually results in interesting, difficult-but-not-impossible skill challenges and a tense game.
By contrast, in 4- or 6-player, the sympathizer can be on either the human or Cylon team, depending on whether or not the humans have any resource in the "red zone." during the Sleeper phase. While being low on a resource might seem bad, it's not as bad for the humans as being in a 2-2 or 3-3 situation. After the Sleeper phase, the game tends to be a blowout--especially if the Cylons get the sympathizer, where the humans will have enormous difficulty making enough skill challenges. The faction of the sympathizer becomes so important that savvy players will engage in a weird metagame where Galactica's resources must deliberately be sabotaged for the good of the humans!
Some people also feel that having a known player whose loyalty is unquestioned takes away from the drama of the game.
By contrast, the Pegasus rules: The sympathizer is definitely a Cylon, but receives a card from the Sympathetic Agenda deck. This card determines which side the sympathizer is actually on, and furthermore gives the sympathizer a secret agenda that must be achieved for the sympathizer to win. These agendas are (mostly) tuned to create a close game where both the humans and Cylons will distrust the Sympathizer. For instance, the Grant Mercy agenda requires the Humans to win, but requires Food, Population, or Morale to be at 2 or lower--if the "friendly" Cylon tries to advance this agenda, the humans may treat him as an enemy!
Not only does this create closer games, but instead of the sympathizer's loyalty being unquestioned, it is instead a complete mystery up until the very end (or unless a set of very experienced players who are familiar with all the agendas suss which one the sympathizer has, I suppose.)
If you're not familiar with Pegasus, it's important to mention that the expansion also contains rules for a Cylon character infiltrating Galactica and playing more as a normal human character than a base-game Cylon just wandering around the Cylon fleet, so the question of the characters' trust or mistrust towards the Cylon becomes important. If you are interested in the details, the rulebook is here. (Sympathetic Cylon rules on p. 18, rules for infiltrating on p. 11)

"...that savvy players will engage in a weird metagame where Galactica's resources must deliberately be sabotaged for the good of the humans!" This, especially. If I remember correctly, the ideal position is to have one resource depleted to just under half, and the other resources at full. The whole first half of the game is "gaming the system" to set this up. Not fun.

While I agree with your answer I'm not sure what you mean by a "player whose loyalty is unquestioned". A Sympathizer that was already a unrevealed cylon is still a unreaveled cylon even if sent to the brig by the sympathizer card.


text:
Can I read a tome in Other Worlds?
In Arkham Horror, tomes require movement points to use, e.g. Old Journal:

Tome
Movement: Exhaust and spend 1 movement point to make a Lore (-1) check. If you pass, gain 3 Clue tokens and discard Old Journal. If you fail, nothing happens.

Because I never receive movement points in Other Worlds, is it possible to use a tome?

The FAQ on Fantasy Flights website covers this question.

Q: Characters in Other Worlds receive no movement points. But if a character in an Other World has an item that gives them movement points, such as the Motorcycle or Ruby of R' lyeh, can the character use an item that requires the character to spend movement points, such as the Necronomicon?
A: No. You can not receive movement points or use any item requiring movement points while in an Other World.


text:
What should you do when someone mistakenly builds the same building twice?
You're not allowed to build the same building more than once. I noticed that this rule is easily overlooked, especially in 7-player games and when the table is not that big (and so the cards need to be partly stacked).
If a player has built a building twice, but it is only spotted in the following round(s), what can you do?

Discard the card
Discard the card and give the builder 3 gold
Let the builder choose: discard card for 3 gold OR use the card to build the wonder
Keep the building
… something else?

Of course there might be other side effects, as when the builder (or neighbours) already made use of the illegal building. It could be very hard to retrace everything, so I guess it'd be best not to try to undo any side effects.

This can happen in Castles of Burgundy as well. There doesn't seem to be a clear-cut answer to the CoB situation, as some buildings have immediate, "Extra action"-esque effects, while other building have game end bonuses.

Related: thread on boardgamegeek.com

As a tip, we ask that players watch their military neighbors (immediate left and right) play their cards, and double check their resources and existing buildings to keep some semblance of checks and balances in place. Or have a ref.

If it is too late to undo, option 3 is your best bet (assuming they can build their wonder). If it's been more than 2-3 turns, and other people have been using their resources, I might consider letting it stand. Especially true if there are a lot of people who haven't played before in the game.
Really it's not the end of the world, unless a player consistently does it (e.g. more than twice) in which case it's probably cheating.

+1 for explicitly mentioning that it is not that bad, if it just happens sometimes. Indeed I would recommend to keep it - after all, all other players didn't notice it either. It has been proven useful in our group btw. to announce which buildings built, which gives a better overview to all players.

Our group's practice has been to discard the extra building and treat it as if the player discarded the card for 3 gold. 7 Wonders is a fast game that I try to keep the game moving at a brisk pace, and the 3-gold discard eliminates the extra decisions (should I build a Wonder stage, can I afford to, which neighbor should I pay, wait did my neighbor even have the resources I needed to buy all those turns ago) that would otherwise keep the game waiting.
It's relatively rare that there are important side effects that need to be undone (rarely do you need to buy more than one of a resource from a single opponent) but it should be straightforward to reverse a military victory/defeat if there's been an age ending in between.

Since this happens most often with science buildings, which means you won't really have gained any new capabilities with them, we just have the player discard for 3 gold and move on.  The other one that it seems to happen with is basic brown cards, which may have enabled the player to build something they shouldn't have been able to build.  If we can identify any of those buildings, they'll have to hand over payment to a neighbor as well.  That's all the unwinding we've ever done, really.

authors: Елена Левченко


text:
What happens when you can't conquer regions?
I came into a situation with a 2-player Small World game, where I was surrounded by an active race with the Diplomatic power, and that player had declared peace with me.
I could not attack the active race and there were no other regions available to conquer. What are my options, except for going into decline?

By the rules, that's it - on a given turn, you either conquer or go into decline, and if you choose to conquer either you just sit there, or you pull all your tokens off the board and start from another edge. Neither option will really get you unstuck, since even if you start over, you won't be able to conquer many territories your first turn, and your opponent will have plenty of time to box you in before you can expand widely.
As far as I can tell, diplomats are just kind of broken in two-player games. If you get them on the first turn, paired with a race with a decent number of tokens, you can conquer through the center of the board, splitting up what's available to the other player, and likely guarantee victory. If they come up later, it's probably okay, since you're unlikely to be able to cut the board in half without touching your opponent's active race.
(I've had one game like this, and in the future I may just remove diplomat in two-player games, or at least veto it if it comes with one of the races capable of splitting the board like that.)

Nuking the extended discussion of diplomats being broken here. Each participant is encouraged to submit their own answer if they disagree with this answer.

I'm pretty sure that according to the rules you can't just sit there. You must at least attempt to attack someone. This means that for example if you have only one token in each of your regions, you must abandon one of them if you choose not to go into decline.

@Let_Me_Be You have to choose to either conquer or go into decline, and if you choose conquer you remove all but one token from each region, then attack as you like. So yes, you do have to choose to conquer, but that's not the same as being required to attack someone. If you don't have any tokens to do anything with, there's nothing in there that forces you to empty out regions in order to attack. (Unless I've missed something - please do point us to a rules quote if you have one.)

This answer is not corrrect: It is true that you only have two choices when it's your turn, but you're not stuck when you're surrounded. As @Matt says in his answer you have the otion of emptying all your regions and starting anew from the board's edge. Matt's answer is not complete either as when you choose the Conquest option you are not forced to actually conquer new regions. So you could basically "just sit there" as well and just score at the end of your turn.

@beewee Addressed that omission. It's true, but it doesn't really help you deal with this specific situation.

You always have the option of picking up all your pieces and starting again from the edge of the board. You would probably be able to fairly quickly conquer all regions controlled by your opponent's inactive race.
From the rules, Page 6 - "Abandoning A Region"

If the player chooses to abandon all the Regions he previously
  occupied, his next conquest must follow the same rules as its First
  Conquest

This answer is incomplete: when you choose the Conquest option you are not forced to actually conquer new regions. So you could basically "just sit there" as well and just score at the end of your turn.


text:
Can we look at R&D cards that are trashed by virus install?
Noise is a Runner whose ability states:

Whenever you install a virus program, the Corp trashes the top card of R&D.

