text:
In Diplomacy, will I be "cornered" as Turkey if I don't use the "juggernaut" opening?
Turkey is fairly easy to play in an alliance with Russia (the "juggernaut"). The two of them partition the Balkans and Austria-Hungary, possibly with the help of Italy. Then they go their separate ways with Russia fighting Germany and/or England, while an enlarged Turkey crushes Italy. They need to come to an agreement about the Black Sea, but as long as Turkey builds mainly fleets and Russia mainly armies, they're fine.
A problem seems to arise if Turkey allies with say, Austria-Hungary against Russia. Turkey can get control of the Black Sea and Sevastopol (maybe Rumania). But it needs fleets to cover these areas, and its navy seems to be stretched out between these areas and the Mediterranean. If it tries to move north, it will likely be "capped by whoever (Germany or Britain) has captured Moscow.
Turkey's next natural target seems to be Italy (another naval power), except that it is vulnerable to a counterblow by land from Austria-Hungary in the Balkans. And if Austria-Hungary builds mainly armies, the combined Turkish and Italian land forces might have difficulty reconquering the Balkans even if they were allied.
So how would Turkey avoid getting "boxed in," absent an alliance with Russia?

Well the answer to the question literally posed in the title is yes. You can be boxed in, but this will not necessarily happen. Hey, even if you do ally with Russia, Austria and Italy can put up an effective blockade keeping you in the corner.
It is certainly a viable strategy with significant growth opportunities to ally with either Austria or Italy. (Maybe you really should be asking Don Scheifler and not me, since he soloed as Turkey off the back of an Austrian-Turkish alliance at the recent World Championships).
The key, as always, is to try to keep your growth paths open while keeping your allies busy so that they can't afford to stab you. Of course the other six players are trying to do the same thing...
To look at the particular senario you bring up of an alliance with Austria. OK so you've got the Russian neutralised and say picked up SEV in the process (which is a great longterm gain), then barring western intervention (and this is the key), you and Austria are favourites to roll through Italy. Yes a stab is a risk, but this is the case in any alliance. Arguably an Austrian stab is less likely to be devastating than a Russian stab, since under normal circumstances Turkish home centres can't be taken without fleet power which Austria is unlikely to posess. Just keep your ally busy and then they won't have the units free to stab you (or you could be the stabber).

One of my best dippy games so far because the balance of the game was quite open to the end did not start with a Russia+Turkey alliance. If I remember correctly it started off with a Turkey+Italian alliance, but Italy got quickly under the hammer of France (allied with England, which was at war with Russia).
With a strong France and the right moment for Turkey to fall in Italys back a strong alliance Turkey+France was the logical choice. That induced England to side with Russia. And if i remember correctly a very thrilling map-wide land and sea struggle followed.
Alas, in the end France and Russia were successful in stabbing their respected partners simultaneously and wiped out England and Turkey later, but that's diplomacy...

Ultimately, it's all about salesmanship.  In the early game, no Power can repel two determined and unmolested neighbors, and no two Powers can repel three determined and unmolested neighbors.
Pretty much any other Power can be Turkey's initial ally, depending on what the other Powers are doing.  For example:

Turkey + Austria works if Russia and Germany are allies
Turkey + England works if Russia is weak and can be eliminated quickly
Turkey + Italy works if Austria and France are allies
Turkey + France works unless Russia and Austria are allies
Turkey + Germany works if Russia and England are allies

And while Turkey + Russia is the "Juggernaut" it is not an invincible alliance.  Turkey is weak to Italian F Ion -> Eas in Fall 1901 with an Italy + Austria alliance.  If this happens, it puts visible and obvious pressure on Turkey to turn northward for expansion.

Wow! Good exposition for Turkey. Never realized that the country had it so good.


text:
In bridge, what are exceptions to "third hand high?"
You are sitting "East" (with dummy to your right), and your partner West leads a low (presumably fourth best) card in a suit against a 3 no trump contract. When dummy plays low from "nothing," and you hold KT6 of the suit, you are usually expected to play "third hand high," i.e. the king, either forcing out, or trapping South's supposedly lone honor. When the suit is established, you can usually defeat the contract. (According to Kantar.)
But in a problem in another bridge book, declarer held QJ74 in the suit, and the correct play was the T, not the K. Since this is a problem, focus only on the following (unless you are constructing a counterexample).

