text:
What is the Chinese-language equivalent of gobase (main resource for SGF files)?
I would find it hard to believe if someone tried to tell me that there was not such a website, and that people in China relied on gobase. Isn't there a Chinese-language resource for SGF files?

TOM qipu
http://weiqi.sports.tom.com/php/listqipu.html
Recent games, download SGF or view online with a java applet.
Flygo
http://www.flygo.net/jdqp.html
This one is a little gold mine if you know how to parse the page, old Chinese games, recent games...etc (downloadable SGF)
WeiqiOK
http://www.weiqiok.com/asp/English.asp
They have an english version. The kifu search is at the bottom of the page. (they also have tsumego, fuseki, joseki...etc.)
Here you can find a list of the players in their database.
Sina
http://duiyi.sina.com.cn/gibo/new_gibo.asp
On this page you can find recent professional games and games played on sina's weiqi server.
Eweiqi
http://www.eweiqi.com/qipu_more.asp
The Chinese portal for Tygem also has some Tygem + pro tournament kifu. (need to install an addon for IE to view)

just out of curiosity, do you know why sina chooses to call it "gibo" instead of "qipu" in the url above? is that the Cantonese pronounciation maybe?

in case someone else is reading this the subject of foreign-language sites for SGF records, i found this site useful... http://www.kihuu.net/ there were enough records of 久保松勝喜代 to make me happy, at least.

@magnetar: Gibo is Korean. The web developer is probably Korean or plays on wbaduk too often.


text:
Do I have to keep a creeper whenever I draw cards in Fluxx, even if I was drawing cards to give to other players for "Everybody Gets 1"?
Interesting scenario the other day. When playing the Action card "Everybody Gets 1" I drew a Creeper card. At this point though I had a conundrum. The Creeper card states I "must place it face up in front of you as soon as you get it." Well I wasn't "getting" this card, I was going to give it to another player under the rules of "Everybody Gets 1". Under this, the player I give it to should play the Creeper. However the Creeper also states "If you drew it, immediately draw another card to replace it." I did draw the card, so perhaps I should put the Creeper down and continue with the Action card. But it's that they put the word "if" in there that makes me hesitate since the wording makes it sound like only if I receive it, which brings me back to the previous point. So I'm wondering, when playing this Action card do I put down a Creeper if I draw it or does the person I'm giving it to do that?
If people are wondering, when playing the game we've pretty much just gone with whatever ruling feels more appropriate at the time. If someone's feeling generous they put the Creeper down and draw another. If we're feeling more evil, we'll give it to someone else ;) But each time it's come up we're still confused.

After reading the rules carefully, I found that this is mentioned in the Creeper section:

Note that this is true any time you draw a card; for example, with 'Everybody Gets 1' you must keep all Creepers you get while drawing the cards you'll be giving to other players.

If you drew Creepers during Everybody Gets 1, you would keep the Creepers you got, draw new cards to replace them, and give 1 non-creeper to each other player. After some searching I found it on the mailing list for Looney Labs. :)

Ah ha! I apparently missed this while trying to find the answer. Thank ya!

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
In Le Havre, is it a good idea to feed with money?
As a general rule, is it better to overpay food by 1, or to use a coin? This situation usually comes up when I have a stack of bread or steaks and some money.  I have the food to pay, but usually feel cheap and use a coin instead, which wastes VP.
I realize there are many specific decisions where the decision is obvious, but I feel like pretty often the decision is moot, and requires falling back on a general rule.
Does this decision change if paying a player?

It's entirely situational.  Sometimes you have more food than you need and are clearly better off spending the extra food.  Other times you don't have enough food and would end up spending more money for food at the end of the round anyways.  Often it is in between these two extremes, and then it can be a tricky decision.
When paying to another player, that player's situation may be relevant, but it's generally secondary to your position vis-a-vis food.
What you need to look at is how much food you have compared to how much you need at the end of this (and future) rounds.  If it will end up costing you more than one VP/money to get back the two food later (and you'll need), you should probably spend the money.  Otherwise not, but even this doesn't cover everything.
Concrete example:  You have 1 franc and 1 bread (and no other food), and want to use a building that costs one food.  Before your next action, the round will end and you'll need 2 food for support.  In this case, you can spend the money, and then the food at the end of the round, leaving you with no food or money for your next action.  Or you could spend the food, leaving you with not enough money for food at the end of the round, which will force you to take a loan.  So on your next action, you'll have 3 money, but also have an additional loan, a net cost of 2-4 VPs, BUT it may be worth it if you need cash to use a building on your next action and would otherwise have to sell a building to get that cash.  Of course, if another player has an action before the end of the round, they might screw up your careful plans by using one of your buildings and giving you a fish, so you no longer need a loan...

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


text:
What is the Trans America Express card for?
I just got the USA 1910 expansion for the US version of Ticket To Ride.  It comes with a few new cards including "Trans America Express".  What is the Trans America Express card for, and how does one earn it?  (The route on the picture looks really hard!)

The Trans America Express card replaces the Longest Path card in the original game.
Giving players a replacement larger set of cards gave the designers license to make a couple changes.  The name change you noted is one.  Also 4 Destination Tickets had their rewards lowered to be in line with the rest of the destinations.


text:
What is the best lead when calling next on a declined bower?
Let's say that we have a scenario where the dealer has declined a ♠J.
You are sitting to the dealer's left, with ♥A, ♣K, ♣9, ♢Q, ♢10.
The advice I read at this site says that calling clubs is a reasonable call as it is likely the dealer was strong in red.  My own experience and skill level agrees with this.
The article also notes that a poor lead would be ♥A, as any spare club could pick up the trick (again agreed).
What seems to be the best lead from this position?
My thought would be to lead ♢10 and give my partner a chance to jump, but is there a better general strategy?  Leading ♢Q improves the odds of picking up the first trick myself, but to my mind, only marginally.
My general line of thought is that since I am void in spades, I'm best to become void in diamonds to increase my chances of using my trump on off suit leads by my opponents.

I'm not a Eucre expert by any means, but in my opinion, not leading the ♡A is foolish advice.
If that's the only heart in your hand, then the odds are greater that your opponents will also have hearts. As you say, the dealer is likely strong in red. The best chance you have of winning the trick is on the opening lead. Why would you lead a suit which relies on your partner having an ace or being void in diamonds?
The worst case scenario: they will have to trump your ace, and since you only have two trump, neither top, and one bower is turned down, it is good to force your opponents to use their trump in that situation rather than, say, using their trump to overtrump yours.
Secondly, and more importantly, after you lead the Ace you will be void in hearts, and able to trump any further heart tricks. You're already void in Spades and can trump any of those tricks your partner can't take. You can slough off your diamonds on spades or hearts if your partner takes those tricks.

My general line of thought is that since I am void in spades, I'm best to become void in diamonds to increase my chances of using my trump on off suit leads by my opponents.

Why lead a suit that you have two cards in when you can void hearts immediately?

While the dealer is likely strong in red and probably has a heart to follow a lead of ♡A, it's completely unknown what their partner has.  The off ace becomes valuable once everyone is void in trump, here we know where 3 are, 4 to find.  If the partner trumps my diamond, it gives my partner a chance to trump the trick with the dealer likely having to follow diamond.

IOW, leading ♡A opens my parter to trumping the trick.  Leading either diamond does the same thing, but leaves me with an off ace in reserve.

I don't understand this logic. Why do you need to keep it in reserve? A trick's a trick. You don't have any other high cards to play, so you don't need the lead later. Your best odds of taking the trick with ♡A are by leading it. If you lead diamonds, you only give your opponents a chance to slough hearts on them to trump your ace later.

I believe the logic is ♡A is vulnerable to 4 trump cards.  Were these out of play then leading ♡A is a guaranteed trick.  Then the hope is that on a diamond lead you draw a trump from the dealer's partner and one from your own partner reducing the total available to play to 2.  In this case your partner should now have the lead.  You then give them an opportunity to lead one of their strong suits, perhaps gaining a trick.  If your partner leads an off suit ace and is trumped then there is 1 trump remaining outstanding.  If your partner leads trump then you are holding the only remaining trump.

Then you can play the trump followed by the Ace to make your point.  There's an awful lot of conditions in there, and you are always at the mercy of the cards, but I think that is how the logic works.  I'm certainly interested in any other points of view on this though.

I agree with this lead. Clubs are too risky; you have no winners and worst case is that opponent on your left has J-A, sucking up your 9 and one of partner's on the same trick, leading to another club trick and then a spade or diamond for euchre. Diamonds are risky as well, knowing that you're almost certainly not winning that yourself. If your ace is trumped, it's likely with a card you wouldn't have taken anyway.

@Stephen OK, I understand the sequence and logic, but don't agree with the risk/odds calculation. It's more likely your Ace will take a trick than your partner will take diamonds. Also, you mention that if your partner leads an off suit ace later and is trumped that's another trump out of play. Well, it's the same result if someone trumps your Ace, so… you may as well lead it.

Oh, my.
I finally digested the site you referenced.  It reminded me that creating a website doesn't require a degree or certification.
There is an awful lot of discussion on this particular thread which takes for granted this site offered sound advice.
It absolutely does not.  In fact, there are six pages' worth of advice which will quickly make you a mediocre player.
For the situation referenced, I can not think of a hand where I would call trump of the opposite bower.  I would not call anything whatsoever.
One quick aside about advice from that site which was touched on here: I have always played by the rule that, unless you have one card of a particular suit, you may not call that as trump.  Violating this is considered a form of cheating, which incurs terms agreed upon by house rules.