Can the Corp and/or the runner look at that card?  Is the card trashed face up or face down?

Title makes it look like this belongs on Serverfault. :)

Any corp card that is trashed (outside of access) is trashed in the same condition it was in. If it was inactive (face-down) it is in archives face down.

I'll start by saying that Fantasy Flight Games has never officially commented on this, but there are a few threads on both their forums and Board Game Geek that come to the same conclusion.
The top card of the R&D gets trashed face down. This thread on Board Game Geek comes to this conclusion based on a few sections of the rules:

Page 6 talks about cards going into the Archives face up or face down. Notice this also addresses whether the Corp can look at face-down cards in their Archives.

Some cards enter Archives faceup, and some cards enter
  Archives facedown. Facedown cards in Archives should be
  oriented horizontally so that the Runner can easily see them.
  Both the Corporation and Runner may look through the
  faceup cards stored in Archives at any time, and do not need to
  maintain the order of its cards while doing so. The Corporation
  can also look at the facedown cards in Archives at any time; the
  Runner cannot.

On page 13:

When installing a card in a server, the Corporation can first
  trash any cards already installed in that server. Trashed cards go
  to Archives faceup if they are rezzed, and facedown if they are
  unrezzed.

User Mat Nowak concludes

[A]s you can see from all this, cards trashed by Noise's ability enter the Archives face down in a horizontally oriented pile. (This is because the card in question enters the Archives from an unrezzed state).

Other users in that BGG thread tend to agree with him. This is also discussed at the Fantasy Flight Games forum here, and users tend to agree that although there's no actual rule for this, it is the logical way to handle the Noise virus.
The way it looks like it should be handled in all situations based on the page 13 rule: If the runner knows what the card is when it goes to the Archives, it goes in face up; otherwise it is face down. Also remember that cards that are face down in the Archives are turned horizontal so the Runners knows if there are cards they haven't seen in there.

The general rule surfaced after recent discussion about Keyhole, but it doesn't seem to have made it into the FAQ yet. Cards trashed by the Corp go facedown, while cards trashed by the runner go faceup. Noise's ability states "the Corp trashes", so cards trashed in this way go facedown.

The effect does not reveal the card to the Runner, so the Runner does not see it. Because the Runner does not see it, it is trashed face-down.
The Corp is always allowed to look at all cards in Archives, whether they are face-up or face-down. Because this includes immediately after the card is trashed, the Corp player may as well look at it as they move it to Archives.


text:
Can the Runner/Corporation trash their own installed cards?
This mostly came up last game with a player that had Wyldside.

When your turn begins, draw 2 cards and lose [Click].

He was using it to good effect up until a few turns in, when he had too many cards and not enough money to do anything with them. The question becomes, can he voluntarily trash his own installed cards without a prerequisite action?
I know that the Corporation can trash their own installed agendas/assets in servers they control by simply installing something over what they want to trash, and Runners can trash programs by installing a program that would be above their storage limit.  But for Wyldside, there's no way to trash it unless you have Aesop's Pawnshop.

Unless a card states otherwise, players may only trash cards in the following circumstances:
In the rulebook (PDF) page 13:

When installing a card in a server, the Corporation can first trash any cards already installed in that server. Trashed cards go to Archives faceup if they are rezzed, and facedown if they are unrezzed.

This means that under normal circumstances, Corps can trash ICE (rezzed or unrezzed), assets/upgrades (rezzed or unrezzed) or agendas when installing any ICE/asset/agenda/upgrade in that same server. They might do this to install a valued card in a well-defended server rather than creating a new server, or to reduce the install cost of ICE. They MUST trash assets/agendas in servers that already contain assets/agendas.
Corps cannot trash ICE/assets/agendas/upgrades at any other time or in a different server.
On page 15:

The Runner can choose to trash any number of his installed programs at the beginning of an install program action.

Under normal circumstances, Runners can trash programs when installing a program. In fact, they MUST trash programs if their MU limit is exceeded in this instance.
Runners cannot trash hardware/resources (including Wyldside!) or programs at times other than the above.
But, a card's text can over-rule this. For instance, Wyldside cannot be voluntarily trashed of its own accord, but, as you correctly mention, a card like Aesop's Pawnshop can trash it (and for a benefit) because the card explicitly tells you to trash something:

When your turn begins, you may trash another of your installed cards to gain 3 [Credits].

Note that ICE can only be trashed when installing ICE, and Agendas/Assets/Upgrades can only be trashed when installing Agendas/Assets/Upgrades.


text:
Which board game released in the 90's involved medieval combat?
In the game, you could have castles and fortresses. There were ballistae and catapults and little sets that could be purchased to build upon your original set. The game had a rulebook and turn-based gameplay. Some units rolled special dice to determine actions' outcome.
What was this game called?

You are most likely referring to Weapons & Warriors. Here is Board James playing it. The rulebook can be found here.
The game had several expansions. It contained cannons and ballista. You rolled dice to move your soldiers forward, which allowed you to move your firing pieces forward or fire your weapons.

Weapons & Warriors: Castle Siege Game (1994)
Weapons & Warriors: Pirate Battle (1996)
Weapons & Warriors: Power Catapult Set (1994)
Weapons & Warriors: Star Fort (1994)
Weapons & Warriors - Lashout Launcher (1994)
Weapons & Warriors: Cavalry Attack Set (1994)
Weapons & Warriors: Weapon Pack 2 (1995)
Weapons & Warriors Castle Storm / Pirate Clash Game (1997)


text:
When to make a small bet in two-player Haggis?
In the game of Haggis, you can make a big bet (30 points) or a small bet (15 points).
I've always wondered what the use is of making a 15 point bet instead of 30. If you're pretty sure that you're going to win, why not make it 30? If in doubt, then don't bet at all.
The only situation that makes some sense to me is this:
Let's say you're winning (e.g. you already have 200 points in a 250 point short game), and your opponent is a bit behind you (e.g. he has 180 points). Your opponent doesn't bet. You've got yourself a pretty good hand, and usually you would bet big with those cards, but in this case, you can win the game just as well with a small bet. Also, in case something goes wrong, you are giving your opponent only 15 points. There is a chance that this won't be enough for him to win, so you will have the opportunity to respond in the next round. If you'd bet 30, it probably would be enough for him to finish and win the game.
Are there any other situations when making the small bet is a good choice?

Edit: I should have pointed out that I'm asking this question about games of Haggis involving two players, but not three.

This question was discussed in this BGG thread.
The only answer I found at all convincing was: in a 3-player game, if your hand is marginal, the big bet may convince your opponents to put their own interests aside and work together to set you. If you make a small bet on a similar hand, your opponents might play less aggressively to defeat you--each trying to snag more point cards himself, say--leaving you with a slightly better chance of making the bet. Clearly, this does not apply to 2-player.
It was also pointed out that the 15-point bet allows a risk-averse novice to experiment with the bet mechanic without being buried for failure. This isn't strong general strategy but it's a reason you might see the small bet.

Yes, I should have pointed out that I'm only interested in 2 players variant of the game. I'm sorry, I will add this information to the question. Nonetheless, +1 for valuable answer and link to the similar question.


text:
Do I need to buy data packs to be competitive?
I've seen that there are tournaments of Android: Netrunner.
Regarding data packs, is it necessary to buy all the data packs to have a chance to win those tournaments?
I guess the cards allowed to be played in tournaments are described to players before the tournaments and the constructed decks have to stick to the tournaments rules...
If I stick to the core set of cards, do I have a chance of winning a game against someone who has all the expansions?

In theory, all Android: Netrunner cards are fairly well balanced, and the core set provides a good broad base for building decks, but in practice I think buying data packs is necessary to remain competitive.
You will probably find that you will struggle against a player of similar ability even in a casual environment if they have all data packs and you have none. Competitive tournament players will have two (or commonly three) core sets and every data pack.
Having said that, you don't need to buy every data pack. A little research into what kind of deck you'd like to build (possibly using proxies) will allow you to pinpoint data packs containing cards that will help your deck in particular.
One final comment worthy of note: how you play with your deck is often more important than how you build your deck. A good player with a bad deck will often overcome a bad player with a good deck.