You can't see the 2 in dummy, so West probably has it for a fifth card.
The 5 played by dummy is singleton, so given this fact, 1) above, and your KT6, declarer has four, not the usual three cards in the suit.
West has either A of his led suit and no side entry, (as was the case in the problem), or the Q or J and a side entry. In either case, declarer has two honors (and two small cards).
You have ONE side entry, a Kxxx offsuit dummy's AQJx in another suit. This is enough to defeat the 3NT contract if you get four tricks in West's led suit by leading through declarer.

The solution to the problem was to play the T and try to induce declarer to cover with the Q or J. If declarer failed to "split honors" (and playing the king would discourage this), declarer would make his contract. But most declarers WOULD split honors.
How do you tell that you should play the T and not the K. Is it the four cards in declarer? Is it the double honor with declarer? Are there other considerations that I haven't addressed?
Are there other examples where playing "third hand high" would be wrong?

It usually depends on the whole hand, but the typical cases where you don't play third hand high relate to communication/entry issues like keeping the communication between the two hands, creating/denying entries, messing up the entry timing etc.
Here is a classic example where the purpose is to deny an entry:
QJx
KQJTxx
xx
xx
          KT9xx
          Axx
          xxx
          xx
Axx
xx
AKxx
AKxx

Declarer (South) is in 3NT and partner leads a high spade and declarer plays the Q.
It would be a mistake to cover with the K. Declarer can then win the A, knock out the heart A, and enjoy overtricks.
If you duck, you are giving declarer the spade trick early, and forcing him to use the entry to dummy, before hearts are established.
Now when declarer plays hearts, you can duck once and cut him off from dummy.
Of course, declarer made a mistake by playing the Q! He should play low, and win the A. Now he has a sure entry in the form of QJ of spades, which he can use, after he knocks out the heart A.
Here is an example of maintaining communication between the two hands.
QJx
KQJTxx
xx
Qx
          AKTxx
          xxx
          xxx
          xx
xxx
xx
AKxx
AKJx

Declarer (south) is in 3NT, and partner leads the spade 9 (probably from 9x). Declarer plays the Q from dummy and you must let it win. The purpose here is to ensure that partner has a spade (i.e. maintaining communication) when he gets in with the heart A. When he wins the heart A, he can lead a spade and you can cash your four spade tricks, setting the contract. Notice that this is quite similar to ducking plays by declarer where he needs to duck early in order to establish suit and maintain communication with the dummy.

source: Stack Exchange

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

sort: votes


text:
MTG: Activated abilities and change of control on the stack.
Let's say I play an activated ability of one of my creatures; for example, this one:

My opponent responds to this with an instant that takes control of this creature:

Question: Will the effect of the activated ability be countered? The stack now looks like this:

Vedalken Anatomist puts -1/-1 on target creature
Opponent gains control of Vedalken Anatomist

The change of control will happen first. Does this mean that the -1/-1 counter will not be received by the target creature? If yes, then what happens to the mana spent (and the lands tapped) to pay the cost of using the ability?

I haven't played Magic in an awfully long time, but isn't this simple? The ability is already on the stack, so control changes, but the ability (including its cost and target) are already there, so they'd still happen?

The most relevant rules are:

112.3b Activated abilities have a cost and an effect. They are written as "[Cost]: [Effect.] [Activation instructions (if any).]" A player may activate such an ability whenever he or she has priority. Doing so puts it on the stack, where it remains until it's countered, it resolves, or it otherwise leaves the stack. See rule 602, "Activating Activated Abilities."

Therefore, once you put the Activated Ability on the stack, it stays there unless it is countered or something specifically removes the ability from the stack.

112.7a Once activated or triggered, an ability exists on the stack independently of its source. Destruction or removal of the source after that time won't affect the ability. Note that some abilities cause a source to do something (for example, "Prodigal Sorcerer deals 1 damage to target creature or player") rather than the ability doing anything directly. In these cases, any activated or triggered ability that references information about the source because the effect needs to be divided checks that information when the ability is put onto the stack. Otherwise, it will check that information when it resolves. In both instances, if the source is no longer in the zone it's expected to be in at that time, its last known information is used. The source can still perform the action even though it no longer exists.

