text:
Is pretending to want to trade before playing a monopoly card objectionable?
In Settlers of Catan, I sometimes try to ask people if they want to trade a certain resource, tricking them into revealing the approximate amount of that resource in everyone's hand. After this I play the monopoly card. This has on some occasions not been received very well.
Is this fair play?

This answer got buried under the pile, so commenting here: it's not necessary to pull this ploy at all.  There are 19 of each resource in the game; just count the number in the bank.

One thing you could do (I also did last night) is make a trade that's really good for your opponent, then monopoly it back. I had a game yesterday where Ore was scarce. Me and an opponent had one ore each and i knew he wouldn't trade it away. So I traded him an ore for a sheep, then monopolied my ore and his original ore back to me (and bought two development cards).

"Is this fair play?" Depends on the definition of fair, I guess.

Do it, and expect to be robbed for the next few 7 rolls. Until someone else does something to take the heat off.

It depends on the people you're playing with and the tone of the game you're in. I play with two groups: my family (wife and two teenage boys); and a group of long-time friends. I think this tactic has been used in both groups, and everybody acts shocked but takes it in the spirit of the game.
I think a good rule of thumb is 'will this change how they play the game with me in the future (this game and future games)?' or 'will this affect whether they play the game with me in the future?' If it makes them more wary of you, and more cut-throat themselves, then that's fair enough - you've made a tactical decision, upped the ante a bit, and maybe made it more difficult to get information and trades from them. If it makes them less likely to want to play with you in the future, then you've overstepped the mark - don't do it again.

That's not as bad as actually trading all of one of your resources away for other things, and then using "Monopoly" to get it all back. I've seen people play that way before.
Underhanded, yes. Illegal, no. The problem with playing this way is that it can really poison the friendly feel of the game. I had a player who used this tactic, as well as other aggressive ones like extorting good trades from people by threatening them with the robber. When someone plays like that regularly, the best way to deal with it is for others to gang up on them, which then leads to arguments about people being out to get them, and grudges held between games. It wound up being so bad that I stopped playing Settlers if this other player was going to be there.
As far as just using trade offers to find out what people have, that's not nearly so bad. Heck, you don't even need to do that; you can keep track of what resources everyone has. The only way someone might get resources that you don't know about are with the robber, but that leaves the same set of resources on the table, just in a different person's hand. So, you shouldn't even have to do this; just keep better track of what resources people earn and what they spend. If you can't remember, just try and think back for what the last few numbers rolled were, and what the last few things they built; you should be able to work out pretty well what they have a lot of.
If you offer trades to people, and then just grab the resources with "Monopoly" instead, they'll think that's cheap and feel burned; you've gotten their hopes up for a trade, and then dashed them by stealing resources. If you just keep track of what resources they have, and then seem to "magically" guess the right ones, they'll be disappointed that they lost the resources, but impressed that you managed to get so lucky with your "guess." How would you rather people feel about you?

You think Catan has a friendly feel?  You obviously play in very different groups to me!  Blocking people on purpose, threatening the robber, trading before monopoly are all expected tactics to use.  If you were playing it in a tournament, then you would find this happens all the time.

Yes, it's lame :P.
But at my table you wouldn't be reprimanded, but expect future trade to get a little more difficult. This is an awesome way to get the rest to gang up on you.

I think it's awesome.  If you milked some resources out of me with a trade, and then mono'ed them to the traded goods back, I would first scream in pain, and then offer you a hearty congratulations.
I am surprised so many people think it's poor form.  The first time I saw someone do it, I thought it was simply brilliant.

Well, its not illegal.  It is... a bit underhanded.
I'd change the way I played with you, but I wouldn't house rule it away or anything.

The Settlers of Catan FAQ offers an official answer:

Monopoly - In order to find out which
resources my opponents have, may I first offer them trades and then
play my Monopoly card?
Yes. However, players are not compelled to
provide correct information on the resources they have.

In short:

Yes, you may ask probing questions about what resources others have
No, they need not answer honestly.
When Monopoly is played, all players must surrender the named resource regardless of what they answered previously. (per the official rules)

Monopoly: If you play this card, you must name 1 type of resource. All
the other players must give you all of the Resource Cards of this type
that they have in their hands.

Wow, it's actually in the FAQ :D. They could've also just linked to this site ;).

In the real world, monopolistic business practices are lame and objectionable.  I see no reason why playing the evil, evil Monopoly card in as evil a fashion as possible.  Preferably accompanied with the twirling of one's moustache, and/or the line "I didn't come to this island to make friends".
Seriously, it's a game!  In which the actions you take may make life harder for the other players.  Is it "objectionable" to move the robber onto another player's tile instead of the Desert?  Yes, the more "underhandedly" you behave the more likely it is that the other players will stop trading with you, or otherwise act to make your life more difficult.  But let's try to remember that being fairly despicable in a competitive in-game persona is NOT the same as being despicable in real life.  Anyone who holds a grudge after the game has been cleared away is taking things a little too seriously.

To counter the move, I make it clear at the begining of the game that if you ask if I have any brick, I may not tell you the truth. If you ask if I want to trade, that's a different question, and I can say no without implying I don't have any. I may also say, 'maybe,' when I don't have the requested resource, then turn down the ensuing trade offer. Doesn't work if you're playing with people with good memories, but how many of us pay scrupulous attention to every resource people pick up?

This is absolutely allowed.  From the Catan FAQ:

Development Cards – Progress – Monopoly - In order to find out which resources my opponents have, may I first offer them trades and then play my Monopoly card?
Yes. However, players are not compelled to provide correct information on the resources they have.

But there is an even better method.  Just count the number of missing cards of each resource and subtract the number in your hand.  There are 19 cards of each resource.  This gets you a more accurate result and players feel less swindled.

If you are simply trying to determine which resource is the most abundant, can't you just count the remaining resource cards? Isn't that public knowledge?
If so, that would make this tactic unnecessary.

I've seen people get upset over less underhanded Monopoly grabs, but I wouldn't expect the bad feeling to linger excessively.
As an example, I made a legitimate trade request for a resource I knew an opponent had (it had been recently rolled), but was rejected.  I responded with the Monopoly card, even though it netted only one of the resource, because I really needed it that turn.  The other players were much more wary of my trade requests for the rest of the game; one even asked what would happen if they refused.

There's no rule about it, so I'd say it's fair play.
However, it's a social game so if you keep 'crying wolf' then you might find your game-mates less likely to trade with you!

It is legal according to the rules.  At my table, it has been ruled as illegal (house rule).  It just feels against the spirit of the game.

I wouldn't do it unless it was VERY likely to win me the game. Having done it once I can attest that some people won't take it well. On the otherhand if someone did it to me, they had better have just won because I wouldn't trade w/ them again that game, and I'd apply all of my diplomatic skills towards hindering their trading w/ other players. I might also be a little more circumspect about trading w/ them in the next game or two, and also a LOT more likely to try and do the same thing back to them the first chance I got.

Why the downvote?

This is the most EVIL play in the game.
It is legal though.  Just very very EVIL.  So EVIL that many people get mad when you do it.
It is very frowned on at my table.  If you do it most players will not even acknowledge your trade attempts in the future.


text:
How can I beat "Big Money" in Dominion?
Our group has determined that buying (almost exclusively) money and points is the way to go.
Most kingdom cards are ignored, or are bought very sparingly. This has lead to games feeling 'samey' and has taken a lot of the fun out for us.
What strategies should we use to counter "Big Money"?  Or are house rules needed here?

Maybe you need to find some more fun people to play with. The fun in this game is making use of the kingdom cards to pull off combos (IMO the crazier the better, in fact). I know this isn't a strategy to beat these players (which is why this is a comment and not an answer), but games are meant to be fun. How exactly is buying money and VP cards fun? It isn't really very strategic at that point either. The game becomes pure luck at that point.

The bigger question is how you beat Feast + a Draw Card (e.g. Feast + Smithy, Feast + Journeyman, ....).

When having 2 or 5 coins, you've got to buy an action though. Choose wisely (find those combinations that will work well in this kingdom) and it will definitely be better than buying a Copper(meh!) or a Silver. Then even when having 3 or 6 coins sometimes you'll find that buying an action card is more preferable, like buying a Smithy(3) while having a Festival(5)

There comes a time in every Dominion group's life where they figure out that Big Money (the strategy you describe) is beating everyone else who is going heavy on action cards. Do not fret - it's most often not actually the best strategy.  For example, if everyone else is going Big Money, buying a single Smithy will win a 4-player match about 60% of the time and a 2-player match about 80% of the time (via a trial run of 5000 matches on my simulator program).
There is pretty much always a superior strategy to Big Money on the table; you just have to find it.  A common mistake is to spend turns buying too many Kingdom cards to have giant crazy combos that don't pan out. Another thing to watch out for is going for a longer game with a fantastically combo-heavy deck, but then by the time your deck is all situated someone else has bought all the Provinces.  Even still, combo decks do sometimes work - I have been in some thrilling Village+Bridge decks that beat the pants off Big Money.
I haven't been playing around enough with it to know for sure, but it seems that the new expansion Prosperity also lends itself toward Kingdom card strategies winning more often. The reason I feel this way is because Prosperity seems to stretch out the game a big longer such that bigger decks with lots of cool combos can succeed quite well.
Generally I like to measure my strategies against Big Money - if it can't reliably beat Big Money, it's not a good strategy.
But even still: when in serious doubt, buy a Silver.

+1 just for giving me an idea on a way to play single player.  Play against a fictitious money only player.

Open source the program? Please?