@AndyM No problem. Welcome to the site!


text:
"Ticket to Ride: Europe": how to accommodate differences in players' strength?
I play "Ticket to Ride: Europe" with my kids (age 8 and 12) and I win too often. They do not want me to let them win: there's no fun in winning if you know the opponent didn't play to their full ability. We would all love a fair way to account for the difference in skills, though.
So far we experimented with reducing the number of train cars you start with: the youngest got 45, as in the rules, older got 40 and I got 35. The youngest won, but the feeling was it was too easy for him.

Is there something that they aren't particularly good at like finishing destination cards?

I'm surprised reducing the number of trains helped at all. Once you finish your 35 trains, the game's over anyway, likely leaving the other players with unused trains.

Increasing the number of cards flipped on tunnel routes should be considered.
Likewise, one can readily balance things with a requirement for more cards per track segment. For the most experienced, increase the card requirement by 2 per chunk, but do not increase the score. 1 additional for the more experienced. It's brutal, but changes play very little, just the length of time it takes to be able to claim a route.

One of the interesting ways of adding a “handicap” without breaking the balance is to make some promises. So you would playing the standard rules, but in a way to make your life harder.
Destination Tickets
As a minor handicap you could say that you wouldn't discard any Destination Tickets on start. A bit more serious — when getting new Destination Tickets you would keep two instead of three, or even all of them.
Moreover, you could spend the first turn by getting more Destination Tickets without doing anything else. Or say you'd draw more Destination Tickets when you'll spend half of your train cars.
Also, you could reveal one or more Destination Tickets, so our opponents would know where to block you.
Drawing cards
You could say you would always draw in a specific way, like always take two random cards without touching the face-up ones, or always draw one face-up and one random. Or don't ever draw locomotives from the face-ups.
Also, you could then show the drawn random card, or always show any number of cards in your hands.
Claiming routes
You could say you would claim routes in a specific order. For example, you could say you would claim routes starting from the smallest and at any time you would claim the route that is either higher or smaller than previous by one. So, you could claim 1-2-1-2-3-4-3-4-5-4 etc. There could be many variations of such handicap, like messing with colors or saying you would claim only those routes whose colors are there in face-up cards.

All those things wouldn't break the balance, because you could do everything from this list anyway. But the things you're promising to do would be clear from the start, so there won't be a feeling that you're just playing dumb with your opponents.
Also, this would give you a new challenge :)

I think I will try this with my son when we start to play. He doesn't even need to know this.

Giving the weaker player 3 train cards per turn instead of 2 has created balanced, competitive (2 and 3 player) games for us, with everyone trying their hardest. Face up locomotives (wild cards) count as 2 train cards, but count as 1 if blindly drawn from the deck.
Minor side effects:

Face up wild cards get depleted quickly by the weaker player
The weaker player can (and does) more easily block routes

"Face up wild cards get depleted quickly by the weaker player" - how does this happen? You can only pick up a single face-up wild per turn, unless you also change that rule.

We play that a locomotive (wild card) counts as two cards when chosen face up. Thanks to your clarifying question, I'll edit my answer to clear up the ambiguity.

There are two handicap rules I play with to even out skill levels with kids (who otherwise know how to play).  The first is that the experienced player(s) lose all of the cards they invested if a tunnel fails to be completed (as opposed to the cards returning to the players hand).  The second is to not let station placement count against the kids' scores, so they always get that 12 point bonus as though non stations had been placed.  Another variant I have thought of but haven't had to try is to simply let kids score their trains as though the route was one step higher.  So, a 2 segment route would be worth 4 points, for example.  This compensates for kids' tendency to place too many small routes.

One easy handicap that works in many games like this is to simply give extra turns.  In a game like Ticket to Ride there is little 'engine building' going on, so it doesn't matter if the turns are early or late.
Try giving your youngest 2 extra turns, your oldest one extra, then you take yours, all at the beginning of the game.
so it would go:
youngest
youngest
oldest
youngest
oldest
you
youngest
oldest
you
etc.

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


text:
Rival Executioner draws Robespierre...does this end the day?
The Rival Executioner card requires that, upon his execution, you take the noble from the top of the deck and "collect" it. My friend drew Robespierre, who, when collected, ends the day.
We didn't like the way it affected the game (my friend was in second place, and it was day three), so we let it go. But I'm still curious...do you reap the side effects of the card drawn after beheading the Rival Executioner?
Rival Executioner reads:

Collect the top noble of the noble deck after you collect this noble

Robespierre reads:

The day ends after you collect this noble. Discard any nobles remaining in line.

If you you don't like the high variability of having days suddenly end, you can always just remove Robespierre and the Scarlet Pimpernel. There's still plenty of luck left in the game without them.

Yes, you end the day if you collect Robespierre via the Rival Executioner.
The game only has one verb for the process of operating the guillotine: "collect." When a noble is collected, you do all of the side-effects of that noble. Guillotine is a mix of tactics and luck, so drawing Robespierre due to the Rival Executioner is well in line with the way the game typically plays out.

Yes, you have to follow the rules and end the day.
This is a very simple, but extremely fun game due to it's luck and unpredictability, if you take that away, you are taking the soul of the game away.
There's always another round to play and many more chances to play again.

Yes, as others have said. The trigger word is "collect" which applies regardless of where you collect the noble from.
It's also worth mentioning that there are other cards that also have effects regardless of where you collect them from, such as the Fast Noble, who allows you to collect an extra noble from the line.


text:
How can Hot Spots be cleared?
In the advanced version of the rules for the Flash Point board game, there are Hot Spots which cause Flare-ups when targeted in the Advance Fire roll.
How are the players supposed to get rid of a hot spot? I haven't found a specific mention of it in the rules, so I just assumed it is removed when the fire and smoke in the given square are completely extinguished.
I have checked the official web, but the rule explanations there are only available for the Family/casual difficulty setting.

While I haven't found an official answer to this question yet, I played the game some more and it seems to me that it is more in the spirit of the game to leave the hot spot in place, even after putting the flames out.
Considering that there can only be a limited number of new hot spots (placed via flare-ups) - 6 for all difficulties except Heroic, where it is 12 - it seemed too easy to just get rid of them quickly.
Also, when placing additional hot spots at the beginning of the game, they can be placed on open spaces without fires; therefore it seems to make sense for them to remain even after the fire is extinguished.
Edit: Neal Tibrewala confirmed in the comments that there really is no way of removing them. (Thanks.)

There is no way to remove them.  There have been rumors of an expansion adding character cards with that ability.

The Urban Structures expansion contains a role that allows you to remove hotspots:

This guy can fix a hole the size of a door in one turn?! ...and he's a fireman who doesn't know how to extinguish fire?! The expansions for this game have the most horrible rules. I'm really disappointed with all the ones I've seen so far.


text:
When claiming victory in 011, can one select a character other than the Chosen One or Fenrir?
According to the rules, for a normal Heroic victory:

...you must move the Chosen One (by the normal movement methods) to
  the building where the Organ of Eternity is located...

However, the rules later state that one can select any character when one claims victory:

A player who declares victory can choose to move any character,
  even one already used by another player during that Hour, or
  which is blocked by an event of ability.

The rules for claiming a Fenrir victory are similar, except one has to move the Fenrir character to the Chosen One; the "any character" provision applies to both a heroic victory and a Fenrir victory exactly as worded.
Now, moving the Chosen One (or Fenrir) by the normal movement rules implies that that character is the one selected since normally one can only move the selected character, and it stands to reason that the right to choose any character is just to prevent the Chosen One/Fenrir from ever becoming unavailable and thus making victory impossible for that Hour.
However, it's unclear whether either of the following scenarios would be valid:

Claiming a Fenrir victory, selecting the Chosen One, and moving him or her to Fenrir rather than vice-versa.
Claiming a victory, moving an unrelated character to the victory location, then using the "swap 2 characters" tile on the Chosen One/Fenrir.