Dusting off this old topic, I will preface this by saying that I am an extremely aggressive player.  Specific decisions with how risky of calls to make can depend heavily on how well I know my opponents and my partner.  The more aggressively my opponents play and the more defensively my partner plays, the more emboldened I am to make risky plays.
I would personally in this situation call clubs and would lead with the 9 of clubs.
My reasoning is that it very unlikely that the dealer has the other Jack, and almost as unlikely that the person to your left has the other Jack.  Your partner is the most likely player to have the other Jack (though he might not have it either).
Further, it is less likely that the dealer has strong aces (else, he may have picked up the jack of spades with as little as one other spade and one ace kicker).  Turning down a jack of spades is a very difficult thing to do for a dealer.
Finally, in leading clubs rather than diamonds or hearts, you reduce the chance that your opponents can cross trump you making your or your partner's ace(s) bad.
Note that in making this play, you are all but guaranteeing that you will personally take at most two tricks (once with your ace, and again with your king) and are relying on your partner to pick up the slack, but more often than not your partner will be good for the first trick (either with an ace or with the jack) and can then lead one of their own aces.  Also, remember that given an even distribution of card value, you should expect everyone to be capable of taking 1 trick, so relying on your partner for a trick is not as much of a stretch as one might think.
Have I made this play in the past and been set?  Yes, absolutely.  Have I made this play in the past and my partner takes all five tricks with me taking none?  Yes as well.  In my personal experience, it feels like I get the point at least 70% of the time with this call and lead, making it an overall positive expected return.

Personally I would only call clubs there if you need the point.  If you are in the lead or close then you are taking a risk.  The JAQ10 are out there and could be in your opponents hand. That is a good club hand but if you have no other spades its tough to call op a bower when you have a loner hand in the off suit.
Second when you do call clubs you need some help.  Quite a bit of help actually.  You lead ace is really the only point you can count.  Being short spades is good and should lead to another but that is not for sure. If you lead diamonds you will lose the lead and you can not be certian that hearts will be lead back.  And by the time it does one of your opponents may have had a chance to throw off their lone heart meaning they can trump your ace.
If an opponent has JA of clubs and you lose the first trick to an ace you are certian of going set.  Your partner may be able to throw off a card that is doing him no good with your ace.  That may short suit him in diamonds letting you lead diamonds back and he gets a point you desperately need.

But if dealer has a loner in clubs, then you're better off calling it yourself and giving them two as opposed to the four they'd otherwise get. I agree about the ace of diamonds being a huge problem, though.

@Dave - That is never getting back to the dealer. No one calling up the spade and the dealer having most of the clubs. You could be causing your partner to lose his loner. You may be able to keep the loner to 1 but you cost 2 if you go set.  If you need the point (you are down and your opponent could go out) then its a good call.  Ill take my chances otherwise and give my partner a chance to make a good call.

Well, you don't have a hand to call it. If the opponent to your left has a reasonably strong hand in diamonds or hearts, they might pass and put your partner in the same situation: call something and probably get set or call nothing and probably give up 4. If I were dealing, then no, I wouldn't expect it to go around, but if your partner doesn't have strength, then it's purely a defensive call as in the OP's situation.

@Dave If the dealer had a loner in clubs, then they would have likely been fine with making spades.  They'd have to have at least ♣J ♣A and would have picked ♠J.  At WORST the dealer would only have to deal with 1 outstanding club (only if the other 3 were all in another opponent's hand).  This whole question is precipitated on the idea that if the dealer turns down spades, they are probably strong in red suits.

@Dave I agree that it is a defensive call.  And I prefer to be an offensive player.  I prefer to give my partner an opportunity to call a stronger hand.  Granted if i can obviously see the guy next to me chomping at the bit for my pass I would make the call too.

@stephen That is true of the dealer but not of his partner. As I said if the dealer has a loner in clubs someone else has a suit to call trump in.  And in this case it is not you.

@Chad A lot of the point of this question is a "what if", since it's always easy to make a point on strong cards but playing from a weak position requires a different touch.  I also prefer to play offence but can certainly see where a defensive tact might be more beneficial.

@Stephen, what I meant to convey is that I think it is worthwhile to call clubs in the first place (addressing Chad's first point). If there is opposing strength in clubs, there's a little risk in calling it yourself, but not as much as if opponents have (as the article suggests) strength in another suit and you do not call anything.

@Dave - But there is little to gain, unless you are desperate.  And if you call it, up not leading the ace should be a capitol offense.

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


text:
In contract bridge, what are bonus points for?
I am a beginner and could not find out the application or the use of those bonus points above the line in contract(rubber) bridge. If the winner in a contract bridge is the pair that first achieves 2 sets of 100 or more points below the line (thus winning a rubber), what is the use of those bonus points? In what situations are these bonus points being made use of?
Could someone please enlighten me. Thanks a lot in advance.

When one side has won two games, all points (both above and below the line) are totaled, and the side with more points wins, even if they didn't win the rubber. This is where the bonus points come into play: the points for undertricks, overtricks, slams, rubber, etc. all count toward the final score.
The American Contract Bridge League explains it the same way, which I think can be kind of confusing: they talk about "winning the rubber" and "winning" without making a clear distinction. It may help to think about it simply as playing for points. Getting the rubber bonus is very helpful, but total score is what you want.

Think Quidditch; grabbing the Snitch ends the game with a hunded-point bonus (IIRC), but you may still lose on accumulated goals.

You get points "below the line" that count toward winning games. You get points "above the line" for HOW you win those games. You also get bonus points "above the line" for other things, that count toward your total score (as described below). The total of ALL the points (game and bonuses) determine the result.
First, victory margin of 2-0 in games is most impressive, and scores a bonus of 700 points. A victory margin of 2-1 is less impressive, and scores only 500.
You also get bonuses for slams (bidding and making a contract for every trick or all but one) If you are "not vulnerable," (no games to your credit), the bonus for a grand slam (every trick) is 1000 points, and 500 for a small slam (all but one). "Vulnerable," (one game to your credit), these bonuses, are 1500 and 750.
You also get points for "setting" an opposing contract (your opponents make a bid that they can't fulfill). These penalties are increased if you announce "double" after the last bid. Of course, your opponents get points for setting YOUR contracts, and more if "doubled."
The purpose of bonuses is to try to capture the TOTALITY of what happened. Here's an example: Your opponents make two games, 3NT and 4 spades, for 100 and 120 "game" points respectively. They also win the rubber, two games to one, for 500 bonus points. That's a total of 720.
Your side made only one game. But it was a "grand slam" with a 1000 point bonus. Add this to your 210 "game" points, and your total score of 1210 beats their 720.
Another example: They score two games to none, for 920 (120+100+700).  So far you're losing. But you also scored 1000 points in penalties. That'because you doubled their contracts twice after they had "game on" and put them down two tricks (for 500 points) each time. Multiply by two to get the 1000 points, which beats their 920.
Usually, a team that wins a rubber two games to one or two games to none scores the most points. But I have given you two instances where this is not the case.  And the difference was "bonus" points.

I agree with the other answers, of course: but the most important part of "points above the line" is enabling a penalty points system for bidding games you can't hope to make.  If only the points below the line counted, you could pre-emptively bid 7NT on any hand in which your opponents had the balance of the points.  This would be tactically sound, but make for very boring games.  With points above the line though, such behaviour (after doubling) earns your opponents a massive bonus, probably enough to win the rubber on its own.  And that's how it should be.
Secondarily, I do think bonus points for making slam are really important.  To a beginner, a slam is a formidable proposition - usually you're happy bidding and making your 3NT, with a few overtricks, because visualising the slam is hard.  By making it supremely worthwhile in terms of point bonuses to find a slam if you have one, a real separation between the merely  okay players and the great players is created...


text:
What general strategy exists for countering a white swarm/pump deck?
A white swarm/pump deck is a deck with a lot of small, inexpensive white creatures that are subsequently improved by enchantments such as Honor of the Pure or other bonuses.
The goal of this deck is to kill off the opponent before they can develop their strategy.
What deck types are effective in countering this sort of deck?

aka, White weenie

@DForck42 Yes, I wasn't sure if white weenie also included the pumping characteristic.

It generally does.

"White weenie" is a rather broad term in some ways. See Death and Taxes.

Sudden Disappearance looks like a solid option going forward. Token hate plus enchant removal without killing your own line-up. Doesn't work so well if they have lots of ETB effects.

"Kill off the opponent before they can develop their strategy" is the standard gameplan of aggro decks. The question "How to prevent being overrun in the early game?" addressed some general aspects of dealing with aggro decks.
One way to deal with aggro is to play like a control deck: force your opponent onto your timetable by dedicating your early plays to negating his, while the natural momentum of playing land every turn moves the game closer towards your big endgame strategy. This article explores this idea in detail.
Among creature-based aggro decks, the "classic" white weenie deck is notable for several qualities:

Poor reach: What white distinctly lacks is the ability to get damage in despite a board stall. At best, you've got flyers, which still compare unfavorably to red's direct burn.
Good creatures: White's low-curve creatures, like Champion of the Parish and Blade Splicer, tend to have excellent stats and combat-enhancing abilities.
Strong answers: White has some of the easiest access to multifaceted removal, with cards like Path to Exile, Disenchant, and Oblivion Ring. In most formats, white also has at least some powerful hosers, like Grand Abolisher and Leonin Arbiter.