Attack Cards, Attack cards, Attack cards.
Some of the more useful ones against big money are:

Pirate Ship (S), $4: All other players flip the top two cards of their deck. If any Treasure cards are revealed, trash one of the attacker's choice.  Also accrues tokens each turn you successfully attack and destroy at least 1 treasure, which can be used as money instead of attacking.
Saboteur (I), $5: Because the players have to keep flipping cards until they reach a card that costs 3 or more, and the card they get in exchange costs 2 less.
Mountebank (P), $5: Players discards a Curse.  If they don't have a Curse in hand, they gain a Curse and Copper.
Ambassador (S), $3: Returning up to two of the same card to Supply.  Give all other players a copy of that card.
Jester (C), $5: All other players flip their top card.  If they flip a Victory card, they gain a Curse.  For any other type of card, you choose whether you get a copy of that card or if they gain a copy of that card.

Less useful, but still might work:

Thief (B), $4: Steal their money.
Noble Brigand (H), $4: Steal their Silvers or Golds.  If they didn't flip any money, they gain a Copper. Also, +$1.
Ghost Ship (S), $5: All other players discard down to 3 cards. The discarded cards go on top of their deck. Also, +3 cards.
Militia (B), $4: All other players discard down to 3 cards. Also, +$2.
Goons (P), $6: All other players discard down to 3 cards. In addition, +$2, +1 Buy, and +1 Victory Token for each card you buy this turn.
Torturer (I), $5 - All other players discard 2 cards or gain a Curse.
…Any attack that gives players Curse cards.

Expansion key used above:
(B) - Base
(I) - Intrigue
(S) - Seaside
(A) - Alchemy
(P) - Prosperity
(C) - Cornucopia
(H) - Hinterlands

Disagree that Jester is useful against Big Money. If you are playing Jester you're probably not going Big Money yourself, meaning that extra coin in your deck will likely just slow you down. If you reveal a Silver, what do you do? Gaining a Silver is good for your Big Money opponent, but worse for you - it would have been better to not play the Jester!

I don't think you need house rules yet.  I suspect that y'all are trying to use too many kindgom cards.  You definitely want to limit the number of kindgom cards in any deck.  The number of terminal actions needs to be pretty low to have a functional deck.  (A terminal action is one which does not give +Actions).
To counter a money deck, specifically using the base set, I would consider using these cards if available, along with the number I would use.

Cellar (1-2) - Discard VP cards, draw more
Chapel (1) - Trash copper in mid to late game to thin your deck
Moat (1-2 even if no attacks) - Even without an attack it gives you a replacement card plus one more, helping you to get to 8 gold for that province
Bureaucrat(2) - Gain a silver, slow everyone else down, what is not to like?
Militia (2-3) - worth 2 coins and hurts your enemies - nice!
Moneylender(1) - thin your deck, buy bigger things
Smithy(2) - Terminal action, but it replaces itself and brings 2 other cards
Spy(2) - Replaces itself and slows down your opponents
Thief(2+) - Kills money decks dead.
Mine(1) - Helps a money deck out by trashing the copper
Witch(2+) - If you are the only player with witches, you should do pretty well
Adventurer(1) - Works well late game if you were able to trash some copper.

In short - Attacks are always good if nobody else is using them.  Just concentrate on a couple kindgom cards and use them to speed up your deck by trashing copper or by making sure you get more cards/actions than you spend using them.

Re: Chapel "Trash copper in mid to late game to thin your deck" --  Trash copper as early and as aggressively as you can.  By the time a Chapel has come up in your hand with all of your Coppers, you should have a couple Silvers and hopefully a Gold or two.

I'm a little surprised that strategy is having so much success. But rather than come up with rule variants, why not simply take advantage of the game's design and choose kingdom cards which hurt that strategy? Try drafting instead of pure randomization. The next time you play try using the Thief, Pirate Ship or Saboteur. If your opponents continue to use the same strategy against those cards, I can almost guarantee you'll win.

Big Money is just a local maximum in Dominion, and one that's easy to discover and easy to execute.  Like Mag Roader says, every group hits this at some point :)

I'd willingly wager that there is not a single kingdom set where big money is the best strategy.
If your group has played dominion more than 10 times together, you should have very little trouble accomplishing this. If you ever find a situation where you think you can't beat BM, post the kingdom set here and we'll gladly attack it for you.
If you want to really test the strength of big money, you can add another 'fake' player: one that is not played by one human being, but played by all the players according to the rules of what to buy with different $$ levels for the BM strategy. This helps you figure out if you're group is beating BM without having any player have to actually use that strategy.
My group often plays against basic decks like this, sometimes adding a little spice, like having the fake big money player also buy 1 chapel, smithy, or mine. You can even play dominion solo this way, and its a great way to test your own strategy and learn how big money works. This turns Dominion into more than just a 'beat your opponent' game, but a 'let's see if we can beat the default strategies.'

I think there are setups where it is, or at least where it is with only a little modification, but they are rare. Playing androminion random setups each repeatedly until I find a strategy that beats the computer players there have been a couple of setups where big money with maybe a very small amount of modification seemed to be about as well as you could do. Obviously I can't prove that. And its been a while so I don't remember the specifics of any of them. I think(??) they involved mostly cheap cards and oddities like no drawing cards, or no multiple action cards, or no multiple buy cards.

Village, Walled Village, Throne Room, Rats, King's Court, University, Royal Carriage, Fortress, Band of Misfits, Overlord. In that Kingdom, buying literally any action card is a mistake.

I taught myself how to beat Treasure Bot (our name for this effect, to distinguish from the wait-for-platinum strategy Prosperity introduces) by having simple rules which -- while not on their own necessarily better than treasure bot, were useful for developing the "feel" of a good deck.
(The zeroth rule: if you see a way to buy a province, do so. This is called the Goose Rule, and being able to get a province is called "having the Goose".)
The first rule: on the first two turns, you're likely to get a 3/4 split. unless your 4 is going to supply you with money, or either card will trash your junk, your 3 really should be silver. (And likely anyway; remember that a silver / chapel start is really good, even though they're both cheap.)
The second rule: if you had a terminal action (an action that doesn't give you +Actions) in hand that you did not play because you were out of actions, do not buy a terminal.
The third rule: if you had unused actions, do not buy a Village. Usually, don't buy anything that gives +multiple actions -- the other benefits are not as good as what you ought to be able to get elsewhere. (Having a bunch of action splitters and no terminals is called the Wolf Trap.)
The fourth rule: is the card you're thinking of buying better than three of the cards in your opening hand? In other words, were there three cards in your hand that, had you had this card instead, the turn would have been better?
The fifth rule: When 5 of the provinces are gone, start buying duchies at every opportunity. When 9 are gone, buy all the green you can.
The sixth rule: don't buy more than one of any given cost 2 card, 2 of any given cost 3, or 3 of any given cost 4 until you find yourself wishing you had it in a hand you didn't.
As you play, you'll learn when to ignore these rules or make exceptions; the fifth rule might get some caveats about whether or not you're winning, or if you're about to reshuffle, for instance. I don't follow these rules any more, because they have taught me what I needed to know.
A big part of better-than-treasure-bot play is designing your strategy. Look at the cards available. Figure out what combinations are possible, and what work at cross-purposes.  Some cards help you make your deck smaller (by getting rid of bad cards via trashing, e.g. chapel, or handing off, e.g. ambassador.) Some cards help you improve the cards you have (by trashing and replacing, e.g. upgrade or remodel). Some cards help you get past cards you don't want in hand (by drawing and discarding them, e.g. warehouse or oasis). These are all valid tactics, but they mostly work at odds -- if you trash your useless stuff, you won't have much to improve or get past; usually, pick one of these and go with it. Similarly, some decks work by always being pretty good; others work by sometimes being terrible and sometimes being great. think about how the cards work together, or don't. In general, if you wouldn't want both cards in hand together, don't buy one of them.  And if your strategy relies on getting both cards together, think about whether it's really the right strategy, or work extra hard to make it happen. (Consider that getting two treasure maps together is rare enough that it's worth 4 gold on top of your deck and isn't over-powered.  BTW, if you're going to try to make treasure maps work, you need a lot of trashing and/or 3 or more maps.)

Interesting answer. Welcome to B&CG!

There's an excellent article on the Dominion Strategy Blog about trying to find an optimal strategy for the "First Game" set-up in the Dominion base set. It's a must-read for anyone frustrated by Big Money in Dominion because it shows that Big Money is good, but that you can fairly easily do much better. And then, with some tweaking, you can beat that. And with a little more work, improve it even more. The article shows that depth of the game.

Money-heavy play is indeed strong in the base set. You're simply better off buying a Silver or Gold most of the time.
Fortunately, the expansions make action cards and combos much stronger. Unfortunately, the expansions cost money. ;)

So you suggest the real-world "big money" strategy of buying all the expansions :)

No, in the base set I think it can still almost always be beaten by something else. I like Androminion which is a fun way to try lots of (random) setups and don't think any setup so far has turned out to have big money as a winning strategy. There was one where it was close.

Buying only money and victory cards should be considered the baseline to victory. A few terminals such as chapel or smithy will speed that process up.Attack cards will make this harder for others to do while giving you some benefit. It would also help if you told us which sets you were playing with.

I have been reading quite a bit about how to counter the BM strategy but so far the most popular answer was to use BM with another singleton card like smithy or library. While I am absolutely confident that this is true, something about it still rubs me the wrong way. If the only way to defeat a single strategy is to use a slight variant of it, then isn't the game still off balance?
I guess what I am trying to articulate is that more often than not, the more conservative a strategy is, the better. I was hoping for Dominion to offer a much wider range of strategic avenues. If BM+1Smithy is going to pick up the win by turn 14, then my question is this; is there another strategy that is as effective and reliable as this one? Is Dominion a more strategically dry game than I had anticipated?

Note that the top answer doesn't say that BM+1Smithy is the BEST or ONLY strategy to beat BM. It's just easy to do this trial run on a simulator. It proves only that pure BM is definetly NOT THE BEST strategy.

Because there are different small ways to beet Big Money (extra cards, trashing, attacks, etc), There are a variety of strategies to try to beat when other players use them. Also - try adding the cards from Dominion: Second Edition. Some of the cards were clearly designed to make Big Money less powerful.