The first scenario doesn't involve Fenrir moving at all, so it doesn't seem to count as "moving Fenrir to the location of the Chosen One" by a literal interpretation of the rules.  The second scenario could count if one considers that the Chosen One/Fenrir "moves" when the swap action is played on him/her.
Of course, I may just be overthinking this.
Are these legal plays?

I think no, in both cases.
The rulebook (PDF) specifically mentions that when declaring victory, and as quoted by you (emphasis mine):

If you are a hero [...] you must move the Chosen One (by the normal movement methods) to the building where the Organ of Eternity is located
If you are the incarnation of Fenrir [...] you must move the character whose card you have in your hand (by the normal movement methods) to the same space as the Chosen One

I think "you must move the character whose card you have in your hand" rules out a Fenrir victory by bringing the Chosen One to him instead of selecting and moving Fenrir to the Chosen One.
In your second scenario, both cases in the rules specify "by the normal movement methods" which I think precludes moving a different character to the objective and then using a special movement technique to swap two players' locations.
The clarification allowing players that are declaring victory to select any character is presumably just a way to avoid meta-gaming and players choosing specific characters only to prevent an opposition win (or heroes accidentally working themselves into a corner).

I've updated the link. Should it happen again, I got the latest rules from the Files section of the game's Board Game Geek page (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/93194/011#files)

Also, the answer does not appear to have changed, even if the rules have been updated somewhere


text:
Can I solve a puzzle I originally failed if there is a monster in the same room?
In Mansion of Madness, my wife was in the laboratory. She then could not complete the puzzle in that room and the lights could not work. Then I had a cultist come in the room with her. Can she try to solve the puzzle for a second time to be able to turn on the lights before having to kill that cultist?

Yes, she does not have to attack the monster and can solve the puzzle.
Combat occurs in two ways:

If the character spends an action to attack the monster
During the monster attack phase of the Keeper's turn the Keeper has the option of attacking with any monster in the same room as an investigator. (And usually will!).

Just one thing to add. You need to perform an evade check for any action except attack when standing in the same area as a monster.

@Skadlig - Even if you fail the evade check, you can still work on the puzzle - it's just that the Keeper may opt to apply the monster's damage to you first.


text:
Crystalline Sliver and targets
Text on card says:

Slivers cannot be the target of spells or abilities.

Does it mean that other slivers cannot affect each other, while Crystalline Sliver is in play.
For example, Fury Sliver won't give double strike to all slivers?

The Oracle text of Crystalline Sliver now says:

All Slivers have shroud. (They can't be the targets of spells or abilities.)

It applies to all Slivers, not all other slivers. (Which, would be worded that way if that is what they meant.) It means precisely what the reminder text (or the cards old text) says, Sliver creatures cannot be targeted by spells or abilities that have target in the rules text. Fury Sliver still gives Slivers double strike, Muscle Sliver still grants Slivers a +1/+1 Power/Toughness bonus.
What it does prevent is Spells like Assassinate from targeting a tapped Sliver, or Slivers with activated or triggered abilities (or any other Activated or Triggered Abilities) from targeting Slivers with their abilities.


text:
Does the Visionary's Mass Levitation power apply to Scum and Villany?
In the Sentinels of the Multiverse card game, the Visionary has an ongoing card Mass Levitation with the power:

Until the start of your next turn, reduce damage dealt by environment cards by 3.

The Scum and Villany environment card from the Rook City expansion states:

At the start of the environment turn, the villain character card deals each hero target H minus 1 melee damage and destroys this card.

So, if I had four heroes, Scum and Villany would result in all of my heroes taking three melee damage.  Can Mass Levitation's power prevent this damage?
My assumption is that even though the environment card triggers the villain card dealing damage to the heroes, the villain card is the actual source of damage for calculating effects, damage reduction, nemesis damage, etc.  Is this assumption correct?

Mass Levitation does not apply in this case, for exactly the reason you expect.
The key word here is "deals": Mass Levitation prevents damage dealt by the environment. The environment card doesn't deal damage though - it actually causes the villain to deal damage - so Mass Levitation has no effect here.


text:
Are hosted power counters and advancement tokens the same thing?
For example:
VIKTOR 2.0:

Hosted Power Counter: Do 1 brain damage

Aggressive Secretary:

trash 1 program for each advancement token

Can I advance a card that makes use of Hosted Power Counters in the same way that I can advance an agenda or a card like Aggressive Secretary?

Power counters don't (currently) interact with anything other than the card that placed them. A card will define when to place a power counter, and the effects of having them on itself. EG Draco lets you pay to place power counters when it's rezzed, and they boost the strength. The most complicated one currently is Personal Workshop which places power counters on hosted cards, but these cards are inactive while on the workshop, and so the power counters are only referenced by the personal workshop which placed them.
So no, you cannot interchange advancement and power counters.
Advancement and Virus counters are two specific types of counters which a range of cards let you place/remove/move. You can use Trick of Light or Shipment from SanSan to place or move advancement counters. The corp can clear all the virus counters, the runner can play Surge! to place extra virus counters.

No.  An advancement counter is completely different then a power token or a virus token.  This is why cards specifically list power or advancement counters when they talk about something.
As a rule of thumb, advancement counters are movable, but power counters and virus counters are usually used more as placeholder counters rather then a tangible thing in the game.


text:
Releases for the Lord of the Rings LCG
I have been thinking of getting into the Lord of the Rings LCG from Fantasy Flight Games. I realize the game has been out for a while and there are a LOT of deluxe expansions and Adventure Packs for the game.
Does anyone know the release order for the Expansions and Packs and the general theme of each?
That would probably help me in deciding what I want/need to pick up first.

There are two ways you can go about collecting the expansions, one is order of release, the second is chronological order of events.
Here are a couple good resources for choosing what order to buy the expansions in:
New Player Buying Guide (Updated January 2015)
This guy went through the effort of placing each expansion into chronological order of events according to the books, I've quoted his summary below.
Play Chronology / Quests Timeline

To Summarize…
The Quests in Chronological Order
Over the Hill and Under Hill (2941 TA) [Gadalf: Sending an Hobbit to
  slay the last fire breathing dragon. What could possibly go wrong? On
  a totally unrelated sidenote, dang these are some good pipeweed!]
Battle at Laketown (2941 TA) [Bard: Stupid Dwarves, stupid fat Hobbit,
  and most of all stupid procrastinating weed addict wizard. In the end
  I did all the work and all saving laketown and all slaying Smaug.]
Shadow of Mirkwood (3009 ~ 3017 TA) [Gandalf: Oh, Sauron is in action
  again? Ah oh… he must be searching for the One Ring….. I am kind of
  suspicious about Bilbo's ring. Maybe I will try and learn more about
  Bilbo's ring by questioning Gollum]
Core Set (Spring/Summer 3009 TA) [Thranduil: Oh shizzle, the fortress
  of Dol Guldur, which White Council cleansed couple decades ago, is
  sending out evil vibes again. I better send warning to all nearby
  allies]
Khazad-Dum (3009 TA Early Winter) [Elrond: I'm hearing a lot of
  reports about evil things stirring in the Misty Mountains and Mirkwood
  and such. But oddly no report came from Moria for… 15 years, that
  seems like a long time. Maybe I'll send someone to check them out, to
  see if they are doing okay.]
Dwarrowdelf (3009 TA Winter) [Elrond: Sweety how was your journey over
  the Mountain? I know it was wintertime but Lorien was just too close
  to Dol Guldur. What? You were attacked by the Orcs? Come to think of
  it, the scouts I've sent to Moria hasn't returned yet. This is
  concerning… maybe I'll send another group to see Moria has something
  to do with increased Orc activity.
Massing at Osgiliath / Heirs of Numenor (3019 TA) [Sauron: I will
  launch multiple attacks against Gondor on various fronts to see how
  strong their defences are. Also, while they are busy defending my
  'attacks', I will sneak my Nazguls disguised as 'Black Riders' across
  the river Anduin in search for this Shire, Baggins to get my Ring
  back.]