The lack of reach means that creature damage is pretty much this deck's only way to win (whereas against red decks you also have to worry about cards like Shrine of Burning Rage even after you've set up adequate creature defense). Therefore, your main goal is to deny your opponent the ability to attack profitably.
The typical tools used by control to combat creature-based aggro are:

Sweepers like Supreme Verdict are one of your most effective tools. These are really strong because you can set back several turns of your opponent's development with one spell, but often you need support from other cards to avoid getting hammered long enough to use them. In the early game, 2-for-1 spells like Arc Trail are like cheaper sweepers. Since this is traditionally creature aggro's biggest weakness, you can expect a well-built deck to have some way to reduce the impact — for example, like Doomed Traveler, Boros Charm, and Moorland Haunt.
Spot removal and counterspells are the classic answers to individual threats. 1-for-1 removal isn't great against big gangs of cheap guys, but, in this case, its value generally increases with the number of anthem effects your opponent plays (since their decks are running fewer net creatures). One advantage of counterspells over removal is that you get to stop nasty ETB abilities (e.g. Blade Splicer, Stoneforge Mystic) and you can handle spells that create multiple creatures (e.g. Midnight Haunting) more easily; generally players don't run a lot of counterspells against aggro decks because removal is more efficient and doesn't constraint your timing nearly as much, though.
Blockers are handy for reducing incoming damage. Ideally you'd like to be able to kill some of their creatures every time they attack, but sometimes just a few turns of chumping is sufficient (which is why Timely Reinforcements and Kitchen Finks are great cards).
Bounce and life gain essentially force your opponent to spend a turn making the same attack or summoning the same creature he used last turn. These aren't as effective as straight-up destruction but are often available more cheaply or in colors your deck can more easily use. Life gain is best when it's attached to something else, so that you're not just giving your opponent a free turn to develop a superior board position.

Which you should play generally depends on your deck, since you'll want to pick cards that are useful to you in many different situations. Sweepers work best when they don't constantly destroy your own guys, for instance, while even aggro decks make use of some spot removal to clear the way for their attackers or pick off particularly nasty utility creatures.
When playing against anthem effects like Honor of the Pure, generally it's more useful to kill creatures than to remove the anthem. The exception is when the pump-up is super-significant, either due to the size of the buff (e.g. Tempered Steel, True Conviction) or the volume of creatures receiving it (like Intangible Virtue in a deck that's routinely creating 3-4 tokens a turn; ideally you want to shut down the token maker, though). If your opponent is running Swords, those are usually worth directly removing as well.
...
There are times when this advice doesn't apply:

When your deck is faster than your opponent's. If that's the case, you can "race" instead of adopting a control posture. Do note that some white decks include several control-oriented cards like Timely Reinforcements and Day of Judgment in their sideboards, allowing them to play control against faster aggro opponents.
When you opponent isn't actually trying to swarm you with creatures. With access to a "deeper" card pool, like Legacy and Modern, a critical volume of powerful utility creatures allows mono-white to run in a rather untraditional aggro-control kind of style normally more common in blue decks (U/W, Bant, RUG). I'm assuming that's out of scope for this question, though.

@Stephen If you have a particular deck type you're playing against white weenie, I can narrow this answer down a bit (or at least spruce up the examples), if you'd like.

I'm playing white weenie ... I'm trying to strengthen it against the most common counters

@Stephen It occurs to me that I focused on slower decks because of the statement "kill your opponents before they develop their strategy" -- but, if you're the WW player, you're going to run into decks that develop very quickly as well (RDW or U/W Delver in the current Standard, for instance; or decks like Zoo in eternal formats). Should I add something to cover those?

Adding more content is gooder not badder :)  Info on how faster format decks might fare against WW is helpful.

I can think of four kinds of cards often employed to beat a white weenie deck, or in general any fast creature-based strategy. Roughly in (decreasing) order of effectiveness:

Board sweepers (like Day of Judgment or Rolling Temblor)
Blockers
Targeted burn spells
Life gain

Most decks already have one or more of these elements. When you're playing against a white weenie deck, these are the "impact cards" you should focus on.
The one thing that usually distinguishes white weenie decks from other fast creature decks is that white weenies tend to have abilities, like first strike or protection, that make them more effective in combat than similarly-costed creatures in other colors. So if you are playing a non-white fast creature deck against a white weenie deck, your blockers may not be as effective as they ordinarily would, and you should try to use other aspects of your deck to combat the white creatures.
Do note that it's more effective to get rid of the white deck's creatures than it is to get rid of the pump enchantments like Honor of the Pure. After all, if you eliminate the enchantments, the creatures will be smaller but they are still a threat. On the other hand, Honor of the Pure is useless by itself.

I would dispute life-gain against a white creature based aggro deck. Since all of their sources of damage are persistent (as opposed to, say, Burn decks), Life gain will slow them down at best. Unless you've got some sort of repeatable source of large amounts of life-gain.

Ratchet Bomb set at 2 can wipe their two drop creatures and Honor the Pure (2 CMC).
I've seen decks running 2-4 Gavony's so some number of land destruction isn't a bad idea.
Also someone brought up, on Mid Mo Magic, a Leyline of Singularity and Hunted Horror.
For modern I think that very same Leyline is a hose against their token strategy. Every spell that they use develops their board by two or more creatures per spell (talk about card advantage). However Leyline of Singularity just owns that strategy. I know I have moved from the question of dealing with a White Weenie plan of attack to a Token/Pump but it is the latter I am more concerned with in Modern.
After all it has had a strong showing on MODO and Magic-League. For more on the Modern aggro stop, regardless of color, I recommend Chalice of the Void. Vs Affinity (assuming you are on the play) drop for zero. Against Boros, RDW, ElfBall, and a few others it is just devastating while set at one. I've ran Chalice to some success and it has a permanent place in my Modern sideboard. I lack two copies of the Leyline but I am on the hunt for that one.

Welcome to boardgames.stackexchange Brent!

Do you mean Chalice of the Void will counter Hive Mind copies of spells?  No it won't.  From the rulings on Hive Mind: "The copies that Hive Mind's ability creates are created on the stack, so they're not "cast." Abilities that trigger when a player casts a spell (like Hive Mind's ability itself) won't trigger."

Chalice of the Void and Leyline both seem to have some real potential to help.  The Hunted Horror comment seems more like a neat thing to do with Leyline than helpful in this situation.  You did focus on token quite a bit, but white weenie extends to token pretty naturally I think.  Welcome to the site!

@Stephen Chalice set to 0 stops Pacts, which are Hive Mind's standard win condition.

@AlexP I see, not a combination I've seen before, nor heard of in connection with white weenie decks.  I presume that Hive Mind is generally used with Pact of Negation against opponents that don't have blue mana available.

it counters the Hivemind player's pact, but Hivemind still triggers and forces you to put a copy of the pact on the stack, so it doesn't really help you.

@Affe Touche! So, okay, no, Chalice actually just makes Hive-Mind Pacts screw you even harder (since the original player doesn't have to pay). Nevermind, then.

Cheap board wipers, cards that grant card advantage (ie taking out 2 or more of their cards while only spending one of yours).  A well placed shock can kill a creature and 1-2 enchantments (depending on what they are).  Walls also help (low attack, high defense creatures).
Creatures that can trade up also help.  For instance, a Typhoid rat can kill anything without regenerate or indestructable.  Ambush viper is another one that's good for luring in prime targets.
Also, cards that punish opponents for attacking help.  Circle of Flame can kill off a white weenie horde.
Basically, anything that you can drop on the field or use to trade up card advantage will help you survive against a white weenie long enough to gather your resources together.

Competitively, you don't play with walls for defense, that's a big no-no in ANY format. Circle of Flame is also too defensive, only stopping toughness 1 creatures, which will typically not be much of a problem anyway after very few turns. Better run a mass removal instead.

@Hackworth Some 2009 tournament decks used Wall of Denial or had Wall of Reverence on the sideboard. 4x Wall of Roots has been a feature of several tournament decks in the past. If the wall is efficient and/or has some acceleration benefit, it can be tournament worthy.

While Circle of Flame isn't a bad answer, there are a more than a few inexpensive 2/2 white humans.  It also doesn't answer the pump up.  How does shock take out 1-2 enchantments?  Are you supposing that the pump ups are in the form of enchant creatures?

White weenie tends to be rather strong against deathtouch blockers, due to the large quantities of first strike in white (plus creatures with nifty death effects like Doomed Traveler).

My white weenie deck's weakness is mass board wipes. Before Elspeth, Sun's Champion's final ability, Earthquake will work. Furnace of Rath with Pyroclasm works too.
But if my opponent can't kill my creatures, I can use Spear of Heliod, Veteran Armorsmith and Veteran Swordsmith, and other cards to get 1/1 tokens to 7/7 first strike, vigilance, flying.
Other things that kill that deck are Armageddon, Wrath of God, and Virulent Plague which is a black enchantment that all creature tokens get -2/-2. But watch out for the mass life gain and the creature that gives 40 or more life I win the game (this one: Felidar Sovereign) :)


text:
What is the resolution of tapping a blocking creature?
Let's say I have declared a blocker during the correct phase and during the activate abilities step I choose to tap the blocker to use its ability.
All the abilities resolve and now we move to the declare damage step.
I believe the resolution is that the attacking creature remains blocked and that it deals damage to my blocker; however, the blocker does not deal damage to the attacker.
How would this change if the blocker had first strike? How would this change if the blocker was sacrificed?

The resolution is the attacking creature remains blocked and the damage resolves the same regardless if the blocking creature is tapped or not. They both do full damage as they normally would, and trigger any effects they normally would.
If the Blocking creature was removed from play somehow before combat damage was dealt (say it was sacrificed like you asked) then the attacking creature is still blocked and would deal damage to nothing, unless it has trample.