'Big Money' as a sure fire way to win is the major flaw that has resulted in my gaming group giving up on Dominion.  The problem being that luck in the early game combined with the knowledge that money -> victory points is the way to win is almost a unbeatable strategy.
So the answer to your question is to either experiment with expansions and/or house rules to change the way you play or find a different game.  I have found the the best way to engage my board gaming group is more social orientated games where luck and optimized strategy take a back seat to deception and diplomacy.

No, it really isn't. Every group hits that point. Then you realize that you can do much better.

source: Stack Exchange

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

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

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

sort: votes


text:
What well designed Icehouse games are available for two people?
Recently the Icehouse game system has caught my eye.  I've looked through a ton of rules on the Icehouse Wiki but haven't found any really engaging game for two players.  What well designed Icehouse games are available for two people? The amount of stashes is not really and issue for me.  I'm looking for games that flow well, are not too complex, and are enjoyable for two players.

You might want to accept an answer for this question, if there's an answer that meets your needs. If not, I'd recommend asking for clarification in comments, or editing your question to be more specific, so people can edit their answers or write new ones that will better answer your question.

My favorite 2-player Icehouse game is Volcano, you need to print out one sheet of paper with the "board" (though you could still play without it), rules are simple but the game is quite deep in strategy. The game requires 6 stashes of different colors.

My favorite two-player Icehouse games are Volcano and Binary Homeworlds.
You can find a list of 2-player games on the Icehouse Wiki, but of course, that has tons of games of varying quality. You can find some of the best and most popular games on the Existing Games page, which points out out games that have been published and games that have won competitions to help guide you to the games most likely to be good and well known.

Gnostica is an excellent Icehouse game for two players, but it might fall foul of your "not too complex" restriction. The Rules Reference helps, but even so, it's not really simple.
I'd highly recommend Binary Homeworlds. Although multiplayer Homeworlds has an explicit political element and some hidden information, the two-player version Binary Homeworlds loses those to become a pure-strategy game, with eminently simple rules, but astonishing depth.

My favourite two-player icehouse games are Zendo and Volcano. Zendo is an excellent game for two players in two styles. The first is when competition isn't particularly difficult. Then the game is played normally and is functionally one person posing logic puzzles to the other. The second is the Dharma-duel which is an excellent way for both people to be "master"

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


text:
Countermeasures to "analysis paralysis"?
Several of my gaming friends are victim to more or less chronic analysis paralysis, which can drag down even the simplest of games.
We've occasionally used an hourglass to combat this, but it tends to aggravate the slow-playing contestants and doesn't work well in interactive games (such as when trading in Settlers of Catan).
What kinds of countermeasures to this common issue you have found to be effective?

You can use a timer in interactive games including games with trading. Once the timer goes off, no further trades can take place.

For many games a chess clock is better than an egg-timer / hourglass. In some cases one should accept that other people enjoy analysing more, but then they ought to accept a clock; you should use the time to plan or chat. (I like to play go with an hour or more on the clock.) Your case does not sound like this, more as though they cannot help themselves. Once you have told them you do not enjoy waiting, ask them for a suggestion. If all else fails, play Racing Demons – a wonderful game, and one where hesitance hurts only the hesitant!

A better place for rules of Racing Demons: https://www.pagat.com/patience/nerts.html

Gentle prodding is probably the best suggestion, but if that doesn't do the trick sit them down after the game and let them know what they're doing. A player that over analyzes every move generally isn't much fun to play with, and telling them that (nicely) can help.
If that doesn't work, try practicing with some simple games (for example poker). Once they get used to making faster decisions, it often translates into other games, especially when combined with gentle prodding.
As a final resort, try playing timed games, where the impulse to think long and hard about a decision is countered by a running clock. Good examples are chess/go with a timer, outburst, trivial pursuit, and cranium.

I should note about poker - I didn't mean that the game is simple to play at an advanced level, only that it's easy to get into and to play with others at about your level.

I recommend that you talk to them before your session instead of afterwards. Then you can always refer to that talk during the game to make them understand, but do it gently. "This was what I was talking about prior to the game."

I highly recommend Space Alert

Hum the Jeopardy tune once you feel someone has gone too far!
Seriously, it works :)

Jeopardy is not broadcast here - but a domestic gameshow tune would probably work just as well :-/

@lavonardo Sorry about that, I haven't watched it for years, but I think the tune is stuck in every American's head.  Sounds like you have the right idea though!

If I actually hummed the Jeopardy tune, the people I play with would take twice as long!

Countdown would work if you're in the UK - http://youtu.be/pfa3MHLLSWI?t=1m3s

We've tended to favor games that have either cooperative decision making or simultaneous decision making, instead of sequential decision making where your turn will rely heavily on what the previous players did.

Race for the Galaxy is good because, while not cooperative, everyone plays simultaneously. You need to start each turn together, which means you need to wait at the end of the turn for everyone to finish, but you don't have a point where one slow player starts and finishes a turn while everyone glares at him
Pandemic is perfect because it's a cooperative game, and the way we play there almost aren't individual players -- it's like there are 4 of us controlling 4 pieces as a group, and none of us particularly owns one piece. We make all the decisions as a group and whoever is closest to the piece will move it, so it's impossible for one player's turn to bog down the game
Dominion can be good, but is risky; we've had success with it because we've tended to play only the base game, where most cards don't affect the other players. That means the slow player can draw their next hand right after their turn ends and spend the next three players' turns deciding what to do, and their decision won't be substantially thrown off by the other player's actions. This isn't a perfect solution, and we've still had a number of turns where people took forever, particularly if they play cards that cause them to draw other cards, but it works sometimes

I'm not sure how your answer relates to the question.  Not all games involve cooperative decisions making.  While games with cooperative decision making may not suffer from this problem as much, your suggestion is not to play games without cooperative decision making?

@ICode Essentially yes. I guess it depends how you interpret the question; I thought he was looking for suggestions of games that don't suffer as much from this problem, but you could also say he's looking for suggestions of how to lessen the problem in games that already have it

Good suggestions. Have heard positive things about Epidemic and will check it out. Also, we've used the same form of speedup in Dominion already, and it works well with the base game.

Dominion requires you to draw your next hand immediately, as there are attack cards that affect it that other players can play (Militia, Minion, Torturer, Goons...)

@Powerlord ...yes?

A simple solution not so far mentioned:  Allow takebacks.
It doesn't always help completely, but it often helps a lot, and is the approach written into the official rules of Mage Knight.  Simply allow players to retract their moves so long as no information point has passed and encourage them to play out their action rather than engage in an extended internal debate, and things will often go better.

This is how we play - no moves are permanent until there's been some change in information: as long as you haven't yet rolled a die, drawn a card, or asked if a player's going to react to a situation, it's fine, and it means you can do the moves as you go. For example, when expanding in Risk, people can just put one troop in each territory to get a feel for how far they're going, and then they arrange the unplaced troops before starting their conquest.

In our group we have the same problem. Usually we urge everybody to think ahead. So when it's your turn you don't have to think of everything at that time. That usually works pretty well. Of course things can change during the other person's turn, but in most games, thinking ahead and keeping everyone's attention on the game definitely will speed things up.
Another problem we sometimes have is that someone constantly has to look stuff up because he is not 100% sure of the rules. Playing a certain game on a regular basis will solve that problem though.

+1 i find that at least half of delays come from people goofing of when it is not their turn, and then needing to reimmerge  themselves into the game each turn

Not a solution for everybody, but Andy Looney (of Looney Labs fame, inventor of Fluxx and Icehouse pyramids) solves his frustration with waiting for other people's turn by playing Andy Vs. Everybody. He plays multiple games against dozens of opponents at once. Everyone else sits in a ring of tables around him, and raises a flag when it's his turn. He in turn runs madly around to raised flags, takes his turn, puts the flag down, and then moves on to another table. The rest of the players can have all of the analysis paralysis they want; he's got plenty of other games to play!

Having someone's divided attention (as Kasparov overcoming many individuals down a row) would bother me as AP bothers others.

Although this doesn't offer a magic solution to your problem, I'd like to share a coping strategy:
I got "bushwhacked" by a few AP players at games I played at BGG Con in November.  I was too tired to politely handle the situation by attempting to change the AP players' behavior, so I did what I could to make it easier for myself:  I carefully analyzed the board, got out my notepad, wrote down my next move(s), then spent extra time having friendly conversation with unoccupied players, figuring out additional advance strategies, and jotting down assorted ideas in my notebook.
I suppose my answer to your problem is (if you can't get the AP players to speed up, and you don't have enough game options that don't cause AP) to use the time to plot your next move, and spend the time chatting with the other players.  After all, you're (ostensibly) friends, so you should have plenty of stuff to talk about.
One other option: Set up a simple side-game, like Zombie Dice or M:tG, and play it while you're waiting.  If you do this, I strongly recommend jotting down ideas for your next move so you don't end up slowing the main game down.

I think once people get experienced with a game, they get better at the game and take less time.  If people understand the rules, they're going to be much better at decided what to do.  Be polite about nagging them to move.  If you badger someone to much, they're not going to want to play again.  Some games, like chess are naturally going to be slow.  If the other players in the group are fast, hopefully they'll learn to step up pace after a few playthroughs.
If you're teaching someone a new game, let them ask you questions and don't make the environment so competitive where they have to make the best possible decision each time.

True, experience brings speed. And nagging on beginners / about new games in general is not really a concern - this is more about players who can have an endless internal debate in Ticket to Ride...

This is true to an extent but definitely doesn't solve the problem; we have one person who famously takes a long time to make decisions, whether it's a new game or a game we've played dozens of times

In Ticket to Ride????  The Ticket to Ride games I've played generally go pretty well with occasional pauses while people consider a strategy decision or take train tickets.

To add a contrarian voice to the debate: I often find that as I understand a game's strategies better, I spend more time thinking about all the pros and cons. So I'd say I'm generally quicker if I don't yet know the game very well. (This is after figuring out the rules, though.)