Most of the information you are looking for can be found directly in Fantasy Flight's store.
http://store.fantasyflightgames.com/showproducts.cfm?FullCat=248
There's a list of all the expansions, and each expansion has a description of its theme. I'm not sure of a simple way to find the release order.

You might consider even looking at the Saga Expansions. They condense the thematic elements of the novels, telling the story in a more condensed version versus spreading it apart across a bunch of adventure packs. The additional benefit here is that the Saga Expansions do not require adventure packs much like the deluxe expansions do.
And...as they come available, you could outfit your collection with reprints of older adventure packs and deluxe expansions as you see fit.


text:
Where can I learn to draft online?
I'm new to MtG and I really want to go to Friday Night Magic, but I've never done a draft before.
Are there online resources with good advice for what to pick and when?

If you've seriously never drafted at all before, commit BREAD to memory, stick to it, remember you will need some actual creatures to win at some point.  It's not time to worry too much about memorizing set-specific pick-orders at this point.

Welcome to the world of MtG drafting! You're in for a lot of fun. Check out some draft videos on youtube and you'll get the hang of the basics fast. I recommend devoting some time to read up about "Mana curve". Good luck and enjoy!

Note that BREAD, while a good intro, is merely a starting point: http://lrcast.com/limited-resources-64-breaking-bread/

I would recommend http://www.channelfireball.com/all-strategy/. They have videos of expert player drafting and playing, which are a great (and fun) way to learn. Luis Scott-Vargas set reviews on the same site are also great (e.g. http://www.channelfireball.com/articles/magic-2014-set-review-artifacts-and-lands/).

Not really an answer to your question, but useful information:
There are lots of draft simulators online. You can try out drafting strategies and see what kind of cards you end up with, giving you some insight on whether or not that strategy will actually work.
http://draft.bestiaire.org/ (no sign up, draft against computers)
http://tappedout.net/mtg-draft-simulator/ (requires sign up, but you can draft against other humans)

Arthur,
1st:  Go here:  Draft Magic  Lots of card "Spoilers" here.  Set overviews, and strategies.  There is a lot of video content on this website.
2nd: Take the time to read the following article.  Booster Draft 101 B. R. E. A. D.
The concept was mentioned in a comment by Affe.  The article referenced has a great description of each step, which I will summarize here:
B (Bombs) - Creatures, or cards that allow you to take control of the game, or win outright.  These are game changing cards, and are usually pretty obvious.  They tend to be rare.
R (Removal) - Cards that remove threats effectively, especially the aforementioned bombs.
E (Evasive/Efficient) - Creatures that are difficult to block/kill, or creatures that pass a "Vanilla test".  Which is to compare their casting cost and power and toughness to a plain 2/2 for 2 mana, 2/2 for 3 mana, or 3/3 for 4 mana.  Does the card have a better (more stats for less mana) ratio than the "Vanilla" examples?  If it does, then it's probably more efficient, unless there is some other downside.
A (Aggressive/Card Advantage) - Creatures you can attack with (article suggests 14 to 18 creatures in a consistent draft deck)  This will depend on the set.  Card advantage cards would be cards that allow you to have more cards than the opponent, so cards that let you draw cards, or discard opponents cards.
D (dregs) - This refers to cards you would use in very specific situations to counter something.  A card you would put in a sideboard.  Maybe a card that destroys all plains, or a card that removes all blue creatures from play, or destroys all artifacts.
Anyways, I hope this helps.  Go read!  Then I would recommend going to a draft and having fun!  Before the draft starts you should ask other players about cards to look out for in the set you'll be drafting.
I have found that a mixture of talking to friends, and reading articles about sets, and draft strategies really helped my draft skills a lot.


text:
In multiplayer MTG, what happens if a player attacking you dies before combat damage is dealt?
What happens if a player attacking you dies by triggered ability damage before blockers were declared and combat damage is dealt?
e.g.:
Player 1: Life 2: Declares attackers (2x 3dmg) to Player 2.
Player 2: Life 5: Has no blockers however casts an instant flashback triggering an Enchantment ability causing 2dmg to Player 1.
Does the creature combat damage negate or resolve? Does Player 2 win or do both die?

Please search before creating new questions. This has been asked and answered already. Here are 3 related/duplicate questions. http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/5820/in-multiplayer-what-happens-if-a-player-youre-attacking-dies-before-combat-dam  http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/4749/in-mtg-what-happens-when-a-player-loses-in-multiplayer http://boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/5463/in-magic-free-for-all-multiplayer-what-happens-when-someone-dies

If and when a player leaves a multiplayer game, everything owned by that player leaves the game with him/her and no longer has any effect on the game.

800.4a When a player leaves the game, all objects (see rule 109) owned by that player leave the game and any effects which give that player control of any objects or players end. Then, if that player controlled any objects on the stack not represented by cards, those objects cease to exist. Then, if there are any objects still controlled by that player, those objects are exiled. This is not a state-based action. It happens as soon as the player leaves the game. If the player who left the game had priority at the time he or she left, priority passes to the next player in turn order who’s still in the game.

If a creature doesn't make it to the combat damage step, it won't deal combat damage.

506.1. The combat phase has five steps, which proceed in order: beginning of combat, declare attackers, declare blockers, combat damage, and end of combat.

Also note that combat damage technically doesn't "resolve" because it doesn't go on the stack (it used to), all creatures deal their damage simultaneously in their respective damage steps.

No.
Immediately after your two damage trigger resolves, before players have a chance to do more things, state based actions are checked: the game 'notices' that that player has zero or less life, which causes them to leave the game, which causes everything they control (permanents, spells, triggers, what have you) to vanish. When the combat damage step rolls around, all their creatures won't be in play anymore and so they won't hit you.


text:
Can you build a settlement anywhere if you have the resources for a settlement and a road?
In Settlers of Catan, it says you need a road to build a new settlement (placement rules apply). If you have the resources available to build both at the same time, can this settlement be played wherever the player wants it to go?

No
Your first two settlements (placed during set-up) are special and can be placed in any valid position on the board, after that new settlements must be connected by road to existing settlements.
The relevant parts of the rules are:

Under building roads (bottom of page 4) it says "A new road must always connect to 1 of your existing roads, settlements, or cities."
Under building settlements (top of page 5) it says "Each of your settlements must
connect to at least 1 of your own roads."

Note that you can build as much as you like per turn, so you could build several road segments and a settlement in the same turn (as long as you have the resources).


text:
How does Blistering Dieflyn work?
Blistering Dieflyn gains +1/+0 when you use a swamp or mountain.
If you tap multiple mountains or swamps, can it be for example 5/1? Can you use multiple lands on it?

First off, though most often you get your mana from lands, it's not "when you use a swamp or a mountain" but "when you pay a black or red mana".
And yes, you can activate the ability multiple times, for example paying 2 red and 2 black mana to give it a total of +4/+0.
This is called an activated ability, as is anything else of the form "[cost]: [effect]" (note the colon). You can activate an activated ability as many times as you want, as long as you can pay the cost. Sometimes their cost is tapping (for example Cinderhaze Wretch), in which case since you can't tap something that's already tapped, you'll only be able to use the ability once at a time. But in this case, the cost is simply mana, which you can pay repeatedly.
Note that you are technically activating the ability multiple separate times, not just paying more for a bigger effect all at once. The difference doesn't usually matter, but in some cases it can be handy to do something in between activations.


text:
Where can I find the web app for designing Robot Turtles boards?
I once heard about a web app for designing Robot Turtles boards. Where is that?

Recommendations for web apps are off-topic.

Robot Turtles is not a web app. http://www.robotturtles.com/

@AndrewVandever, I used to work for Google. This question was posted almost a year ago when finding Robot Turtles resources was more difficult. Moreover, that search doesn't answer the question.

That's funny, I didn't notice it was such an old question. Who the heck finds old questions and decides to flag them? It does answer the question, though. The top result is (appropriately) http://www.robotturtles.com/mazes/, which describes and links to the app you were looking for.

@AndrewVandever, the answer I provided is a more direct answer.

Anyway, the questions is about a board game. Can the 'on hold' status be taken off?