509.1g Each chosen creature still controlled by the defending player becomes a blocking creature. Each one is blocking the attacking creatures chosen for it. It remains a blocking creature until it’s removed from combat or the combat phase ends, whichever comes first. See rule 506.4.
509.1h An attacking creature with one or more creatures declared as blockers for it becomes a blocked creature; one with no creatures declared as blockers for it becomes an unblocked creature. This remains unchanged until the creature is removed from combat, an effect says that it becomes blocked or unblocked, or the combat phase ends, whichever comes first. A creature remains blocked even if all the creatures blocking it are removed from combat.
509.2a During the declare blockers step, if a blocking creature is removed from combat or a spell or ability causes it to stop blocking an attacking creature, the blocking creature is removed from all relevant damage assignment orders. The relative order among the remaining blocking creatures is unchanged.
510.1d A blocking creature assigns combat damage to the creatures it’s blocking. If it isn’t currently blocking any creatures (if, for example, they were destroyed or removed from combat), it assigns no combat damage...

Thanks. I have been branching out in my Stack Exchange browsing, and it has been quite fun so far.

Note that before the big rule change introduced with the 6. Edition, blocking creatures dealt indeed no combat damage if there were tapped.

Just for clarity's sake, 510.1d says that if the blocking creature is sacrificed IT deals no damage to the attacker.

Note that you don't gain any life from your attacking creature's Lifelink if the blocker is gone at the time of combat.

@AndSoYouCode There was a recent tournament game where the red-deck player won by Incinerating his own Hero of Oxid Ridge to prevent his opponent from gaining life off blocking it with a Wurmcoil Engine. :)

Nice :). I guess that attack wasn't enough to kill him? Since you gain life after the damage is dealt. Another one of those tricky rules.

@AndSoYouCode It's a pretty obscure rule technicality but you don't actually die until after the lifelink would go off and gain you life. I can't explain it in a comment but feel free to ask a question if you want.

@AndSoYouCode I think the short version is that lifelink is now a modifier to the damage (like deathtouch and infect) rather than a triggered ability. So your lifelink-based lifegain is applied simultaneously with combat damage.

Oh my mistake. Thank you for correcting me. Apparently they changed it when M10 got released.


text:
In the English version of Citadels, what is the action text on the card named Armory/Weaponry?
I happen to have a Bulgarian version that does not specify if the player can destroy 1 enemy building, while sacrificing it, or the whole city. It's hard to explain, but I think it was translated by someone unfamiliar with the exact Bulgarian meaning.
What does the English version of the card say?

From this thread on BoardGameGeek, someone posts:

The card says:
  During your turn, you may destroy the Armory in order to destroy any other district card of your choice in another player's city.

The Wikipedia page for Citadels refers back to that thread.
Later in the thread, the game designer (Bruno Faidutti) mentions that the ability to destroy one district can be used when a player builds an eighth district (which would end the game at the end of that round), even though normally you can't destroy a district in a city that's already completed.

BF: I admit the rules are ambiguous on this, but my idea was that it is allowed.
  Q: Would the game still end, as the card says the game ends after the turn, even though the condition is no longer met?
  BF: Yes, it would.


text:
Questions about pigs
We recently purchased some Carcassonne expansions, and I have some questions about the pigs.
First, pigs can be placed on your field to increase the multiplier. But what if fields are merged? Do pigs count as farmers, or are they just multipliers? Example:

Red has a field with one farmer and a pig.
Blue has a field with just one farmer.
The fields are combined. Does red win, or do both red and blue share the spoils where red has the x4 and blue the x3 multiplier?

Second, the expansion with the dragons introduces portals. Is it possible to place a pig through a portal, or is it meeple only?

Might be helpful to break the dragon question out into its own question.

Traders and builders rulebook:

The pig counts only if he owns the field. For ownership of the field, only the farmers are counted.

The PDF from Rio Grande Games for the princess and dragon does say that the magic portal can be used by a follower and the PDF from Rio Grande Games for Traders & Builders does call the pig a follower in the rules.
However checking with the Complete Annotated Rules that cites a lot of sources:

The original rules say: ’12 new
  followers in 6 colours (one builder
  and one pig for each player)’. In the
  Big Box rules, the builder and pig are
  no longer considered to be followers,
  which has a large number of
  consequences for their use. The RGG
  edition of the Big Box also changes
  this rule.

I've always played the portal as Meeple (big and small), Mayor and Wagon are free to be deployed but nothing else which is in line with the above statement.

Both get points.
Your pig gives you +1 for each city you gain points for (limited to the cities bordering the field the pig is in, of course). It doesn't give you an advantage for "winning" the points from a city. So in your example : yes, both players get the points : 4 for Red, thanks to the piggy, and 3 for Blue. (I don't get why you're mentioning "multipliers" though.)
I can't answer for the dragons, I don't own that expansion.

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


text:
How is gameplay improved in the Cities & Knights Expansion?
I've played both regular Settlers of Catan and the Seafarers of Catan Expansion, but I haven't yet played Cities & Knights and I’m curious about how it plays.  I've noticed a lot of people speak very favorably of Cities & Knights, some even claim it’s the only way to play Catan.  I've read about how the game works, but I'm skeptical about the changes made in the expansion.  How does the expansion improve gameplay in Catan?

It is fun, just don't try and take a new player directly to Cities and Knights.  It takes a very long time to explain it all.

I often describe Cities and Knights as "the version of Catan where every limitation has a way around it." You can only hold seven cards… unless you build these walls. You only get cards when your numbers roll… unless you have an aqueduct. Etc.
Cities and Knights takes Catan and adds a layer of interesting shortcuts, passthroughs, special cases and escape hatches on top. There's slightly more to learn, but it's still a simple game. But the increase in complexity is outweighed by the vast increase in interesting mechanics between players and events in the gameworld.


text:
How to help kids to hold their cards in their hands ?
I'm trying to show some card games to my kids (4 and 6), but they have difficulty holding the cards in their hands. Maybe it's because their hands are too small, or not strong enough...
Does anyone have a trick to help them?

Have you considered smaller size playing cards?

Patience is the only thing I can think of, with my kids (aged 6) I started by fanning them out and place them in their hands finished, lately they collect them and take a grip and I only fan them out for them.
As an alternative just buy a couple of Playing Card Holders and worry about it later on :)

These should be available a little everywhere but the image is taken from: Peta (first image of them I found on google image search)

When I was a kid, I would put my cards on a chair beside me. That way my parents couldn't see them, but I didn't have to hold them.

As an alternative to Don's pretty comprehensive solution: Have you considered playing some games with the hands 'open' (the cards showing, usually inevitably spread on the table)?
Although this removes a large chunk of the strategy in most games (which may well be beyond them initially), it will give them a chance to look at their opponent's hands and anticipate their next move. Thus allowing them an easier introduction to closed-hand game strategies.

I have the answer! You will need to purchase some Pringles, or something else that comes in plastic-lidded cylindrical cans like that.

Take two lids and punch a hole in the center of them
Put the lids top-to-top and use a brass brad through the hole to hold them together

Now you can put the kids' cards in them - face down and you're not even peeking!
Oh. I see that this answer has a picture of what I'm describing a DIY version of....

To help my 6-year-old daughter play Uno with the family, my 10-year-old son just grabbed a chip clip that you would use to hold a bag of potato chips and flipped it upside down. He showed my daughter how to fan her cards and place them in the clip. With a little practice, she is using it to play Uno with the rest of the family. Prior to this, we had a family friend who helped her set up a cereal box in front of her cards with her cards laying face up on the table. This was doable, but she still felt like a "baby," and she felt disconnected with the cereal box in front of her face. She loves the chip clip solution!!!


text:
Why does the efficiency of creatures in MTG favor low and high cost creatures, leaving those in the middle much weaker?
Here's a stereotypical description of creatures of a certain mana cost where each creature's primary utility is in its power/toughness level and not in its effect. The mana cost is the number furthest to the left:

1/1, some minor benefit
2/2, some minor benefit
2/3 or 3/2, maybe 3/3
3/3, maybe 4/3 or 3/4 with some minor disadvantage
4/4
5/4 or 4/5
5/7,
8/8 with an amazing ability
10/9 with a ridiculously awesome ability

Does anyone else see how the 1-3 and the 7-9 cost creatures tend to be amazing in terms of their mana cost? The (power+toughness) to CMC is definitely greater almost all the time.
Is it intentional that the middle-cost creatures are much less efficient, and this is why there tend to be weenie decks based on weak creatures and control decks based on strong creatures, but very few decks based on middle-cost creatures? What is the overall purpose of the 4-6 cost creatures being comparatively much weaker? How should my decks and strategy take advantage of this?
NOTE: There are links for each of those CMC's for what I thought was a stereotypical creature. All creatures chosen are colorless and either common or uncommon. I understand my list may be biased, and feel free to prove that this efficiency curve doesn't exist, because that is pretty central to the above questions. :D