I'm a slow player myself, and I often used to play games with a person who is a very quick decision maker. It would driver her completely bonkers, which wound me up, etc. Eventually we settled on a solution where she would read a book while I was thinking. Of course it's not ideal; I wouldn't recommend it to everyone and it won't work for groups of more than two people. But for us it rescued gaming.

I think part of the answer is that you have to play the same games with different styles of game play (see below, speed games). We all succumb, at one time or another, to the min-max problem. Said another way, in many games, there actually is an optimal solution that can be calculated decisively at certain points (especially near the end). But calculating it in ones head can be a slow process for some.
The best solution (in my opinion) in those situations is to just work with the player. You'll all learn more about the game and be able to make the decision faster next time. They'll have the satisfaction of knowing they scored the best they could (or at least others agreed with them). In fact, if done right, everyone can have a maximum score. (Doing this gets much harder as the number of players increases -- consider it a group challenge. And, recall, it's just a game and it'd be silly for someone to win or lose because of a mere accident or true mistake.) (Some games are well suited towards this style of group play. Highly recommended with the significant other, too. ;) )
As for the type of game, mix in play of "speed games" where everyone has to take fast moves. Compare to a 2 minute speed chess game -- it's  a completely different game when played that way.
This can balance full, thoughtful, strategy play with intense, and sometimes silly, action play.
If someone is the only one affected by the "rules of speed" they'll feel picked on or just won't have as much fun. Everyone, at some time or another, probably takes a long turn. Another solution is to just have a limited number of "long turns" -- this way, the slow thinker or optimizing player can plan for one turn (or so) a game and the rest of the group can go refill their drinks and snacks.
Finally, as others have said, unless it's chess, game familiarity will almost always speed everyone along. Give new players a chance. Play "open discussion" games. Open it up so the "slow" player can ask for advice and receive fair, honest answers. If it's a constant problem, the person is probably just unsure of their moves and boosting their confidence will go a long way.

Most people say that it is rude to ask slow players to play more quickly.  The opposite is actually true - slow players are the rude ones.  They selfishly take extra time so that they can gain an advantage.  AP players ruin the fun of the game, and it should be recognized as such.  Your desire to win or play well is less important than the right of everyone else to experience a game that flows well and that finishes in a reasonable time.
In my main group, one of the players has DGT Cube, a device that records how much time each person takes.  (Each side has a color that corresponds to common player colors.  You flip it to your color when it's your turn and The Cube counts your time.)  At the end of the game, you can definitively show a slow player how much more time he has taken than everyone else.  As this guy says, if one person takes as much time as the rest of the players combined, that person is too slow and has to change or be uninvited to gaming.  The Cube inspires everyone to play faster, which means we can play more games.
Studies have shown that people make better decisions when 1. they have fewer options to choose form and 2. they allow their emotions to play a part in the process.  Therefore, AP players should be counseled to narrow down their choices to two or so options, even if it's done arbitrarily.  If they still can't decide, they should be counseled to go with their gut.  Tell them that if the choice turns out to be suboptimal, they will learn for next time.

In my circle of friends, our Settlers of Catan games started sprawling uncontrollably, so we started playing with a clock that gave, I believe, one minute per turn and saved our spare time to use in future turns. (It also handled the switchback start for initial placement. We're all software engineers so writing our own wasn't especially difficult.) After playing with the clock for a few games we got the hang of how to speed the game along, especially thinking and planning ones' next move between turns.
(It also helped that we all had roughly the same level of experience with Catan, so no one felt especially overwhelmed by the idea of jumping unprepared into the game.)

So a good solution for this has been known for a while.  The "Chess clock".  For any old board game do this:
Determine the length of the game you'd like to play.
Divide by the # of players.
Double the time.
Each player gets that much time for the game.
If the time is exceeded, that player loses the game.  If the game would be 'ruined' by him leaving in the middle, he can either play out his turns (without a chance of winning) or other players can take turns finishing his turns (round robin or random player takes his remaining turns)
This solution is superior to a turn timer because it allows you to take more time when necessary, but really results in faster turns since people want to 'save up' more than use the whole turn time.
There are several smart-phone apps that can be used for this purpose, even the default timers will do.

Anyways, I will add my bit to the list of answers already.  After reading this question I realized that I suffer from this as well specifically when there is a speculation determining the cost of opportunity of doing (or not doing something).
Just being aware of it already had a positive impact in a couple of games. In recent games of Mage Knight - a rule intensive, unpractical game - it helped a lot because making a decision considering the rules/possibilities I knew didn't compare to the rules/possibilities I did not know.
I guess It's because I added my freinds' enjoyment to the decision making formula.  So tellng this to players who are not aware, helps.

Fingertip drumming, tapping your feet and frequently asking "Is it my turn yet?" will help resolve this issue in future game sessions.

Not really so. Many people will find this behaviour rude and treat is as simple whining. Its horribly annoying when you need a moment to think and someone interrupts you with tapping or "is it my turn yet?"

I admit, it was more of a tongue in cheek answer. Truth is, it really depends on the game and the group of people you're playing with. I think external 'maximum think time' policies are terrible funkillers (unless it's built into the game itself).

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


text:
What games are similar to Risk?
Are there any other board games that have similar game mechanics to Risk?

"Are there any other board games that have similar game mechanics to Risk?" In what way? Which mechanics are of most interest to you?

I generally think of Axis and Allies as being like advanced Risk.  Also there are all of the different Risk clones, 2210, LoTR, Star Wars, Godstorm and others which introduce slight variants in maps and rules.  Of those I'd recommend 2210, but if you can handle the complexity, which isn't bad in the grand scheme, Axis and Allies is the way to go.

Once you get into the order and mindset of how to resolve turns, Axis and Allies isn't that complex. Although not a perfectly balanced game, it really is a lot of fun when playing with 3 or more players.

I'd argue Risk isn't that well balanced either - perhaps it's a good match ;)

@Powertieke: Bidding in Axis & Allies allows for a more balanced game. In short, each player writes down a bid as to how many IPCs (or extra troops or whatever) they'd want to be "compensated" in order to play the Axis powers. The person with the lowest bid becomes the Axis.

Risk is atrociously balanced and far too luck based for my tastes.  A&A is slightly more reproducible, balanced and complex and therefore in my mind a better game, but that's just my opinion.

Diplomacy is a similar game in that its aim is to conquer other players land. However it removes the dice and the element of chance, replacing it with face to face negotiation (making it a much better game IMHO).
You can play it online for a quick taster. There are also lots of other web based learning resources.

Diplomacy is really a very different game from Risk.  It's (to borrow an expression about poker) a people game played with a board and rules rather than a board and rules game played with people.

Shogun is another similar game. The combat is different in this game (you are not using dice at all) but gathering resources and conquering other provinces (which act like countries in Risk) has the same basic principles.

+1 for reminding me to dig my Shogun box out of the loft. I seem to remember there was a semi-decent PC conversion (spit) a few years back.

@Jon Hadley If I'm thinking about the same game as you are (Shogun: Total War), I don't think that game shares anything but title with the board game.

I thought it at least had the board game mechanic as an option to move your troops, but now you mention it, I do remember that it was more of a battle simulator than anything else.

@RaYell There are at least 4 different Shogun games - The one published by Queen Games looks like risk with cubes, but is a civ-game in play. The Milton-bradley one, renamed Samurai Swords, uses d10's and is really an Axis and Allies variant more than a risk variant. Neither of which is the same as Shogun: Total War.

I really like Risk 2210 A.D..  Basically a faster, more Aggressive risk (also more luck and less strategy, but this does not take away from the fun of nuking a continent :))
Quest for the Dragonlords also plays a little like risk, but, to be honest, fails miserably at being any fun to play.

History of the World is played much like Risk.  There are 7 epochs.  During each epoch a player takes control of a different empire from the past.  They expand and conquer as much as they can (this part plays out very similar to Risk).  Next epoch they play a new vibrant empire.
Scoring is based on area control at the end of each player's turn.
Last year a new edition was released called, A Brief History of the World which is supposed to play to completion quicker.  I haven't yet tried it.

There is also Dust, which is set in an alternate World War II. There you have mechs and tanks, submarines and destroyers, bombers and fighters. New additions also include character-based powers, fortified positions and capitals. Unlike vanilla RISK, it uses a VP track to determine victory.
One of the interesting part of the combat is that tanks soak damage before mechs, fighters soak damage before bombers and destroyers soak damage before submarines (If I recall correctly). Mechs, Bombers and Submarines provide more offense in the game
The official site for the game is here.

How about Twilight Imperium. We always play and when I explain to someone who is not into the scene what it is I always end up saying:"Ok, do you know Risk? Well it's like that but more complicated".
But I guess there are loads of game that then qualify as advanced Risk :).

Awesome game, but absolutely nothing like Risk.

You build units and try to conquer territories by fighting using dice. Furthermore, everyone receives a secret objective which when completed will (help to) win the game. That pretty much describes Risk, but is also true for Twighlight Imperium right? But it's true that with that definition of "like Risk" there are a lot of games that qualify.

Base mechanics, like 'roll to hit' and Victory Points allready make it al very different beast. But I agree that more people should play this game.

I used to play Samurai Swords (also known as Shogun) as a kid. It's a lot like Risk, with several unit types, more complex battles, and more territories. It takes forever though.

Ozymandia is simultaneous Risk, simplified to its essence.

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but there are various Risk variants that use exactly the same rules and mechanics, but on a different board. I've got the Lord of the Rings and Star Wars variants, and there are others. As far as I can tell (from the LOTR and Star Wars verions) they normally/often have some extra (and optional) themed rule and unit variations, which, combined with the new map topology, can keep it interesting if you're bored of classic Risk.


text:
How do I become a professional game designer?
How I can become a full- or part-time professional developing games? Are there specific courses? What specific knowledge should I be looking to learn? How do I enter the industry?