I agree on both points, and went ahead and tossed you a reopen vote. :)

@AndrewVandever The reason this got flagged after so long was that there is a meta topic to add tags to untagged questions and this one was reviewed as part of that.

@AndrewVandever "Who the heck finds old questions and decides to flag them?" You seem dumbfounded by this activity, but it's fine and an ordinary part of Stack Exchange site moderation. Anyone who comes across an old question that doesn't fit our current standards can flag or vote for closure, and it'll get closed if other people agree it doesn't fit our current standards. It is not a disruptive activity, and a good part of maintaining site quality. If you find old questions that don't fit our current standards, please do flag or vote for closure.

@doppelgreener Fair enough. I've been more disruptive than anybody on this thread, so I'm sorry about that. I do think that the close votes are unwarranted and reopen is the better choice in this case. Is there a meta topic about supplemental apps? I tried searching for "supplement" and "app", and didn't find anything relevant.

@Thunderforge, I've tagged the question.

That web application exists at http://maze-builder.robotturtles.com/.


text:
In Settlers of Catan: Explorers and Pirates, who gets the gold when the pirate is paid?
In SoC: E&P, one can pay the pirate gold in order to move one's ships. Who receives that gold? The pirate owner or the bank?

From the Explorers and Pirates rules under the Paying Tribute to the Pirate section (page 11):

The tribute costs 1 gold, and you pay it to the supply.

From earlier in the rules, in the Preparation section (page 6):

Place the resource cards and dice from the base Catan game beside the game board to form a supply area.

So it is paid to the supply, which is commonly referred to as the bank.


text:
Children's version of Rummy?
Rummy is one of my favourite card games - we used to play it endlessly when I was at uni using various different rulesets.  So I'm now trying to teach my children the basics of Rummy, as they love playing [children's] card games, but being 5 and 7 they are a bit young to fully comprehend matching runs in the same suite (though matching the same numbers is fine).
I came across some basic rules for a children's version of rummy on Wikipedia (described as "Children's Rummy" or "Ruckus"), but the rules there are not entirely clear (and Ruckus itself uses its own set of cards, so that's not too helpful).
Can anyone clarify some basic rules for a children's version of rummy, or have any other ideas about simplified rules for children to learn rummy [EDIT: using a standard deck of cards ideally]?  (I'm talking basic rummy here, not Gin rummy or other variants).
Wikipedia describes the "children's rummy" rules thus:

Children's Rummy or Ruckus is played by young children; each player is dealt 7 cards. Players immediately put down all cards of the same value (example, two 6's or three Kings) face up. If another person has a card of that value, they can put it down on the pile and take the pile to their part of the table. All players do this at the same time. Once all play has stopped, the dealer hands out new cards, and the pile building and taking is repeated until all cards have been dealt. The player with the most cards in piles at the end wins.

Thanks!

If you didn't specifically want a card game I would suggest Rummikub. It's been a favorite in my family at all ages. http://www.rummikub.com/

Far be it for me to answer my own question, but...  I've play tested the partial rules from wikipedia with my children, and have worked out the following fuller set of rules, if it's helpful (also trying to make it more rummy-like):

For 2 players, each player is dealt 10 cards.  For >2 players, each player is dealt 7 cards;
Players immediately put down all cards of the same value (example, two 6's or three Kings) face up in piles in front of them;
Once everyone has put down their starting-hand matches, players take it in turn to put down cards matching other people's matches (this differs from the wikipedia rules: wikipedia said to do this extra laying off all at the same time - that becomes rather frantic with children as they argue who put down a card first if there is more than one match).  If they lay down a match, they take the pile to their part of the table;
Once all above starting play has stopped, the dealer hands out a new card to each player in turn, and the pile building and taking is repeated by each player in turn until either:

all cards have been dealt and no more matches have been played (most of the time, all cards would be matched by now, but sometimes they can't be, e.g. with 4 players each player could end up with one of the same card number);
a player manages to lay off all the cards from their hand (this is again different to wikipedia's rules, but makes the game shorter if you have young children playing - keeps their attention a bit better by allowing more rounds to be played);

Once either of the above conditions is met, the cards in front of each player are counted (count of number of cards, not face values).  The player with the most cards wins.  Optionally, you could subtract any cards left in players hands from their score if using the second of the above ending conditions.

My children picked up these rules pretty well and really enjoy playing it!

I feel odd answering my own questions too at times, but when the answer is helpful, it's quite encouraged.

I used to play "Sequence Rummy" when I was a kid.
I think my parents even still have it.

Thanks @warren, looks like a good children's game, but this doesn't use a standard deck of cards, which ideally is what I'd like to use.

@Nick Shaw - did not know a standard deck was a prerequisite; sorry about that

that's ok, I thought it was implied in "children's version of rummy", as rummy is played with a standard deck. Will edit question. PS - I didn't downvote your answer. :)

@Nick Shaw - thanks for the clarification .. now just curious as to who did :)


text:
Why don't some cards use last known information for a card that's left exile (e.g. Bishop of Binding)?
Bishop of Binding says:

When Bishop of Binding enters the battlefield, exile target creature an opponent controls until Bishop of Binding leaves the battlefield.
Whenever Bishop of Binding attacks, target Vampire gets +X/+X until end of turn, where X is the power of the exiled card.

The card has a ruling that explains:

If there is no exiled card as Bishop of Binding's last ability resolves, most likely because Bishop of Binding left the battlefield while that ability was on the stack, X is 0.

The situation I'm confused about is why that would be the case if a valid card did go to exile and then left exile. For example, let's say you exiled a creature with it and then used Processor Assault to put it from exile into their graveyard.
My confusion comes from the rule stating when you should use last known information:

608.2h If an effect requires information from the game (such as the number of creatures on the battlefield), the answer is determined only once, when the effect is applied. If the effect requires information from a specific object, including the source of the ability itself, the effect uses the current information of that object if it’s in the public zone it was expected to be in; if it’s no longer in that zone, or if the effect has moved it from a public zone to a hidden zone, the effect uses the object’s last known information. See rule 113.7a. If an ability states that an object does something, it’s the object as it exists—or as it most recently existed—that does it, not the ability.

I've highlighted the bits that are relevant. As far as I can tell, from this rule, it should mean that the ability continues to work with the same value of X even once the exiled card has gone, as long as the Bishop sticks around. Why isn't this the case? Am I missing some other rule?
Another example would be Isochron Scepter.

"This makes sense in the stated example, because the card was never exiled." No, the Bishop exiles a card until it leaves the battlefield. So suppose you have a Bishop EtB, and you exile a Storm Crow, then attack with it. "target Vampire gets +X/+X" triggers and goes on the stack. Now suppose that your opponent responds to the trigger by casting Lightning Bolt target Bishop. The bolt goes on the top of the stack and resolves first. Once it resolves, the continuous effect of Storm Crow being exiled ends and it returns to the battlefield. Then "target Vampire gets +X/+X" resolves.

@Acccumulation Oh right, I was reading the example as Bishop leaving the battlefield while the ETB was on the stack, not the attack trigger. Wasn't sure how it could have happened though! :D

The reason this doesn't work as you suggest is that there is no "the exiled card" that you need to find the last known information about.
It's not an issue of needing information about the card, it's an issue of what "the exiled card" mentioned in the ability even is. Bishop of Binding has linked abilities, so we need to look at the rules for those:

Linked Abilities

607.2a If an object has an activated or triggered ability printed on it that instructs a player to exile one or more cards and an ability printed on it that refers either to “the exiled cards” or to cards “exiled with [this object],” these abilities are linked. The second ability refers only to cards in the exile zone that were put there as a result of an instruction to exile them in the first ability.

So when there is no card currently in the exile zone, "the exiled card" referred to by the second ability simply isn't a thing that exists. It's not that we need information from it so we can look at its last known information. It's that we can't even say that "the exiled card" is the card that used to be in exile and no longer is. "the exiled card" is simply a thing that doesn't exist at all.