Eldrazi and colorless artifact creatures serve different roles
I address this first because I think it's the source of some selection bias.
Many sets include fairly weak (colorless) artifact creatures for Limited purposes, as last resorts. The idea is that these are less valuable than similarly-costed beaters in your colors, but serve as a fall-back for a player who doesn't have any better options. For instance, Serra Angel is a 4/4 uncommon for 5 in the same set as Stone Golem — but she's got flying and vigilance.
Rise of the Eldrazi, in contrast, used big colorless beaters as a reward for playing the defensive/rampy "battlecruiser" decks the set was supposed to support. In order to allow you to do that more often than once every couple dozen drafts (when you manage to get one of the Eldrazi mythics), there were big Eldrazi at common and uncommon rarities as well. These weren't auto-win creatures but the designers tried to make them at least a little bit appealing. Note how the set's removal is rigged in the giant Eldrazi creature's favor to make playing them worthwhile: Vendetta, Smother, Oust, All Is Dust, Consume the Meek.
Compare Artisan of Kozilek to uncommon cards like Carnage Wurm, Serra Angel, and Skaab Goliath. It's certainly better, but it also costs more. And how much more specifically is deceptive...
Opportunity cost doesn't scale linearly with mana cost
Assume you're playing a 24-land, 60-card deck. You keep a starting hand with 2 lands. You can count on being able to pay for a 1-drop on turn 1, and a 2-drop on turn 2. You have a decent chance of playing a 3-drop on turn 3: around 65% if you're on the play and around 80% if you're on the draw.
Now, how likely are you to be able to play a 6-drop on turn 6? Well, if you started with 2 lands in hand, that's 4 you need to draw by turn 6. I forget the exact math but you're looking at something like 30% to make it.
As a rule of thumb, in a deck with 40% lands, once you've exhausted your initial lands in hand, you'll only get a new land to play every two-and-a-half draws. That's why decks that want to play 4-drops and 6-drops in a timely manner run ramp cards, lots of lands, and draw-fixing card (e.g. Ponder).
Pretend you and an opponent both have 5 lands by turn 7. She plays Serra Angel. You have Artisan of Kozilek in hand. You "only" need 4 more mana to cast it. In an Eldrazi-focused deck with 60% mana sources, that's still an average of six draws, not four. So it had better be good enough to be worth several turns of waiting for topdecks while Serra Angel bashes your face from the air and holds your weenies at bay with her vigilance.
Limited needs "below-curve" mid-sized commons
Finally, though, there are quite a few below-curve mid-range commons like Siege Mastodon and Amphin Cutthroat. The reasons these exist all revolve around Limited:

They have to establish a baseline that makes uncommons worthwhile (once more, consider Serra Angel).
It's easier to make a playable "below curve" 5-drop (for instance, a 4/3 vanilla Zombie Giant) than it is to make a playable "below curve" 1-drop.
In a removal-light environment, even a slight power/toughness advantage can turn a creature into a powerful blocker or an offensive two-for-one. Bonebreaker Giant might suck in terms of value-for-mana, but he can still trade with two Elite Vanguards.

All of the above would apply to really really big common creatures, too. Most sets just don't have any at common, though (M12, for example: 5/6 Vastwood Gorger in common; de-facto 9/9 Carnarge Wurm at uncommon).

Why are set design decision at low rarities so focused on designing for Limited? In addition to being a popular format, Limited also most closely matches the experience of new or "very casual" players — folks playing Magic with only intro decks or a couple boosters' worth of cards (i.e. a limited card pool, in its own way). Cards for competitive Constructed and "dedicated casual" players generally occupy higher rarities (though you'll see competitive staples and budget options at common and uncommon as well), since the company assumes they'll buy lots of boosters, trade for cards they want, and purchase sought-after singles on the secondary market.

Great answer! I will admit some bias with regards the first part because I was trying to find cards that would prove my point; When I looked at non-Eldrazi creatures for the same CMC they seem a lot more balanced, whereas earlier my eyes quickly jumped to the Eldrazi because they strengthened my argument. :D

The math is Hypergeometric Distribution: http://stattrek.com/online-calculator/hypergeometric.aspx
Population = Deck size, # of Success = lands in the deck, Sample Size = 7 + turn - (1 on the play, 0 on the draw), # of Successes in sample = lands desired by that turn.
Doesn't account for draw, land search, or mill effects.

As the meta has stood for many decks over the last few years the 6 CMC 'Titans' or other 5-6 cost creatures that have a instant effect on the board-state have been the finishers for many decks.
The 6 cost is achievable in Standard decks and the design of these creatures makes then a instant threat that even if they only survive a turn they still impact the board in a significant way.
As for the 3-4 cost bracket, the usefulness of these creatures seems to have changed with the release of the INS block. In the ZEN block there were only a few creatures at 3-4 CMC that saw play, with most decks in my meta being polar aggro or control.  I'm seeing many more mid-range decks in INS with really great creatures in the 3-4 cost bracket.


text:
In Carcassonne, how does the Bazaar play and count in different situations?
In Carcassonne, does the Bazaar in the farm play and count like a cloister in the farm? What about on the road and in a city?  We understand how to initiate the auctions but are not sure how to treat the Bazaar itself and for scoring purposes.  We assume it completes or ends a road.

Yes, welcome! I've edited the title to cover all the cases you asked about, and I've made small edits to the question. If you feel this changes what you were trying to say, feel free to roll back my changes, or to make other edits yourself!

Yes,
Per the Carcassonne Annotated Rules, the Bazaar ends a road, although it is not directly stated.

It seems clear that a bazaar ends a road in the same way as a crossing or bushes

The Bazaar itself is not a feature that a meeple can be put on.  It does not count as a cloister.  It doesn't change farm or city scoring.

What about the first question?  Does the bazaar play like a cloister in that a follower (meeple) can be placed on the bazaar?

@jon - did I answer your question?  I'm not certain I understand what you were looking for there.

OK, I appologize and now I see the answer above.  This is the first time using this site and I missed that answer, thanks!

@Jon - no worries, I did edit the answer to add the last paragraph.

We just received the tower and the count should be here today...we may be crazy, but we want to play the game with most or all the expansions...it took us 3 hours with the expansions I have todate.

@Jon - yeah, it's fun for a while, but for me, the base game is the most strategic and still encompasses a large majority of the fun while compressing the time required to play so we can get multiple games in

What we have been doing is limiting the time and ending the game before all the times have been played...it provides another level of randomness and unpredictability.  We still haven't been able to find a few of the expansions i.e. the plague, cathars, cult, etc.


text:
Chess variant that allows humans to be competitive vs computers
It seems that computers can beat the majority of chess players out there, and at the current rate in which distributed computing is going, it seems like the #1 chess player out there will be computers these days.
However, this is different with Go, as the best AI available out there cannot beat a decent player.
Are there any chess variants, which while still maintaining some sort of similarity with chess, cannot be effectively played by a computer, while still playable by humans at a level better than AIs?
I was thinking a bigger board with more pieces would help, but rules changes might be needed as well to change the gameplay a bit. But I suppose the further you drift from the original chess game, the less interest people might have on it.

A bigger board would be worst. The AI works simply: it takes every possible move in the next 20-30 turns and chooses the best one for itself. Having more pieces doesn't bother the AI because more possible moves isn't a problem for it, but it is for humans!

Oltarus: A good computer can see about 12 moves ahead with good pattern-matching (aka pruning).  Increasing the number of moves hurts the computer drastically more than it hurts humans, because you have to become more reliant on pattern-matching, something computers are notoriously bad at (and humans good at).

Yes.  In fact, Arimaa was designed explicitly for this purpose.
http://arimaa.com/
It was designed by an AI expert who wanted a game where humans could beat the best computers.  There is a contest every year called the Arimaa Challenge where AI's compete to try to beat the best humans.  So far, none have.

Arimaa looked pretty damn cool when I discovered it for the first time earlier this year.  The only problem is, not only is it too hard for a computer to master, it's pretty difficult for me to work out what approach to take in order to play it well!  That's quite a bit preferable to just losing to my laptop at normal chess every single time though.

Arimaa is not a chess variant, but a totally different game. It can be played with the same equipment as chess, but so can draughts (checkers), tic-tac-toe, or 9x9 Go. It's no more similar to chess than any of those games.

@RoundTower, I disagree.  The other games you mentioned can be played with chess materials, but not naturally as the distinguished pieces lose their meaning.  However, if a more authoratative souce would help, it can be found on "chessvariants.org" http://www.chessvariants.org/index/external.php?itemid=arimaa

The chessboard does not "naturally" lend itself to Arimaa as you claim: it does not mark the trap squares like an ideal Arimaa board does. And the site you give only supports my claim: it also has an entry for checkers.

@Roundtower, of course you're right, something being listed on chessvariants.org absolutely supports your claim that it is NOT a chess variant. :)

To be fair, @RoundTower was only saying that, if you call Arimaa a chess variant then you have to call checkers a chess variant too.

Perhaps you want to update your answer to say that on 2015-04-18 the Sharp programme beat the humans: http://arimaa.com/arimaa/challenge/2015/

A variant much more similar to chess than Arimaa is Twilight Chess. Like Arimaa, the design goal is explicitly to be harder for computer to master. The creator is an Associate Professor is Computer Science and a very good chess player.
The rules are

All classical laws of chess apply.
Moving to the Twilight zone (Warp move) is a legal moves for all
  piece but for the King.
Moving a piece from the Twilight zone to any free square of the
  chessboard (Drop move) is a legal chess move but for a pawn into the
  last rank (8th for white player, 1st for black player).
Warp and Drop moves are considered as standard moves with
  relation to classical laws of chess.

Interesting, that is very simple to understand for existing chess players too. Is my understanding correct that multiple pieces can exist in the twilight zone at once, but having too many pieces there can prove a disadvantage?

Yes and probably.

Also worth checking out Fischer Random Chess. This works well against any chess player (human or computer) that is working off "book." It increases the potential entropy of the game significantly.

I am uncertain of the effect on an AI specifically, but the following introduces some randomness into the game, and I really enjoy playing it. Quantum Chess.