The validity of this question is discussed here http://meta.boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/28/what-to-do-when-a-question-had-some-votes-to-be-on-topic-on-definition-phase

See also the more specific meta discussion:  http://meta.boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/236/are-game-design-questions-on-topic

This question is too broad, despite being on topic.

agreed

An assortment of advice:
Don't forget the Board Game Designers Forum.
Attend Protospiel, or Protospiel South, or Protospiel North or West.
Play lots of games, and a wide variety of games, both modern and classic.
Start designing games, taking them all the way from concept to completion.  Do it over and over again.  I designed and released one free print-and-play game each month at Invisible City Productions.  I did this from January 2000 to December 2010.  The first seven games were pretty hard, but it got easier after that.
Learn how to playtest your games, and how to integrate feedback into your designs.
Attend the GAMA Trade Show.  Talk to publishers - especially smaller ones.  Take them out to dinner and ask them about the industry.
Brush up on your math – especially probability and statistics.  Learn how to mathematically  model dice pools, bags of beads, and decks of cards.

I can't stress how important the brush up on your math advice is. As someone who has tried my hand at inventing a combat system, I spent nearly all my time making sure there was a variety and a balance to the various elements. And, making sure isn't enough. You have to prove it.

You can start here:
BoardGameGeek Design Forum
You'll find that there are lots of people who make there own games, and lots of examples of how to make and/or publish your games.
Check out the first pinned topic:
Game Design & Self-Publishing – A Resource for Game Designers
Good Luck.


text:
If you're too Tough to die, do you still burn?
In Warmachine/Hordes, there are many models which have the 'Tough' rule:

TOUGH:
  When this model is disabled, roll a d6.  On a 5 or 6, this model heals
  1 damage point, is no longer disabled, and is knocked down.

There are also attacks which deal the 'Fire' continuous effect:

FIRE:
  A model hit by this attack suffers the Fire continuous effect, which sets it on fire.  A
  model on fire suffers a POW 12 damage roll each turn during its controller's Maintenance
  Phase until the continuous effect expires.

There are other effects, all subject to the following:

CONTINUOUS EFFECTS:
  Continuous effects remain on a model and have the potential to damage or affect it in some other way on subsequent turns.  [...] Continuous effects do not require fury points for upkeep and cannot be removed voluntarily.  Remove a continuous effect only when it expires, a special situation causes it to end, or the affected model is removed from the table.

If a model is hit with an attack that would cause it to gain the Fire continuous effect, and that attack kills it, that model is entitled to a 'tough' roll.  If it makes the roll, is it still susceptible to the Fire effect?  Being disabled means it is about to be removed from the table which would cause the effect to expire, but then it survives.  Does the fire go out before the tough roll or does the tough roll prevent the fire from going out?

Whenever you are reduced to zero hit points, you are disabled.  Before you get boxed and removed from the table you have to resolve any effects triggered by being disabled(I.e. Tough).
So during your maintenance phase you roll to see if the fire goes out.  If it doesn't you take the POW 12 damage roll.  If this reduces you to zero hit points, then you are disabled.  Tough is triggered.  If you pass the tough test you are healed back to 1 hit point.  Since your model never left the table, Fire remains In effect.


text:
What are the differences between the four editions of The Settlers of Catan base game?
I haven't played Settlers of Catan yet, but I've been considering asking my gaming group if they want to try it.
As I understand it, Settlers of Catan is now in its fourth major version.  If I do get a Catan box, should I just get the current (fourth) edition, or is there some reason to look for used copies of earlier editions?
Edit: I forgot to mention, we will also be getting the 5-6 player extension.

I can't answer this question with authority, as I don't own any edition of Settlers, but from the times I've played it, I definitely found some of the sets a whole lot more aesthetically pleasing than others, in terms of the quality and look of their components.  I'd recommend making sure the latest version is a nice one, before being too quick to shell out the cash!

The new fourth edition has a few minor changes in appearance, and the biggest change is a new set of border pieces that surround the hexagon tiles to keep them together.
The most important thing to know is that they do not mix and match very well: if you have the 3rd edition of Settlers, you should buy the 3rd edition of the expansions.  If you have the 4th edition of the base game, you should buy the 4th edition expansions.  So if you're just getting into it, I would suggest buying the new edition, since the corresponding expansions will be easier to find.

We will, at the very least, be getting the 5-6 player extension.

In Cities & Knights, there changed what some of the progress cards are.  The card that lets you disable an opponents city has been removed in the 4th edition.  I'm not sure what additions it was in, but one of my friends complained quite loudly when he realized they had removed the card.
I would get the 4th edition, since it's easier to find, and the expansions will be easier to get.  Most of the changes have been minor and make game play easier.  My only complaint about the quality of the 4th edition is that I wish the frame pieces were sturdier.

Two of the progress cards changed between 3rd and 4th edition: Saboteur in 3rd lets you turn an opponent's city on its side so it collects resources as a settlement.  Saboteur in 4th makes everyone with more points than you discard half their hand. Commercial Harbor in 3rd makes the player choose a commodity, in 4th, it makes the victim choose a commodity.  Subtle, but requires different strategy.

There was a huge (and stupid) rule addition with the later editions, where if you run out of resource cards during a production phase, no one gets anything.  In the old rules (1999, Mayfair) there was no rule on it, so our group always played where you parcel out that resource starting at the die roller, and going clockwise.
The new rules also allow you to move the robber to a desert hex, which was not allowed before.

Two other changes I'm aware of: in 4th edition, unlike earlier editions, you are allowed to move the robber back to the desert; and in 4th edition, the rules recommend a combined trading/building phase for experienced players, whereas my 3rd edition copy keeps the two phases strictly separate.  The latter is a major change as it allows a player to trade using a harbour on the same turn he obtains it.  Of course none of these changes requires different components so you can freely use/ignore the rule changes when playing with any edition of the game.

@Lance_Roberts in my edition the rules state if you run out of resources you issue them in order of quantity produced. IE someone gets 4 ore before someone else gets 2 ore.

My 24 year old Kosmos edition with German cards and separately printed English translation of the rules has the 'noone gets any if there's not enough for everyone' rule...

I also own the German version. In this version there is no harbor tiles and the harbors are part of the sea frame pieces (you can't change their location thou).

I own the German version (Die Siedler von Catan), and it has different (plastic) pieces for roads, etc.  The board pieces are a slightly different size, as well as the resource cards.  Therefore, if you plan on getting the expansions, make sure that you stick with the US versions.

I only know German versions with wood pieces. – Probably the earlier versions, if not the first.

I would recommend the 5th edition if you're getting started, as another person here commented - it will be much easier to find expansions.  For earlier editions you're essentially buying collector's items and in some cases could pay much more for the expansions than a brand new 5e.  The 3e hexes are slightly bigger (79.375mm) compared to the 4e and 5e hexes (78.5mm).  There is no frame for the 3e in the box, but there is a "yucatan board" that holds the basic and 5-6 player expansion quite nicely.  It can be usually be found on eBay.


text:
How many submarines do I need to take down an aircraft carrier?
In Axis and Allies, how many submarines do I need to have a greater than 60% chance to take down a lone aircraft carrier?

Check out the Axis & Allies Combat Simulator/Calculator. You can choose which variant of the game you're playing (Original, Revised Edition, etc.), how many simulations to run, and a number of other options. (There's even a iPhone and Android versions!) The combat simulator then tells you the average IPC loss for both sides and the average winning percentage.
Presuming you play with the Revised Edition (a/k/a, the 2nd Edition), here are the odds. (Note that each simulation has a link to the combat simulator with the attacking and defending units already entered. The link sets the simulation runs parameter to 1,000, but the results I present here were computed using 5,000 runs.)

1 sub: 49.8% chance of winning, average IPC loss: 4 for attacker, 8 for defender
2 subs: 85.4% chance of winning, average IPC loss: 4 for attacker, 14 for defender
3 subs: 97.9% chance of winning, average IPC loss: 2 for attacker, 16 for defender

What about super subs (which attack at a 3 instead of a 2)? If so, here are how the odds unfold:

1 supersub: 67.1% chance of winning, average IPC loss: 3 for attacker, 11 for defender
2 supersubs: 95.0% chance of winning, average IPC loss: 2 for attacker, 15 for defender
3 supersubs: 99.6% chance of winning, average IPC loss: 1 for attacker, 16 for defender

Also, because a sub has the benefit of "first attack," there will never be a scenario where both the sub and carrier are destroyed. In this type of battle you know that one side (and only one side) will be standing at the end.

It's all a matter of percentages, isn't it. Based on the above, the answer for a 60%+ success rate is two. (But "one" is actually quite close; two is almost overkill.) So maybe the best answer is "one-and-a-half.


text:
What's better for Ork Nob in Warbiker Mob: Big Choppa or Klaw?
I've been assembling a warbiker mob recently and I've wanted to make one unit a Nob. According to the Ork Codex I can then give him either a Big Choppa (+10 points) or a Klaw (+25 points). I know the Klaw is more powerful but it also carries the disadvantage to Initiative.
Is the Klaw really worthy the extra points or is it better to stick with the Big Choppa (which also looks much better on a model)?
Big Choppa - gives +2 Strength
Klaw - energy weapon (ignores armor) and doubles the Strength

There's a few things to weigh up here.

What else could you get with the points? It's easy to go overboard on your 'hero' units, and forget that you could spend that extra 15 points on more basic troops. With Orks, huge numbers is a core strategy. A few extra Boyz could be much more valuable to you.
Who do you expect to be facing? Ignoring armour is a much more useful ability against Space Marines and Necrons than it is against Dark Eldar or Tyranids. If you regularly play against a few particular armies, then this is particularly relevant. More tactically, consider whether your Ork Nob will be likely to be in a situation where he can make use of armour-ignoring abilities. Will he be attacking tanks, Dreadnoughts, or souped up heroes? Or is the primary role of the squad to act as cannon fodder, or take down more generic troops? Bottom line - there's no point taking expensive custom stuff if you don't make use of it.
What do your other models have? I like giving identical units different weapons, just for variety. This is also handy when you need to pull out a specialised weapon combo for a particular scenario.
What do you like the look of more? This is actually an important point, in my opinion. Warhammer is about aesthetics and cool models just as much as it is about optimising armies and strategies. If you think the Big Choppa looks much better, that's a strong argument for taking that as a weapon!