"if it’s no longer in that zone, OR if the effect has moved it from a public zone to a hidden zone" — I think that "or" makes your point 2 kinda moot

@AlexP You're right; I misread the sentence structure and thought that the "if it's no longer in the zone" was part of the previous clause, rather than part of the second clause. Removed the incorrect part.

Yep, I thought there'd be some other rule somewhere else that I was missing; there it is!

Do you think it would be helpful to clarify that "last known information" starts getting tracked when something is added to the stack? 113.7a

@JonTheMon I think 113.7a only applies when the object you want to get information about is the source of the ability. Here, the question is asking about getting the last known information about an object that isn't the source of the ability.

Would it make a difference if the exiled card was removed from exile after the ability went on the stack?

@JonTheMon I don't think so, because nothing after "When Bishop of Binding enters the battlefield" is looked at or considered until the ability starts to resolve. There's nothing getting "locked in" while it's on the stack or anything like that. For it to matter, 608.2h would have to be changed so that "X" is determined when putting the ability on the stack, and what actually goes on the stack is "target Vampire gets +2/+2 until end of turn".

The ability on the stack I was asking about is the attack trigger. Is that the case of "target Vampire gets +2/+2 until end of turn" that stays +2/+2 if the card is removed from exile?

@JonTheMon That's the same ability I was talking about. It doesn't matter because what's on the stack is +X/+X; I was saying it would work differently if the rules were different such that the value was determined when the ability was put on the stack. Nothing looks for the creature in exile until the ability starts to resolve.

How is the exiled card not "a specific object" that the ability is asking for information on? It knew about the object when it was put on the stack.

Put another way, if bishop got +x/+x from the card and gave another vampire its power on attack, how would removing bishop in response be different?

Ok, final thought: does it matter how the card is removed from exile? Bishop removed vs directly removed?

"It knew about the object when it was put on the stack" I think this is wrong. Or at the least, nothing ever checked to see if it knew about the object or not. The only requirement for it to go on the stack was that the ability triggered, and "Target vampire" was defined. What the ability would eventually do when it resolves, has no bearing on it going on the Stack. Not quite sure what you mean by "bishop got +x/+x from the card"; Bishop never got anything.

It shouldn't matter how the card gets removed from exile. All that matters is that the rules define "the exiled card" in such a way as to only refer to a card that's still in exile. Any time you read "the exiled card", if there isn't a card in exile (that was put there by the first ability), then it might as well read "NULL".

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


text:
How do I resolve inconsistencies between the rules committee Commander rules and the comprehensive rules?
I've heard mention that the MTGCommander rules committee maintain the rules for Commander, not Wizards. The comprehensive rules simply mentions that they maintain "additional resources", not that they maintain the rules.
There is an inconsistency between the two's rules defining color identity. MTGCommander states:

3. A card's colour identity is its colour plus the colour of any mana symbols in the card's rules text. A card's colour identity is established before the game begins, and cannot be changed by game effects.

The comprehensive rules say:

903.4. The Commander variant uses color identity to determine what cards can be in a deck with a certain commander. The color identity of a card is the color or colors of any mana symbols in that card’s mana cost or rules text, plus any colors defined by its characteristic-defining abilities (see rule 604.3) or color indicator (see rule 204).

According to the former, Blisterpod has a colorless color identity, because it has no colored symbols in its rules text to add to its color (which is none, due to devoid). According to the latter, the color identity is green, because you check each section for color, not the card as a whole.
The fact that there's a difference means we need to decide which one takes precedence. The comprehensive rules refer to the "independent rules committee" of MTGCommander, giving them some rules credibility. MTGCommander says "These are the official rules for Commander."
How should such inconsistencies be resolved/who actually controls the Commander rules?

Isn't the mana cost part of the rules text?

@xornob The rules text is the text frame beneath the image. The mana cost of the card itself is not part of that area.

@doppelgreener Ok, I didn't know and it seemed possible

Tabak, the MtG rules manager said devoid doesn't change color identity for Commander, siding with the comprehensive rules wording.

@CyberClaw Yes, but Tabak is the WotC rules manager, so he's tied to the comprehensive rules, rather than providing evidence that WotC maintains more authority over the rules than the Commander committee.

It's not a matter of whom has the authority (EDH team), but a matter of where the "final say" is written. We all agree that the EDH team creates the rules.

How to Resolve Inconsistencies
First, try to determine whether there are actually any inconsitancies. For example, the mtgcommander.net forums have their very own thread discussing the matter of Devoid specifically. The most concise explanation seems to be the one from Carthain:

(...) Colour Identity is the culmination of colours + colours of mana symbols on the card. It's a purely additive situation, you can't "lose" or "undo" adding a colour to a card's colour identity.
Devoid says that a card is colourless. It it's a characteristic defining ability that sets a colour (colourless is not a colour); it's not any of the mana symbols that define a colour; it's not a colour indicator on the card; Therefore, it doesn't have any impact on the colour identity of the card.

Sheldon Menery writes:

Color and color identity are two different (but related) things. Colorless-ness is not part of either.

Therefore, Blisterpod is colorless and has a green color identity, according to both sets of rules.
This being only a single case, it raises the question whether one set of rules does generally take precedence over the other, and which one does. So...
Which Rules are the "Official" Rules?
In an effort to solve this question better than with a guess, I decided to take the time and write something up that explains the historical events as well as their implications as best as I'm able to. Because there's no set-in-stone answer to be found anywhere, I encourage you to read through all of it, even though I have my own conclusion all the way on the bottom.
The EDH Era
Without going too much into historical matters here, this article will tell you a whole lot about the history of the format. In any case, the format has existed under the name EDH long before WotC took it up as Commander, and dragonhighlander.net (now mtgcommander.net) is the original web page where the rules were first made available online in order to reach a greater audience.
This doesn't really help answering the question directly, however it disproves the first paragraph in CyberClaw's answer, which states that mtgcommander.net is meant merely as a "short quick explanation without any kind of deep rule (or care on their wording)."
The Commander Era
WotC eventually incorporated the format into their franchise by announcing the first Commander set along with the name change from EDH to Commander, and the respective WotC announcement mentions several important factors to the question at hand:

(...) we recognize the importance of keeping the format as player-run, even after we produce products that officially endorse it. To that end, we worked closely with Sheldon Menery and the rest of the EDH Rules Committee (we're lucky to have one of them, Scott Larabee, in house) to make sure our product adhered to their rules and stayed true to their spirit.

And further down in the article (emphasis theirs):

And finally ...
Wizards of the Coast and the DCI are not "taking over" the format! We will not be managing the rules or the banned list of the Commander format, instead leaving it in the capable hands of Sheldon Menery and his rules team. They deserve all the credit for this format's popularity and we don't want to mess with a good thing!

Conclusion & Implications
WotC still considers the Commander Rules Commitee as the maintainers of the rules, as evidenced rather clearly in the aforementioned sources directly from WotC. I haven't been able to find any evidence disputing what was said in those articles, or a change of mind at a later point in time.
The Commander Rules Commitee is in charge of maintaining the rules and the ban list and therefore the technically official source for rules, while WotC is incorporating those rules into the CR in a way suiting the style of the rest of the document, and likely being more precise as a result of that, making the CR the source probably best suited to resolve rule questions.
They aren't meant to be functionally different though, and if there were differences, they would likely be mistakes and the Commander Rules Commitee rules would have to take precedence (which has happened before, as acknowledged in an announcement about former rule 903.4 about color identity).
Knowing all of the above, keep in mind that Commander is a social format - in the end, what your player group wants to play should decide which cards you're allowed to include in your deck, whether it's a Blisterpod in an otherwise colorless deck, or a Spell Counter (just maybe keep some alternative cards around, should you meet a group who does not like the idea).
This means that ultimately, your playgroup is the final authority on each and every rule.

Another possibly relevant quote from Carthain in that forum thread: "This site is the "front lines" & main/direct source for all things Commander (other than offshoots such as 1v1) -- but that doesn't mean that the rules presented on the front page are written in rules-legalese". This implies that the site is in fact not intended to be the comprehensive reference for precise rulings.

Ah! Quite a thorough discussion of the issue, with the kind of references I was hoping to find - WotC announcing that MTGCommander is in charge of the rules. Interesting to see the relevant comments over time.