Chess Evolved Online (CEO) is so insanely complex that an AI could NEVER keep up with a skilled human player. There are 100+ different pieces and a ton of effects like magic, summoning, reflecting, swapping, auto-attack triggers, revivals, etc. and to top it off you create your own army before playing. This means the traditional method of creating chess AI fails on turn 1 - there is always 0 data on a game between your army and the enemy army because there are more possible armies than people. The only way an AI could master it is if it had access to insane amounts of processing power and brute force calculated every possibility for 50+ moves, which is exceedingly more complicated than doing the same for normal chess, and you would probably be better off using that CPU to simulate a new universe or something.
Game: https://www.facebook.com/ChessEvolved


text:
Where can I play Phase 10 online?
Is there an online site to play the card game Phase 10 on?
A clone is fine, but I'd really like to avoid a download.

There is a clone of Phase 10 called Wizard Cards you could download and install.  Magmic games has released versions of Phase 10 for Blackberry and iPhone also.  There doesn't seem to be a version you can play in your browser online at this time.

Not an exact match and you may have considered it already, but Uno is a broadly similar game (and a fellow member of the 'shedding' family of card games) - it has a huge number of theme packs and online versions.

https://apps.facebook.com/phasetenapp/?fb_source=bookmark_favorites&ref=bookmarks&count=0&fb_bmpos=13_0 has an app of phase 10. It's pretty fun only con is you cant play it as many times as you want, you have to wait for your energy to refill.

The link to the Facebook game is not working anymore.

phase 10 on facebook.Great game but you can't play very often you have to wait for energy to refill. You can view video for energy but you only get one. They are very stingy with their energy this is very disappointing

There is a Phase 10 game on facebook but you have to wait for your energy to fill up.

Can you provide a link to the page so other people can find it easier.


text:
The Ancient One awakens fast!
At the end of each player's turn, you draw a Mythos card. The Mythos card (among other things) opens a gate to an Other World. This increases the Doom counter on the Ancient One.
For two players, each round the doom counter will go up by two (assuming the players don't close any gates). If the doom counter goes up to ten, this means the Ancient One awakens. So if the players are slow to close and seal gates, the Ancient One will awaken in 5 rounds. Is this correct?

Unlike the other phases, only the first player acts in the Mythos Phase (check the first sentence about the Mythos phase in the rulebook page 9)
In your example you'd have 10 turns each before the GOO (Great Old One) awakens.  Some caveats:

10 is just a sample number, various GOO's have between 7 and 14 tokens allowed.
Not all Mythos cards open a gate (Rumors for example).
There may already be a gate there (no Doom token is placed).
Gates can open via other circumstances (these also generate a Doom token).

You can never be quite sure how many turns you have left.   That's one of the great things about Arkham Horror.
The terror track is completely different.  The main way that it advances is due to having too many monsters in the outskirts.  It is pretty rare to fill the terror track, but you will see a building or two close fairly often.
For two players, you are allowed 6 monsters in the outskirts; if there are any more, then dump them and increment the terror track.  (Note that 8 less the number of players is always the maximum number of monsters allowed in the outskirts.)

No, it is not possible that the ancient one will arrive by turn 5, since only the First Player performs this step. Additionally, not all Mythos cards will cause the doom track to advance. An explanation of different results from revealing a Mythos card are on arkhamhorrorwiki.com. If the location already has an open gate, a monster surge occurs, and the doom track isn't advanced.

The first player begins by looking at the lower-left corner of the mythos card he has drawn to see where the dimensional forces are assaulting Arkham this turn. One of three things happens, depending on whether there is an open gate, an elder sign marker, or neither at that location.
If Location Has No Elder Sign or Gate - If there is neither an open gate nor an elder sign marker at the location, a new gate opens and a monster emerges from it. This means that the following things happen, in order:
The Doom Track Advances - The first player places a doom token with the eye symbol face up in the first available space on the Ancient One’s doom track. ...
If Location Has an Open Gate - If there is already an open gate at the location, a monster emerges from every open gate currently on the board. This is called a monster surge. A monster surge does not add a doom token to the Ancient One's doom track.


text:
Are There Any Real-Life Applications of Chess?
Chess seems to develop a specialized skill set that in my experience is mostly irrelevant to everyday life. However, I would like to know of any real-life applications that I have overlooked. I am a novice chess player.
[edit]For Example: My brother's University Statistics teacher was a veteran Blackjack player and used the game to teach statistics (and keep the class interesting).  More abstractly: There is an ancient game called Go, which still poses real problems for artificial intelligence; unlike chess for which Deep Blue has already been programmed to win (I think that might technically be an application).

If you play chess a lot, you'll probably develop some or all of these:

Critical thinking (Are some moves better than others?)
Analytical skills (What's my opponent likely to do?)
Spatial awareness (Where can a given piece move?)
Patience (Good strategies take time to develop)
Courtesy (Be a good loser and winner, no table flips, etc.)

I think one would be hard-pressed to argue that any of those aren't useful for everyday life.

those seem more like benefits than applications of playing chess

Not that these are not true, but most of these skills are either present in pretty much every game, or anyway plainly inferior to what you would get playing Go instead. This does not invalidate the answer, of course, but I think it was worth noting anyway.

Chess develops the following US national standards in education:

Mathematical Practice
  1   Make sense of problems and persevere in solving them.
  2   Reason abstractly and quantitatively.
  5   Use appropriate tools strategically.
  7   Look for and make use of structure.
  8   Look for and express regularity in repeated reasoning.

These standards are not fully met by it, but chess players generally have the ability to do the above to some degree, as all the above are essential to playing chess. They apply to just about any tactical game.
Alaska State Educational Standards addressed by Chess:

Healthy Life Skills
  B1 demonstrate an ability to make responsible decisions by discriminating among
  risks and by identifying consequences;
EmployabilityB1 identify and appreciate personal interests, aptitudes, abilities, and priorities;

Anchorage School District Behavioral Standards addressed  by chess:

Turn taking (Gr Pre-K and up)Use of multiple approaches to address a problem (Gr 3 & up)Ability to plan ahead and see consequences of actions (Gr 4 & up)Develop good sportsmanship (Gr K & up)

Again, almost any board game more complex than Candyland works all of these.

Decision trees and basic understand of prediction and pruning are direct applications of Chess. The ability to distinguish useful choices and options from wasted time is incredibly useful. This principle can be abstracted and applied to many forms of decision making; optimization; estimation; prediction.
Other applications:

Moving value systems. When your opponent considers a space important you may not be able to understand why but the fact that your opponent cares is enough to start caring about the same position. This is applicable to economics; business.
Sacrifice and gambits. Using temporary setbacks for larger gains is a fundamental strategy that can be applied to most contests — especially those involving race conditions or territory control.
Motion and movement. Each piece has its own rule system and the player must guide these movement rules to form a cohesive army. Learning to make a composition of these pieces and their potential movements is applicable to many tactical games or environments involving varied mechanics or rule systems. It also helps teach using complicated interactions to create solutions to problems that the individual pieces or rules themselves could not solve.
Mirrored responses. The identical white vs. black setup has been studied to such a degree it is an excellant example of how seemingly identical situations have drastically different results.

The list goes on and on. In addition to these, the basic problem solving skills and memorization required to compete at Chess are transferable to any similar medium.

In addition to the benefits listed by @Kristo, more direct applications of chess skill would be teaching chess and writing articles or books about chess.  A lot of master and grandmaster players make their living this way.

Deep Blue did not "solve" chess - it and the generations of computer chess programs since have demonstrated they computer programs have gotten to grandmaster level (or just beyond) in playing chess - BUT - they have not "solved" chess.
Solving chess would imply knowing who will win from the initial starting position (i.e. showing a forced win for either white or black from the opening).
And more recently it has been shown that an average chess player in partnership with a modern chess program can beat grandmasters by themselves or the best of modern computer programs (i.e. human+machine is better than human or machine alone).
Chess is a game that changes as you get better and more studied in playing the game. One of the most important books I've ever read was Emanuel Lasker's Manual of Chess (published now quite a long time ago yet still a classic and great book). Emanuel Lasker was one of the best chess players in the history of the game - was the world champion for many years - and he was also a philosopher. His manual of chess teaches chess in the opposite manner of most teachers (then and now) - he starts with the endgame and works up to the opening.
But more than his chess lessons (which are fantastic and still compelling today) he was also teaching a way of thinking - a way of looking at the future, as your own decisions and the impact of them on others (and of other's decisions on you). He deemphasized the memorization that is all to often how chess is taught in favor of teaching you to evaluate positions, make plans and understand situations. Learning to think for yourself, to modify your plans when the situation changes and learning how to evaluate honestly your position (and that of your opponents) is a skill which carries over into everything I do with my career.
Further I disagree that "any" modern game can teach the same lessons as chess.

Many modern games, unlike chess, involve randomness as an aspect of the game. Learning to deal with randomness (and to understand probabilities etc) are important lessons but are not part of chess.
Unlike most modern games Chess is not a win/lose game. Draws are core to chess (though frequently poorly understood by beginners). Learning to recognize a drawn position - and when to offer a draw (and when to accept one) is a lesson that few games other than Chess offer.
The literature and history of chess as well as the universality of chess are fairly unique. Few other games have as rich a history or as deep a library (poker today may be beginning to come close, Bridge has some and Go has others - but Go for example is not a global game to the same degree as Chess). I've played chess against opponents with whom I shared no common language, something hard to do with most other games.

Historically, chess was useful for teaching young military leaders that rushing straight at your opponent is (unless you have overwhelming force) not terribly wise, as you may fall into unforeseen traps.  Better to gain skill from practice (understanding likely patterns and how to act accordingly), plan carefully, see deeper than the opponent, play the opponent rather than merely the game.  The complexity of chess makes it useful to think in more generalizable strategic terms rather than the particular game-specific tactics of a simpler game.  An inability to see very far ahead resembles the "fog of war."
As war can be a useful metaphor for many other competitive activities, such as sports, business, or politics, one might find at least an introductory familiarity with chess to be a good teacher.