Without knowing the answers to these questions, I can't give you a straight recommendation. The Klaw is clearly a much more powerful weapon. But whether the cost (both points and aesthetic) is justified depends on all these factors.

Always go with a Klaw for your Nobz in either biker or normal boyz squads.  You need this because Orks are not terribly good in close combat against certain enemies.  Walkers, heavy tanks, and units with 3+ or 2+ saves can usually fend off a charge from Orks. You need the Klaw to be able to break even in these situations.
Without that Klaw, your Orks could get tied up in combat with a Space Marine Dreadnought you can't hurt.  You'll also have a hard time against infantry hiding in transports.  It's hard to destroy even an armor 10 vehicle in hand-to-hand with only ST 6(from the Choppa).
Another thing to consider: a charging unit of 10 Ork bikes will only kill about 2-3 Marines on average(30 attacks, 15 hit, 7.5 wound, 5 save).  All it takes in this instance is for the Marine player to roll a little above average, and the Ork player to roll a little under average for the Marines to win the assault.  The one or two outright kills you get from a Klaw will help make sure you are going to win the assault.  It's even more important if you face a unit with a 3+ save and Feel No Pain.
Don't worry too much about the loss of Initiative from the Klaw.  Even with boosted Initiative on the charge, most things in the game that can hurt you are already swinging first.  You're opponent will also have to wipe out the whole unit to prevent that Klaw from getting its attacks.
For all Nob units, you don't have to give every Nob a Klaw.  You can give most of the unit Choppas to save on points and get the most out of the wound allocation rules.

If your talking about Nob Bikers, You would be Str 7 on the charge with 4 attacks, using WS5 (waggh banner). Hitting marines on a 3, wounding on a 2. (10) Nob Bikers kited with Waggh banner, 5 choppas, 2 power klaws and 3 slugga & choopas would get 43 attacks on the charge.
(20) Str 7 choppa attacks, (8) str 10 power klaw attacks, (15) str 5 slugga attacks. Furious charge grants the str +1. Not to mention the 30 Str 5 TL shots you put into them before.
TL Str 5 shots @ BS2 = 20 hits, Wound on 3's, 10 wounds, 3+ save. 3 die from shooting.
On the Charge  @ WS5 = 13 hits(Choppa), 6 hits (Klaw), 9 hits (slugga)
would theoretically yield = 11 wounds (Choppa) 5 wounds (Klaw), 5 wounds (Slugga)
21 wounds. 5 of which Ignore armor saves and ID. Of the remaining 16 wounds, They would save ten. Yielding another 6 dead.
Shooting+Melee = 14 Dead marines.


text:
Recommended Axis & Allies alternative rules / variations?
What rule variations do you recommend for playing Axis & Allies, from ones meant to balance the game to ones that add a little spice?
Here are the variants I've played with - always looking for new suggestions!

Russia cannot attack on first turn. Personally, I don't consider this a rule variation because I only play games where this is enforced.
Bidding system for choosing Axis player(s). Namely, the unit of currency is decided - IPCs or infantry or tech rolls - and then each player writes down how much of the currency they'd need to play Germany or Japan after which all players reveal their bids. The lowest bidders are awarded the Axis power(s) and are given their compensation, either before the game begins or at the start of their first turn.
No economic victory for Axis.
No new factories. This variation makes life very tough on Japan, especially if she has some poor luck in the Pacific to start the game off.
Free weapons developments for Axis powers. Traditionally, Germany gets Jet Power and Japan gets Super Subs, but I've played where Germany and Japan can choose a technology of choice other than Heavy Bombers.
Every country must spend exactly 5 IPC per turn to do weapons development. A somewhat silly variation, but invariably adds some twists to the game.
Two hit battleships. This variation makes for an interesting opening game, strengthening the UK Sea Zone fleet, making it harder for the Allies to take out the German Mediterranean fleet, and giving Japan a little more of an edge in the Pacific.

Are there any other variations you've played with that you'd recommend?

Why no economic victory and no new factories? You want the two sides to battle it out, right?

@Tom: No new factories is an interesting twist that can be fun to play if Japan is a very strong player. (Although I've noticed that most highly skilled Japanese players only buy factories very late in the game, anyhow.)

With the 2nd fewest IPCs, Japan can't afford a factory early in the game. It's only late in the game, when Japan has a line of something like India, Sinkiang, Yakut that it makes sense for Japan to build a factory closer to the front. But maybe Japan has captured an allied factory in the former two in the meantime; which may be why the ALLIES also should be prohibited from buying factories.

@Tom: The no new factories variation applies to all players - Axis and Allies alike. Why it's tough on Japan is that if their navy is destroyed then they are screwed as they can't get troops onto the mainland, whether that happens in the early-, mid-, or late-game, no navy for Japan equals a guaranteed loss (unless Germany has cleaned up Russia, owns Africa, and has UK penned on the isle with a mediocre number of IPCs/turn).

My preferred version of this rule is "only" two factories per country. That caps the US, Germany and Russia, but allows a new factory to Japan (the greatest beneficiary) but also the UK, to make it fair.

I didn't feel it was appropriate to add another answer, since that would make 3 and it's not my idea, but there are MIT house rules for A&A 2nd edition.

I really like the 2 hit battleship that heals at the end of each battle.  It turns the unit from an obsolete, expensive relic to a serious fleet protector which is well worth the 20 IPCs.

Interesting variations you listed.
A house rule I sometimes play is paratroopers. A bomber can load up an infantry and drop it in a friendly or hostile territory.
Axisandallies.org has a great discussion on Axis and Allies from the original to the 1940 World Edition.
Here is a link to their forums. Apparently I dont have enough rep to post more than one link but you will be able to navigate your way around Im sure.
Here is the link to their variations section.
And another link to their house rules section.
Will be hard to find more hardcore fans so it would be worth while to poke around there.

Would you mind posting a link to those listing variations on the axisandallies.org forums, and/or provide a synopsis of them here?

I remember trying paratroopers once -- it made for a COMPLETELY different game and dramatically slowed things down, as you basically had to hold back guys in every single territory (especially Russia and Germany) unless you wanted surprise infantry knocking on your back door.

I marked your answer as THE answer, thanks for adding the link. Maybe when your rep is higher you can come back and provide some more links and descriptions. I was hoping to see some variants listed like I listed mine - basically a name followed by a short description. Thx

One Hit Infantry
For advanced players, the overarching strategy of A&A reduces to the infantry push mechanic as described in Don Rae's excellent essays--this is especially true for 2nd edition games, which have 3/2 tanks vice 3/3 tanks.
The essence of the IPM is that Germany and Russia should buy only infantry until the late game, after they have fortified their borders with infantry and established dead zones in Eastern Europe. The US, UK and Japan also play IPM, but after a short delay to build navies and/or factories to move/spawn all this infantry.
IPM works because the opportunity cost of all units is higher than infantry's (i.e. infantry are the cheapest unit in the game and are twice as effective on defense as they are on offense). Cheap means they are the only units you can ever afford to leave in a dead zone (i.e. open to counterattack by a superior force). Their effective defense means they are most valuable in large stacks that can devastate an attacking force with insufficient "cannon fodder".
Don suggests a brilliant and simple solution to the stalemated and long-developing game common between experienced players utilizing IPM: modify infantry so that they attack and defend on a roll of 1+.
This change takes some getting use to, but after only a game or two becomes second nature and dramatically changes the game for the better. What was once a defensive stalemate becomes a furor of attack and counter attack. 1/1 infantry means a one-on-one combat between two lone infantry becomes a fair fight, it means any additional attacking force is statistically overwhelming, and it means infantry alone defend so poorly as to be almost useless. All of these factors bias the game just enough in favor of the attacker to prevent large stacks of infantry from materializing. This change also makes a fighter-only vs. infantry attack feasible since the odds that the infantry will score a lucky hit have been cut in half.
Beyond the traditional sitting around a table method you can try out this variation on the computer if you are lucky enough to have a copy of the out-of-print Iron Blitz (you can edit the infantry attack/defense values); it's also trivially easy to implement if you play-by-email.

Great suggestion! Did you know you can play A&A online for free at http://gamesbyemail.com/Games/WW2? I added a new rule variant for Infantry defense at 1 and am interested to give it a try. Let me know if you ever want to play online.

This raises the value of armor. Because the latter can defend at 2, and costs only 5/3 as much as infantry. (Unless you reduce the cost of infantry to 2.)