@Samthere: Yep, I knew most of the rough circumstances before, but reading about it in detail and collecting reliable sources was most interesting, even if it took a few hours getting everything together... glad you apprechiate it :)

@TheThirdMan You did not really answer the question btw. If there is a Commander tournament, the source of rules must be either one or the other, and house owner chooses doesn't fly there. EDH is a social "house rules" game mode. But when Wizards brought EDH to MTG (and the digital games) with Commander they specified the jargon and rules, as now it was an endorsed mode. If the rules predate and are maintained by that website, then, there is no reason for Wizards to include different but more specific wording with slightly different meaning in the comprehensive rules and then link the website.

@murgatroid99, that's the definite feel I got from all the years I played EDH and Commander. Heck, the source for rulings is the Gatherer, maintained by Wizards as well. This includes cards that have Commander specific abilities, like Akiri, Line-Slinger. If Wizards is not the final word for commander rules, what would that make of their gatherer rulings pertaining commander?

@CyberClaw: I can't tell from the question that it's at all related to tournament play, however the article I linked about Commander being a social format I linked goes into more detail about how Commander isn't necessarily workable if you turn it from a social into a competitive format, or at least something inbetween. WotC only allows reporting Commander matches as casual events, so it's a long shot to argue it's an endorsed tournament format. As for the rest of your question, you appear to have missed my point about both sets of rules being the same at their core, just differently phrased.

@CyberClaw: As for the Gatherer rulings - they don't propose rules of their own, just interpretations of the rules, applicable to that specific card, if WotC believes it's something that prevents confusion with difficult interactions (most of the time). I don't disagree with murgatroid99's point at all, and I've edited my answer to make that more clear - but you seem to equate "not intended to be most precise" as "definitely not the authority". Either way, do what I did and look for sources of your point, as opinions don't really help. If you want to discuss this further, I'll be in the chat.

@CyberClaw: I suspected you might have been misreading my post to say that the CR can't be used as a rules document, or that you should use mtgcommander.net over the CR. I edited the last segment of my answer to hopefully be more clear on that matter and resolve this dispute.

The rules are set by the comprehensive rules. MTGCommander website is meant as a short quick explanation without any kind of deep rule (or care on their wording). They only maintain the ban-list.
The example you provided Blisterpod is not colorless, because devoid doesn't affect the color identity. It only affects the card color which is a separate element. Tabak, the rules manager, said so himself on 2 occasions:

Devoid makes a card colorless, but it doesn't change its color identity for Commander. Black card with devoid = black decks only.
-Tabak

So, just to make it clear, Tabak, MtG rules manager, said devoid doesn't affect the color identity, siding with the comprehensive rules.

The "in any case" is wrong. Given the rule wording from MTGCommander, Blisterpod's color identity would be colorless.

@Gendolkari I believe "in any case" wasn't trying to say that it applied under both readings, but just to make clear to the asker that blisterpod's colour identity is not colourless. In any case, the wording there is a little confusing.

Yeah I just edited it to make it sound better. Color identity is not based on card color, the MTGCommander just uses it as a shorthand explanation I guess.

Lacking a backing quote, I'm posting this as a comment rather than as an answer, but the Commander rules were created by the team that now maintains mtgcommander.net, and Wizard merely chose to include those rules in their official Comprehensive Rules document - likely due to the fact that Wizards creates expansions tagretting that format. Commander is still a format maintained by mtgcommander.net, and therefore their rules should generally take precedence. That said, I agree that the phrasing is likely just a shorthand and both paragraphs mean to say the same thing.

@TheThirdMan This is probably the main thing I'm trying to figure out. Do Wizards recognise the Rules Committee as the rules arbiters, or only for maintaining the banlist? This part might be a shorthand, but it might also be a key difference. Especially since the Commander rules about mana production changed after BFZ, which could potentially be seen in part to allow devoid cards to work.

Wizards maintains the rules. This is obvious by the fact they have Commander specific wording in the rules, and the fact they published various Commander products. The team that created commander never had any official rulebook, or rulings. Their rules resumed to a few sentences that didn't clarify questions on more complex cards. I believe they haven't changed the rules in their website for like 6 or 7 years at least. They look very similar to how it looked like back when I played. But I'll check.

Yep, wording hasn't changed since the first recorded version of the site on the Way Back Machine. It doesn't look like an official source or wording for rules anyhow:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110129144949/http://mtgcommander.net/rules.php?PRINT=1

@CyberClaw Having commander specific wording in the comp rules does not make Wizards of the Coast the definitive source for commander rules. In fact, Wizards even admits that their rules are not comprehensive "900.1. This section contains additional optional rules that can be used for certain casual game variants. It is by no means comprehensive."

They also mention that "a rules committee maintains additional resources at MTGCommander.net" in rule 903.1. Why would they mention that if those rules were intended to be ignored?

Resources are not necessarily rules (although they do have rules). They maintain the official banlist. I'm guessing there was some contract signed between Wizards and "Team Commander" when Wizards decided to publish Commander products. They maintain the vision, that includes rules and ban-lists, and Wizards puts it in the official manual with the all inclusive and careful thought language rules would need. But this is me guessing.

Also Wizards makes it pretty clear the rules are the ones written in their comprehensive rules: as seen in 903.1: "The Commander variant was created and popularized by fans; an independent rules committee maintains additional resources at MTGCommander.net. The Commander variant uses all the normal rules for a Magic game, with the following additions" So, while they attribute the rules creation to them, the definitive source for rules are the ones in that document.

@CyberClaw: That's only an interpretation of what we're given, and by no means a reliable answer. I would like to see some citation on the matter.

@Rainbolt I'm pretty sure rule 900.1 just means that the rules in section 900 are not a "comprehensive" description of all casual game variants and that it should not be interpreted as restricting the variants players can apply in casual games.

Well I doubt judges in a commander tournament would reference the EDH site instead of the comprehensive rules. But on a social level (where Commander is meant to be played) such minute rules are meaningless, and house rules are king.

@murgatroid99 That's one way to interpret 900.1. I found a post where an L3 judge referenced 900.1 in the midst of a very similar discussion about an older card, Ghostfire. So I think the rule is relevant here.

That is yet another interpretation of the statement: he's saying that section 903 may not be a complete description of the commander rules. But there's a large difference between saying that there may be some incompleteness in the comprehensive rulebook and saying that that section of the comprehensive rulebook is subordinate to and overridden by the rules written somewhere else.

@murgatroid99 If I said anywhere in my previous comments that the comp rules were subordinate to or overriden by the rules posted on MTGCommander, then I didn't mean to. Sorry for the poor communication. I think that the correct answer is "Neither set of rules is comprehensive, and you have to handle discrepancies on a case by case basis."

It doesn't make sense to handle discrepancies between the comp rules and MTGCommander on a "case by case basis". There's no logical reason to say "for this rule, the comp rules win, and for that rule, MTGCommander wins". For any reasonable consistency in rulings, you have to choose one that consistently overrides the other.

@murgatroid99 I guess I am not communicating my point very well. I love consistency, and I would love to see a solid explanation of why one set of rules is the "winner", but this answer and the subsequent comments simply don't do a very good job of explaining that. The MTGCommander literally says "These are the official rules for Commander." What evidence/logic is there for choosing the comp rules over the MTGCommander rules?

The comp rules are the official rules for Magic: the Gathering. A third party site unilaterally declaring itself to be an official source is not a good reason to accept it over the actual official rules. Even if you disregard that, MTGCommander rules are updated less frequently and have less detail than the comp rules, which is sufficient to consider it "less comprehensive".

Think of the EDH site like MtG regular manual. It's just a short explanation of how it works. Short hand rules. Comprehensive rules are the actual rules for all the minute details.

I think we probably have the answer; I think the comprehensive rules are core to the game, unless somewhere Wizards have recognised that the rules committee have some power over the rules. I have heard that people think this, but I haven't seen anything actually from Wizards about it. I'll leave it a bit longer for pondering and further feedback before accepting an answer, though.

Edited answer with quote from the MtG rules manager.