Here's a very practical application: to keep your mind and will intact when you are suffering great hardship and deprivation. From the BBC article Natan Sharansky - How chess kept one man sane:

A human rights activist campaigning for the rights of Jews to emigrate
  to Israel, Sharansky was sentenced in 1977 on a fabricated charge of
  spying for the Americans. He spent nine years in a Siberian prison.
  Half of that was spent in solitary confinement and for more than 400
  days he was locked in a punishment cell, given barely any food and
  clothes so thin that in the winter it amounted to a form of torture...
"But in prison it became clear why I needed this," he recalls. In his dark, empty, freezing punishment cell, with no-one to talk to, where he was forbidden to read or write, he played games in his head, obviously having to move for both sides, white and black: "Thousands of games - I won them all."

Chess originated from Chaturanga and almost all well-know military strategies used by ancient Indian civilizations had their roots from Chaturanga. Chess is all about planning.

what well known military strategies are you referring to?

@noname: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthashastra

I have once taken a class in combinatorics, and knowing chess helped me to not struggle through a couple of lectures. Not knowing poker at the time actually did hurt me. True chess skills could possibly impress one on a resume. If you know some chess, you get some cultural references. If you know both chess and poker, you can watch more movies with better understanding. Chess trains your mind, possibly helps to fight Alzheimer's. If you are at a retiring age and have much time on your hand, then chess is a great way (but not the only way) to keep your mind sharp. Familiarity with chessboard (overall square, black-white squares) is great for being able to refer to it when occasionally describing an algorithm or a math problem. Being really good at chess can be a money maker. You can impress your co-workers. If you are a new hire, but played chess at work and beat everyone, you might get some extra respect. Lastly, chess is cool and fun (when you win)!

You can go on to pick up programming and some knowledge of artificial intelligence, and write some amazing chess engine that beats the crap out of Rybka and Houdini. There are still plenty of computing challenges left to solve for chess, such as in the realm of tablebases.

I would say that “educating your mind” is a real-life application of chess. Also, chess books make excellent soporifics.


text:
Secret Mission Axis and Allies
My friend and I sat down one day and made up some "Secret Missions" for all of the countries in the board game Axis and Allies. For example, if Japan takes Western United States, they are immune from counter-attack for one turn. Also, if Russia takes Berlin within 3 turns, they receive an additional 15 IPC's from the bank.
There were 3 Secret Missions for each country, but I want to add more.
Do any of you have any more suggestions?
Please post them here as answers.
Here are the Secret Missions! Sorry it took so long!!!
Russia (U.S.S.R.)
-Take Berlin by Round 5 and gain 25 extra IPC's from the bank
-Take 3 German territories in ONE round and get 2 free tanks in any territory you control that has a factory (paying attention to the production limit)
-Take 3 Japanese territories and get 3 free infantry in ANY territory you own (not including the ones you took that turn)
Germany
-Take London by Round 2 and gain 1/2 of the air units you used in the attack (rounding down to the nearest whole number. Example: you send 5 planes, you get 2 extra)
-Control Algeria, Libya, Anglo-Egypt Sudan, Trans-Jordan, and Persia for ONE whole round and get 2 free tanks in Anglo-Egypt Sudan
-Take all of Africa by Round 3 and get a Battleship in the Mediterranean sea; take all of Africa by Round 4 and get a Cruiser in the Mediterranean
United Kingdom
-Destroy 3 Japanese boats and get 1 free Cruiser in a sea zone bordering one of your territories
-Destory all German boats (leaving none on the board) and get 3 free Fighters in the U.K.
-Take Western Europe by round 2 and all of the units left in W.E. gain a +1 to their defense for the first round of marriage
Japan
-Do the "Pearl Harbor" attack and lose no units and get 2 free Fighters in Japan
-Take China AND India by Round 3 and gain one free tank in any Japanese territory in Asia (excpet the ones just taken)
-Take the Western United States and become immune from counter-attack for one turn
United States
-Take both North African territories AND one European territory by Round 4 and get 2 free Artillery in any territory you own that is NOT in Europe (except ones you have just taken)
-Liberate an ally's capital and gain 10 IPC's from the bank
-Take one island every round for 3 consecutive rounds and gain one Transport and 2 Infantry in Hawaii (if you own it; if not, put it in the Western U.S.)

I think it would be better if you posted your list as part of your question.  That way answers can be judged for balance, theme and completeness.

Thank you Pat. I plan on adding the list here, I was just having trouble finding it. It will be posted within 24 hours

Giving bonuses to a player who completes a secret mission seems to be piling insult atop injury and guarantees the game to come to an even quicker conclusion. But the idea sure sounds fun. :-)

Do you actually take capitols so early :P?
Anyways, do you mean any particular A&A version?

The first round of marriage?

Pacific Dominance
For each turn that Japan controls all of the Pacific islands at the end of a full turn they are rewarded with a free transport or submarine to be placed at a factory of their choice at the start of their turn. (This would require Japanese control of Hawaii, Midway, Australia, and New Zealand.)
Germans in the Atlantic
Similar to the Sink the Convoys variant proposed by GWLlosa, if Germany has one or more non-transport naval vessels in the Atlantic Ocean at the end of a full turn, the UK must roll the die and surrender that many IPCs.

SINK THE CONVOYS
At the end of the German turn, after the first full turn, if there are no transports in the Atlantic Ocean, Germany receives 2d6 IPCs from Britain (representing the economic damage).

Germany holding all of Africa at the end of a German turn. Perhaps with the reward of twice the IPC draw from African territories at the end of that turn.
The axis getting the US below 32 IPCs at the end of a turn, which requires them to take Alaska, Hawaii, Brazil, or some other non-Chinese territory.
Some sort of one-time IPC bonus for one or both axis powers if they meet up (i.e. German and Japanese units in a single territory)
The ability to produce units in a captured factory on the first turn it was captured

I like the idea of awarding 5 IPCs to Germany and 5 to Japan the first time they "meet up." That was something they failed to do in the real war.

Interesting idea. Usually for those situations to occur something terribly wrong has happened to the opponent. ie. Japan being in Western USA
Granting even more bonus via IPCs would only widen that gap. So I would be extremely careful how you implement these "flavour" rules.
You might even consider the reverse and give a bonus to a player who took a bad beat. Not to reward poor strategy but to balance out the game if it is completely one sided.
ie. Britain gets 10 IPCs if there are no allied controlled territories in Africa.
Just a thought

Interesting idea. I would be concerned though that this would incentive someone to play to the weakness to get the bonus. For example, abandon Africa and play an Indian factory strategy knowing that the India strategy is a good one on its merits anyway, but now includes the added 10 IPC bonus for an African sacrifice they probably had to make anyway.

If Britain wants to give me Africa to make 10 IPCs I would gladly make that trade!

Capturing California would have been a HUGE moral victory for Japan, who should get the 10 IPCs for the round, whether or not America takes it back on its turn.

One mission, secret or otherwise, that might have changed the course of the war (other than the atomic bomb), would be a German-Japanese link up in India, Persia, or somewhere in the Middle East.
It's not as far-fetched as it might have seemed. Japan's Admiral Yamamoto wanted to launch an amphibious invasion of India, until he changed plans and headed to Midway. Hitler originally decided to go after Russian oilfields in the Caucasus, then sent half the southern army to Stalingrad instead, capturing neither objective.
The Allies gave each other Lend Lease, the Axis, never, because they were separated. Germany was short of fuels, and Japan was short of  metals. A link up would have allowed trading. The result would have been worthy of a huge game bonus.
Also, understand the destruction they would have left in their wake. Japan would have occupied India, Germany would have grabbed the Suez Canal (if the linkup was with Rommel) or penetrated the Caucasus, and grabbed Russia's oilfields, (if it had been Paulus). Russia and China would have been inside a vast Axis ring, with Britain and the U.S. outside. The Axis might have gotten at least a negotiated peace and one-third of the world.

I think A&A generally needs more sea conditions
Because sea warfare tends to end once a major fleet is destroyed. So how about this for Revised and 1942 only!:
Axis: The unexpected Royal Navy's match
If German total IPC worth of naval units is higher than that of the UK, Germany gets an extra 3IPCs per round.
(meant to be an initial boost to german production and an incentive to buy some fleet)
*Allies: La Resistance's desperation *
If no allied landings have taken place yet in europe, every round roll a dice ONCE at the end of Americans OR British  combat move phase. On a roll of 6, place an infantry unit in France, thus forcing a combat there or take the territory.
Meant to be a counter to the previous and to have the allies consider delayed or no landings, instead bombing or supporting russi


text:
Procession and pillage interaction
If I use Procession on Pillage, what happens? I'm guessing that I would gain 4 Spoils, but no action worth 6, since the Pillage was already trashed by the time Procession finished resolving?

This is the best I can find, which seems to be a definitive answer.  The text in the Dark Ages rulebook is enlightening (page 7):

In rare circumstances an effect may try to move a card that is not
  where that effect expects the card to be.  In those cases, the card
  does not move - the effect has "lost track" of the card.  Losing track
  of a card prevents it from being moved, but does not stop anything
  else from happening.  For example, if you Procession a Madman,
  Procession first puts Madman in play; then you resolve Madman, getting
  +2 Actions and drawing cards and returning Madman to the Madman pile; then Procession fails to put Madman into play again, because
  Procession expects to find Madman in play, but it is not there, it's
  int he Madman pile; then you resolve Madman again, only getting +2
  actions this time, since it says "if you do" before the card-drawing,
  and you did not actually return it to the pile this time; then Process
  fails to trash Madman since Procession again expects to find Madman in
  play and it is not there; and then you can an Action costing (1) if
  you can. [...] Things lose track of a card if something moves it, if
  it is the top card of a deck and gets covered up, or if it is the top
  card of a discard pile and gets covered up.