Here are some fixes that I propose for the game:

Move back fighters: If Russia is allowed to attack on the first move, Germany is allowed to move back one fighter and one armor from the Ukraine to Eastern Europe, and one fighter back from Finland to Eastern Europe, and Japan one fighter back from Manchuria to Kwantung BEFORE the game starts. I don't mind letting the Russians attack (even in Manchuria) just don't want Axis fighters killed off in the process. (And my preferred strategy is to play a defensive Russia and not attack, because the Axis can now counterattack advantageously in either case, assuming average die rolls).
No factories in landlocked territories (basically China, Sinkiang, and some Russian territories). In the real war, the "industrialization" of China was about the only thing the Allies failed at. It's hard enough to build factories on the coast without shipping materials inland. And in "Sinkiang?" You're talking about Tibet and the Taklamaken desert for crying out loud.
Limit Heavy bomber increase to 50%, like other techs. For conventional combat, attacker gets two dice, but hits only with 1-3 (six rolls instead of four). For heavy bombing, if the roll is 1-3, attacker gets to roll second die and add the two (range of outcomes is 2-9, for an average of 5.5.). Or if using only one die, attacker hits FOR SURE in conventional combat, and heavy bombing damage = die roll+2 (ranging from 3 to 8 for an average of 5.5).
Bomber transport: A carrier can carry one bomber in lieu of two fighters (like a transport can carry one armor in lieu of two infantry).
Kamikaze rule: Japan (and Japan only), can launch kamikaze air attacks where planes don't have enough range to return. (Japan did so in real life).
Paratrooper unit (per suggestion above). Has a 1-2 combat factor (like infanty) but costs 12 IPCs to build (like a fighter). Special movement feature; with a complement of its own planes, can move two spaces to a friendly or unoccupied enemy territory (e.g., over the North Sea to or from England or Germany) "leapfrogging" over intervening territory. If enemy territory is occupied, treat as "amphibious" landing. Is identifiable as a "specially trained" unit, not just a generic infantry on a bomber.
Economic victory for Axis: As a practical matter, the Axis would have won World War II if they had ever accumulated one-half of the world's industrial capacity, unless the Allies had some offsetting technological advantage (such as the atomic bomb). In this game, that's only 74 IPCs (because the U.S. is "hobbled," with a fraction of its real-life industrial capacity. The victory condition is 84 IPCs in the game and something like 99 IPCs in real life.) But 74 IPCs could represent a "tipping point," especially in conjunction with either of the following:
Treacherous (minor) Allies.

8.1 In World War II, the defection of minor German allies like Italy and
    Romania contributed to the Allied victory.  In Axis and Allies, if
    the Axis get 74 IPCs, minor U.S. Allies like Sinkiang, China,
    Brazil, Mexico, Panama and the West Indies defect, sensing an Axis
    victory. The resulting coup d'etats puts one (pro-Axis) infantry
    unit in each country (as total of 11 IPCs), and U.S. land and air
    units on those territories are destroyed. (Japan gets the "income"
    from China and Sinkiang, Germany, from the Latin American
    territories).  If the Axis reach 74 without any of these
    territories, the switch of 11 IPCs brings their total to 85 (unless
    the U.S. can recapture, e.g., Mexico on its turn). If 4 of those 74
    IPCs are China and Sinkiang, the Axis still have 81 (until the U.S.
    starts reconquering the Western Hemisphere, a major distraction).
8.2 Set the "bar" initially at 74 (it never goes below that even if
the Axis have a tech advantage) but since the Allies have more
income for research, raise the bar by 5 IPCs for every DIFFERENT
additional technology that the Allies have over the Axis (multiple
holdings of the same technology don't count). Maximum of 30 IPCs
(Allies have all six technologies, the Axis, none). Example: the
Allies have developed three new technologies, the Axis two, net
Allied advantage of ONE technology. The bar for economic victory has
been raised from 74 to 79 (5 IPCs).

Change Tech Research
This post and the commonly held opinion described in its answers suggests that the A&A tech tree could use some work. Here's a set of house rules that fixes the two main problems with the 2nd Edition rules (I haven't played the newer versions as much so perhaps others can elaborate):

Tech is too hard to get. That is, you have to spend too much money, on average, to get any tech at all, and a tremendous amount to get a specific advance. The opportunity cost of a tech in terms of foregone tanks and infantry is too high for even a player with a moderate risk profile and an absolute no-go for anyone who wants to win consistently.
The advances, if they are ultimately achieved can be complete game breakers. Heavy bombers is a great example as every country can use them to devastating effect, but 2 IPC infantry are also too powerful, as are most of the other advances under slightly more restricted circumstances.

The changes

For 4 IPCs you get a technology of your choice on a roll of 6. This increases by a factor of six the probability of getting the technology of choice and decreases the expected cost by 20 percent. Besides making research cheaper it also enables strategic research: a player can go after something they actually consider useful given the game situation.
Jet power: fighters attack on a 4+ (improved from 3+) instead of the base rule of increasing defense from 4+ to 5+. The game needs more offensive firepower not better defense.
Rockets: allow one rocket attack per AA gun, but give defending AA guns a chance to block each attack on a roll of 1.
Evasive submarines (replacing super subs): Submarines are immune to aircraft attack, or alternatively, are only subject to a single round of attacking at a 6+ for fighters or 5+ for bombers. This change can make a wolf pack strategy feasible for Germany.
Long-range aircraft: +1 movement instead of +2. Still provides a strategic advantage but doesn't extend the round-trip range by a full territory like the original rule did.
Improved AA guns (replacing Industrial Technology): Re-roll any failed AA attempt. Great equalizer against all the airplane techs.
Strategic bombers: when strategic bombing roll two dice, pick the higher roll. Still cool, but much less powerful than adding the sum of three dice, which was crazy awesome.

What do you mean when you say "a roll of 6+". How could you have a roll greater than 6?

@Scott: Good point, I was in the mode with all the other X+ notes below. I'll edit the post.

The increment of a fighter attack factor from 3 to 4 for jets is 33.3%, greater than the increment of the defense factor from 4 to 5 (25%), making jet power more useful.

@Tom Au: agree with your calculations (obviously), but I don't think jet power was broken because it was too powerful. Jet power (as a defensive bonus) is broken because it biases an already defensive game even more so in that direction. Changing the ability to an attack bonus helps incentivize people to attack with fighters.

The Variant we came up with was the SS.  Each turn the German player was allowed to buy one SS infantry and one SS tank.  They cost 1 more IPC each than the regular variant but had 1 more attack and defense factor.  Limiting the amount they could purchase evened things out.  Super balanced the game as prior to that (without some turn 2 do or die charge into karelia) the German could be combo killed by the ally before the Japanese could bite hard enough to take the pressure off.

Here's a great idea.  I have been playing Triple A, which actually turns into a somewhat boring game with the Infantry Push Mechanic.  You just have stacks of infantry creating dead zones.  Seriously, is the game that fun if you just build all infantry (and some artillery)?  Anyway...
Infantry Limits

Limit Infantry Production: Come up with a calculation based on income or limit each power to 5 infantry builds per turn.
Limit Infantry (or land unit) Stacks: Allow only up to 10 of each kind or decide upon a limit like 20 land units in a single territory.

One of the most recent changes made are AAA fire of up to 3 dice per gun. Therefore 2 guns defend with up to 6 dice, 3 guns with up to 9 dice, limited by the number of attacking air units. The same concept could be applied to defending infantry only, so huge stacks of infantry are limited to total number of attacking units.

I also got an idea from a game called Call of War, that being that you could maybe make it so that there would be a maximum of defending or attacking units that could fire. For example, if you had 10 tanks and 30 infantry in Karellia, the tanks and ten of the infantry would fire. The rest of the units would just be cannon fodder to protect the firing units. The attacker could maybe have their limit be 25-30 units to offset the defender's advantage. Personally I've been using a limit of 15 firing units for the defender and 20 for the attacker, but my games tend to be shorter so there's not usually stacks of 30 infantry sitting around.


text:
Is using Quickshade a good way to finish miniature painting?
Recently I've discovered that Army Painter is selling a can of pigmented varnish called Quickshare. Has anyone had any experience with this or other similar products? On the pictures I've found models finished with this stuff look really amazing, but I'd like to know if it's really that good, or were the pictures Photoshopped?
Here's a sample photo comparing different tones:

Voted to close, but didn't vote down as this is a fairly new definition of what's off topic. See Meta discussion here: http://meta.boardgames.stackexchange.com/questions/9/is-this-site-also-good-for-miniature-wargames-questions

All people in Meta so far responded that miniature wargames are on-topic. And miniature painting is a important part of those games.

While the comments are positive for miniature war games the only comment for painting is negative. Personally I agree and don't think painting belongs here but rules for the games are certainly fine.

Upvoted. This IS ontopic. If you can ask questions about game packaging, caring for pieces, then painting miniatures (For a game) is ontopic!

I agree with Powertieke that there is a thin line. But in my opinion Warhammer consists of two parts, the game and the miniature making/painting.

@Matthijs Wessels You can't play without assembling/glueing the miniatures first so I would say it's a part of the game setup not a separate/optional part.

And if you need more proof sometimes the painting has an impact on the rules (although not in this case). For example in Warhammer 40k Orks vehicles painted on red are faster then those painted in other colors, so the line become's even thiner.

I view this as off-topic since it doesn't involve the game mechanics at all.  Even RaYell's 40K example of how the rules mention the color of the pieces doesn't make a recommendation question about 3rd-party products for painting on-topic.  This question could just as easily be asked about any model painting, it has no direct link to board gaming.

I have used Quickshade and the much cheaper but equally effective Minwax polyshade on roughly one hundred miniatures. This pictures most definitely are not Photoshopped, but it's not quite the magic bullet as it seems.
While it certainly is a way to quickly finish a large number of models there are a few disadvantages:
1) It leaves a gloss finish on your model that, except in a few cases, is generally undesirable, which requires the application of a matt varnish to eliminate. Often times, though, you will want to protect the paint anyway, so it may or may not be an extra step.
2) It requires a bit more prep work. Mold lines on your models, along with any imperfection, become accentuated with Quickshade, but again, that's the case if you use a wash anyway.
3) It's messy. I brush the stuff on, but the technique is called "dipping" because the technique first involved dipping the entire model into the poly and then shaking/spinning it to remove the excess. In my case, after I get it on, I carefully brush off the excess, but it can easily pool in certain recesses.
It's a great way to get a large number of figures painted and ready for the tabletop quickly. A small container of Quickshade is roughly thirty US dollars, and the Minwax Polyshade (I prefer Tudor Satin), is about 8 dollars for a few pints.
Here is how I do it:
http://hivezero.blogspot.com/2010/09/speed-painting-tyranid-termagant.html
There are a ton of other tutorials and galleries on the web. Search "40k dipping"

The photos aren't photoshopped, but the results are particularly dramatic in the example work the OP included.
Any wash can be used to do similar, and a black "inkwash" (black paint thinned to ink consistency) is similar to the dark varnish, but without the excess glossiness.
A less expensive option is any thin & colored varnish that isn't going to liquify the paint beneath... and that is the trick. As most varnishes are thinned with solvents, you need to make certain that the paint you are using won't be disolved by the varnish. Minwax is traditional, but others will work.
Also, learning to apply it evenly, and to dry it effectively, is an art all it's own.
In competent hands, it can be a wonderful tool... but it will take practice, and it's not easily removed as an inkwash.


text:
What are the most useful Major Improvements in Agricola?
What Major Improvements do you see as most useful in Agricola, and why?

For a grain-based strategy the Clay Oven is key. It's incredibly efficient (1 grain-> 5 food), and crucially, requires only one stone, so you can get it early (guaranteed before the second harvest). In most of my Agricola games, one player will take the fireplace/animal eating option, and the other will go for a grain/baking option.
My other key improvement is the Well. The in-game effect (5 food) is marginal, but the 4 points at the end make a huge difference, and are great value (often equivalent to renovating your entire house, for example).

Here are my rankings of the Major Improvements:

Fireplace (2 clay): Hands down, the best Major Improvement.  The person who gets this has an easy food engine.  In most cases it will take 2 actions for someone else to get into the action giving you time to collect your sheep.  You also are first in line to get a cheap cooking hearth.
Well: 4 resources for 4 victory points, and it comes with food! This should be taken every game
Cooking Hearth: The default food engine of the game.  No matter what you have, you can probably produce food with a Cooking Hearth.  You should try to get one of these unless your minor improvements grant you a decent food engine.
Clay Oven: Overrated by many, still 5 food for one grain is hard to ignore!  Takes a lot of actions to get up and running, but will then produce a lot of food.  In 2-3 player games coming up with stone can be an issue.  With 4-5, the one sow/bake action can be problematic to obtain when you need it.
Fireplace (3 clay): Less important than the 2 clay version.  Paying extra to be the second person in a food engine isn't great.  Better to get the extra clay and go straight to a Cooking Hearth in most cases.
Stone Oven: The victory points are the main thing here.  Taken late in many games for the VP and the free bake action
Basketmaker's Workshop: Collecting all the reed can deny other players house expansion, buying this gives you something to do with all the reed.
Pottery: With the right minors you can make something of this, otherwise it is just 2 VPs
Joinery: It isn't too many games that you have much extra wood.

I would put the Basketmaker's Workshop a bit higher.  The other two "craftsman" Majors are largely ignorable, but the Workshop gives you an excellent boost to food and VPs for a resource that everyone seems to stop picking in the second half of the game.  Or maybe it's just my group?  In any case, this is probably the improvement that I seem to build most consistently, after the 2 point Fireplace or one of the two Ovens.  The Well is alright, but I tend to see it as a consolation for not Renovating rather than a must-have...

I think you're underrating the ovens.

Do you play with the Farmers of the Moor expansion?  I've been finding, with that in the mix, that the Forester's Lodge is pretty amazing, definitely a valid alternative to grabbing an early Fireplace.  Played early it's a win-win Improvement: either it puts your Wood production into overdrive, or you get a ton of VPs for conserving Forest tiles on your board till the end of the game.
The Peat-Charcoal Kiln might be similarly good in a game where Stone is available from Turn 1, but unfortunately I mostly play 2 player, so I don't see enough of those!
In the standard game I agree with Pat that the 2-clay Fireplace is the best, but only if you can grab it straightaway and then be the first to grab and slaughter 4-5 sheep!  It's not like it's much good later on, if you weren't the "early bird".  Aside from that, see my comment on his answer.  Don't underestimate the potential power of the Basketmaker's Workshop!

Baking with ovens is more of a bonus than an early goal to shoot for and rely on. Livestock and even food from occupations/minors is a better deal than baking. Especially in 4 or 5 player games it's WAY too easy to be blocked out of huge baking action when you need it.
Pat's list has the right idea, although Pottery is by far the best of the "workshop" improvements. Clay is the most abundant resource in 90% of games. You can never have enough wood between building rooms, fences, and improvements. Reed is also scarce to the point that it's the primary bottleneck for development. Why would you eat it? Clay is almost as abundant as wood and is mostly only used for a cooking improvement and renovation; there's plenty of it and it's not too difficult to get food out of the Pottery every harvest and the full +3 bonus points.


text:
Avoiding the "wrong" calamity
We're early in a game of Advanced Civilization and I find myself stymied while pondering a trade.
I've been offered the most optimal trade possible.  However, as only 2 cards in a trade are guaranteed, I feel I'm almost certain to receive a calamity along with the two cards I need.
As Illyria, receiving Superstition and Slave Revolt would really hamper me right now.  I have only one city on a 2 area, the rest are on 1's.  Having to reduce 3 cities (which is what either works out to) would prevent me from building them back, not to mention not increasing my city count next turn.
What should I consider when making this decision?  When is the short term gain worth the risk of long term consequences?
My current hand is hides/timber/grain, 2xiron, 3xoil.  I'd receive iron/oil/XXX(possible calamity) for my grain/timber/hides.

You have to assume that the third card will be a calamity: the rules are designed to prevent you being certain, but it's always wise to expect the worst, and very likely in your position.
You need to consider
Which calamity will it be?  Depending on how many cities your trading partner has, there are several he may have picked up and wish to trade; if you are careful to specify three cards, you won't get more than one, which you may be able to survive.
And will the situation be any better next turn? If this is 'the most optimal trade possible', you really have either to accept it or resign yourself to a game without trading, which isn't likely to end well.
There may be other reasons to reject this specific trade: card-counting indicates that the two calamities you are worried about definitely came out this turn, or other people have decided not to trade with this person already.  But both are fallible; assuming you can actually use the trade cards for a Civilization card, I would suggest you accept.

I agree.  Assume it is the calamity and decide whether you're still better off doing the trade.  In many cases, the answer is yes.  But if the answer is no, you're better off not trading, especially if you can wait until next turn to trade in your cards without bumping on the progress track.

The requirement is to correctly state the number of cards, and at least two cards by name.
The best bet is to have the player state the total in the trade quickly; it forces him to think fast. Then compare the value.

28.3 Each trade must involve at least three trade cards on each side. A player with fewer than three trade cards may not trade. When negotiating a trade, each player must honestly inform the other of the number of trade cards he wishes to trade and at least two of the trade cards involved in the trade. This information must be correct - the remaining card or cards need not be specified and may consist of any commodity or tradable calamity card(s), regardless of what was said to the other player. A player may not show his trade cards to another player during negotiations, nor may a player inform other players of the details of a trade after it is completed.

Note that the non-advanced version of trade was actually harder - the requirement for the correct total value and two correct cards made for slipping in the extras harder...
What you look for is that he can quickly find the total of the cards, and that it matches, and that he's not handing you more than agreed upon...

Minor correction - I believe you only had to name one correct card in the original Civilization board game.


text:
What is the best first development to purchase in Roll Through the Ages?
Played my first 4 player game of Roll Through the Ages official last night.  I've played the solo game quite a bit but I quickly discovered that the multiplayer game plays a bit differently!
What development should be purchased first and why?

First off, I'm assuming you're playing The Late Bronze Age version (which is far superior to the game as sold off-the shelf – It's very clear that The Late Bronze Age version of the game is what was originally presented to the publishers, and they felt the need to "simplify" it to reach a wider audience by removing several really nifty mechanics).
Given that, Irrigation is the simplest first pick, although Leadership can be almost as good, if you're a little lucky and use it well.  If you can leapfrog to Quarrying, that's a great start (it'll help you buy better advancements, and it combos very well with Engineering and Architecture later in the game).  If you're playing with three or four players, get Medicine ASAP.  It will  save you at least 3 points in penalties.
...and that's my 2 cents.

@invisiblejon -
The Late Bronze Age was developed months after the game as sold in the box. I added some additional developments for those gamers looking for something meatier. (The publisher didn't water anything down.)
...and I like Irrigation as a first purchase too!

Hey Matt, thanks for the input and welcome to the site!  You wrote a great game in Roll through the Ages.

Late Bronze Age was developed later?  I'm astonished!  It meshes so perfectly with the point structure of the game, and provides uses for each previously unused resource so smoothly that...  Well, wow.

In my games, I almost always purchase Irrigation first, because Drought can be really devastating to your score and Irrigation provides some defense against the fact that you can't reroll skulls in multiplayer.

Can't reroll skulls in multiplayer?  Ooops!  I see I have to reread the rules a bit closer.  Thanks!

@Pat - I highly recommend the iPhone app - it's the only version of the game I have every played! However, the documentation in the app is sort of on the thin side. So imagine my surprise discovering that rule after using my experience in single-player to explain the rules to my lovely bride - for a multiplayer game! :)

I picked up the app for my iPad due to a recommendation here, I think from you.  Thanks!  I bought the boardgame the next week.

I really sucked at the iPhone app for a while (compared to my friends) because I knew that you couldn't re-roll skulls. I didn't understand why the app didn't automatically freeze them for you. My surprise went the other way, and my scores improved significantly.

@Matt - Ha, so either way you go, switching from one version to the other will mess ya up :)

I start off with Quarrying if possible.  It can rack up a lot of money towards developments.  Even if you only get an extra "bump" per turn (as opposed to one extra "bump" moving on the Stone track, when you acquire up 7+ goods), it's still a good chunk of money.
When you or other players roll more Empire Dice, then get some protection against, those Disasters.


text:
Should I cut the Ora et Labora reference sheets in half?
I'm in the middle of my first game of Ora et Labora now. It comes with quick reference sheets with both Ireland and France references on it.
It seems, given my limited understanding of the game so far, that the reference sheets could be cut in half (so each piece contains only France or Ireland). Is this a good idea, or is there some reason to keep it all together?

They can be cut in two, there's no reason to keep them as one sheet.