(emphasis mine).
This seems to say that the Pillage card goes into effect twice, even though it has been trashed at the end of the first time it goes into effect.  So yes, you get 4 Spoils (assuming there are enough Spoils left in the supply).
From the explanatory text for Procession (page 16):

[...] then gain an Action card costing exactly more than it (even if
  somehow you failed to trash it). Gaining a card is not optional once
  you choose to play an Action card but will fail to happen if no card in the Supply costs the exact amount needed.

Which is to say, the text on the card doesn't say if you trash it, gain a card, only that you both a) trash the chosen card (if possible), and b) gain an action card costing one more than the chosen card (if possible).  So yes, you do in fact gain an action card costing (6) in this case.

You are correct. The end result is that Pillage's attack happens, the Pillage ends up in the Trash, you gain 4 Spoils, and you gain a $6 Action card. It's just like Throne Room-ing a Feast; because gaining the $6 Action card from Procession is not dependent on Trashing the Pillage (there is no "if you do" clause), then you must still gain the $6 Action card even though the Pillage is already in the Trash when Procession tries to trash it.

Thanks to Caleb for the very detailed analysis and to philosophyguy for adding a little detail pointing out the "if you do" clause.


text:
Unhappy homes gloom expansion rules
The new rules for the "Gloom" expansion deck "Unhappy homes" states:

"A blue-themed mystery card is the only card that can be placed on a Residence and can be placed on any Residence as either of your two plays"

I tried playing with this expansion deck with two of us last night but this new rule/deck proved problematic.
If we interpret that rule literally we cannot play death cards on a Residence ever and they  don't have to be killed to edit the game in the usual way. At first sight this seems to make sense - "killing" a Residence sounds odd and the blue-themed mystery cards have buffs that apply to the whole family, but two things make this seem wrong:

The reverse of the residence cards have death messages exactly like the rest of the families.
The blue-themed mystery cards have pathos points which seem pointless if you can't kill the residence because pathos points on living characters count for nothing according to the original rules and there's no exception to this in the expansion deck rules.

In light of this we tried to interpret this rule as permitting death cards also and requiring the death of a residence exactly like any family member, but with two players we twice played a full game where neither player was successfully able to play a blue-themed mystery card, due to the other requirements of these cards, and so were unable to kill the residences because they didn't have negative pathos points.
We gave up trying to kill the residences in the end both times because we each reached a stage where our entire turns consisted of discarding cards to get new ones when we draw back up, which frankly got a bit dull quite quickly.
What's a sensible interpretation of the new rules? What's the purpose of the pathos points on the blue-themed mystery cards if the residences are unkillable?

What's a sensible interpretation of the new rules?
I am going to assume you mean the rule you quoted above. Mystery Cards are a new card type that is available in Gloom: Unhappy Homes. Mystery Cards unlike Modifiers, Events, or Untimely Deaths may be placed on Locations. Gloom's card components are mostly transparent, but the parts that are not, cover up previous cards that were played before the current one (and remove those previous effects if they are covered). From the rules on Atlas Games

You can't play Modifiers, Events, or Untimely Deaths on a Location. Nothing can take your house rule away from you, so enjoy it while you can.

What's the purpose of the pathos points on the blue-themed mystery cards if the residences are unkillable?
Those points count towards a families final total. From the Official Site.

A Mystery is the only card that can be placed on a Residence (and only a Residence), and can be placed on any Residence as either of your two plays. It gives that Residence's player a special effect and Pathos points that count toward his final Family Value. A Mystery remains even if the requirements for playing it are lost. You may discard a Mystery from your hand as a free play.

Ah so the pathos points always count at the end of the game without needing (or being permitted to play) an untimely death card. That makes sense.


text:
Monster movement and reduced rolls
In one scenario the traitor was controlling a whole bunch of identical monsters. We stumbled onto a scenario where some of them were in an enviroment that removed 1 die from all rolls.
Since the movement of monsters is determined by a shared Speed roll, how many dice would be thrown? (The base Speed of the monsters was 2)
Would it make a difference, if all the monsters would be in the same (or similar) enviroment?

I have played the game but don't own it, so can't look up the card and can't find it online, thus this is a comment instead of an answer. Check the monster reference card - it lists exactly what does and doesn't affect monsters. The original game explicitly states that monsters ignore negative tile effects, and I think this was the case in Legacy too.

@KenHerbert Legacy has changed the wording to "Monsters don’t take damage from tile effects."

Ok, no problem. That is why I didn't try to turn my comment into an answer - I couldn't remember with enough clarity to be sure.

From the Legacy manual on monsters:

Monsters make a Speed roll at the start of their turn to determine their moves (minimum of 1). This applies to all monsters of the same type.

and:

Monsters don’t take damage from tile effects.

From the Legacy manual on trait rolls:

You will often be told to make a trait roll based on one of your family’s traits (for example, “Make a Might roll”). When that happens, roll dice equal to the number you currently have in that trait. For example, if you must make a Sanity roll, and you
currently have a Sanity of 4, roll 4 dice and total the dots together to get the result. The card’s or tile’s text will tell you the outcome.

As you mentioned in the comments, this text was deliberately changed from the non-legacy game that used to say "monsters can ignore any harmful text on a room tile." I am assuming that by environment you mean it was an Ongoing Event, which monsters never ignored, not even in the non-legacy game.
I do not think there is an answer for your question on the manual, not on the legacy manual nor on the non-legacy manual. I'd suggest your group house-rule this in one of the ways:

Make all monsters affected by the Ongoing Event even if only one is inside it.
Make two different speed rolls for movement, one for Monsters inside the Ongoing Event with speed minus 1, and one with base speed for Monsters outside.

I'd go with 2 because it just seems fairer and makes more sense. The manual itself acknowledges not everything is covered there because that'd be hard with all the cards.

Betrayal games mix effects on cards, haunts, rules, and tiles to create interesting combinations. We have tried to make it easy to understand how all these different effects might work together. However, the nature of the game means that you will inevitably find combinations that create uncertainty. In addition, legacy games create higher stakes since some effects are permanent. Here are a few guidelines when faced with uncertainty:

Rules in haunts trump other rules.
Rules on cards or tiles trump rules in the rulebook.
if you find a single card, rule, or effect that gives you a wildly powerful moment, that probably isn’t its intention.
If you find a combination of several cards, rules, and effects that give you an
advantage, that probably is the intention.
If an effect seems wildly unfair, that is not the correct interpretation.

Although it is a game of murder, insanity, horror, and other savagery, be mindful of other players’ experiences as well. Arguing about rules loopholes isn’t horror, it’s horrific.

This seems a fair application of Rules on cards or tiles trump rules in the rulebook.

We did infact end up rolling two seperate rolls.

I was asked to welcome you when seeing you around. So... Hello! :-)

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


text:
How many haunts or traitors will there be in a game?

How many haunts can happen per game?
Can there be multiple traitors?

I don't understand if the Haunt starts and you can still explore the house what happens if you land on an Omen card

Your questions are directly answered by the rules, but regardless, they are two distinct and separate things to ask about. Please remove one to its own question. While at it, you should also make the title much less vague!

From the rules, p10:

If the room has an omen symbol, ... if the haunt has not yet begun, you must make a haunt roll.

Thus there is only one haunt per game - once it begins you can still draw Omen cards but you do not make further haunt rolls.
With exactly one haunt per game, you will usually find that you also have exactly one traitor per game, though certain haunts are exceptions:

 For example, some haunts have no traitor, and some start with one traitor but have a mechanism to convert more players into traitors over time.

Only one haunt happens per game, and thus there is (usually) only one traitor per game (some specific haunts have a different number).
The rules state:

Before the haunt starts, you must roll 6 dice at the end of
  your turn each time you draw an omen card.

Since it only specifies you roll the dice 'Before the haunt starts' you would not roll any dice after the haunt starts. The text on Omen card telling you to make a haunt roll is more of a reminder that you need to do that (unless the haunt has started).

How many haunts can happen per game?

One.

Before the haunt starts, you must roll 6 dice at the end of your turn each time you draw an omen card. This is called a haunt roll.

(Emphasis mine)
You only make haunt rolls before the haunt starts. Once a haunt has started, no more haunt rolls are made, so new new haunt is possible. You still draw the Omen cards as normal, though.

Can there be multiple traitors?

Yes, but not initially. All but two haunts starts with one traitor, while the remaining two start with none.
In some scenarios, it's possible for heroes to become traitors after the haunt has started. This happens in circumstances defined by the haunt. In at least one scenario, it's possible for every player to become a traitor (leading to the inevitable victory of the haunt).


text:
Which board game is this token from with a number on the front and "SW" on the back?
Please can anyone identify this game? These tokens have fallen out of some box but I can’t remember which one - it’s not any of the ones I’ve checked so far.

The token is from Small World. You can see it in the pictures there.
Here's a photo taken of the Small World instruction manual laid on top of the box lid. Note the illustrations of the coins in the lower right, along with another two 10 point coins from the game laid on top showing front and back.

I've added a photo from my own copy of the game and annotated it.

@doppelgreener Sorry, I can't see any hand-drawn circle in your picture - so not a single clue on what to look for.