This rule specifically confirms that after the Activated Ability is on the stack, its source is irrelevant. Any removal of the source or changing of controllers won't affect the Ability.
So in this particular case, Act of Aggression can't do anything to stop the Veldalken Anatomist unless it say, targets the opponent's Azorious Guildmage (also Veldaken! oh the poetic justice!) and, after it resolves, its controller has the mana to put that creature's ability counter on the stack. ;-)
EDIT
Oh, one more thing:

701.5b The player who cast a countered spell or activated a countered ability doesn't get a "refund" of any costs that were paid.

Even if the ability is countered, no refunds.

Perfect, if somewhat wordy. :)

Basically, nothing is countered, and everything happens sequentially as you describe it.
As far as the creature tapped, mana spent, and land tapped, they were paid as a cost.  Regardless of how spells or abilities on the stack resolve, the costs paid remain paid.
So the stack resolves exactly as you describe it; the opponent will gain control of your tapped Vedalken Anatomist, then the Vedalken Anatomist's ability resolves and you put the -1/-1 counter on the target you selected when you activated the ability.

@repe: Counterspell counters a spell that is in the stack. Act of Aggression doesn't counter anything since it does not say it counters anything.

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


text:
Are the counters limited in Wrath of Ashardalon?
In the new D+D game Wrath of Ashardalon, suppose that you use a daily power that places counters (like Blade Barrier, Mirror Image, or Flaming Sphere) and then get the power refreshed (through an item, for example) while the counters are still on the board.
Can you use the power again, and if so, what happens (given that you don't have enough counters left to place more)?

This is not an official ruling, but the way I've seen it played is, when a daily power is used a second time, all related tokens are removed from the board and placed again by the player according to the rules of that power.


text:
I killed myself, did I win?
I played an odd game of Shadow Hunters the other day. There were five players: two Shadows, two Hunters and one Neutral. I was dealt the Neutral, Charles.
For the unaware, his win condition states:

At the time you kill another character, the total number of dead characters is 3 or more.

His special ability is:

After you attack, you may give yourself 2 points of damage to attack the same character again.

Partway through the game, the following situation presented itself:

It was my turn and I'd just attacked a player that was so damaged one more attack would surely kill them
I was within two points of death
One character had already died

I declared that I was going to use my ability, revealing my card, and electing to attack the wounded player again, given that I would take two damage in doing so. I rolled a good attack and killed the player in question. I then subtracted my two damage killing myself. Three characters were dead, as my win condition required. My group were happy to award me the win under such strange circumstances, but I'd like to clarify:
Was this a legitimate move in this scenario? Did I win?
Also, given that the already-dead character was a Shadow and the nearly-dead character was a Hunter, was this the only way I could have achieved a solo victory in this game?

Nice entry in the 'bizarre titles' competition.

I don't know of any official rulings on the game, but I would not interpret that as a win for Charles.
The sticking point is:

At the time you kill another character, the total number of dead characters is 3 or more.

So what was the total number of dead characters when you killed the Hunter? Your interpretation is that it was 3, because a Shadow was dead, the Hunter was dead, and Charles was dead.
However, I don't think this works - at the time you killed the Hunter, Charles must have been alive; dead characters can't attack, after all. Thus, Charles would have died after killing the Hunter, which means that at the time you killed the Hunter the total number of dead characters was 2.
Fundamentally, the reason why this situation is confusing is because Charles should not have been able to attack at all. I'm not sure if it's an official rule (I'll check later), but a lot of other game mechanics assume that if you reach maximum damage at any point during your turn, your turn ends and your character is dead - for instance, if you have two health remaining and draw the Spider card, you're dead and your turn ends, you don't get to attack.
Since Charles' ability deals two damage to him first, and then allows him to attack, by triggering your ability you should have simply died without doing anything.
As for the last part of your question, I think there is no way for Charles to be the sole winner in a five player game. As soon as three people who aren't him are dead, the game is over; thus, he either wins a joint victory alongside the Shadows or the Hunters (by taking the last kill), or he doesn't win.

good answer but it's missing a part referring to the last section of the question. Since the 5 players were 2 shadows and 2 hunters, is it impossible for Charles to win other than the dubious victory described in the OP?

@Bazzz Actually that's not quite what the original question was asking, since it's definitely possible for Charles to achieve a joint victory (winning with either the Shadows or the Hunters).

good point, and +1 for the added information in your answer.

Thanks for the answer. There seems to be some uncertainty surrounding this question. From a strict reading of the rules, I'm inclined to agree with your very literal interpretation that Charles shouldn't be able to attack (but should just die if he declares that he intends to). +1, but I'm going to refrain from accepting your answer since it is (by your own admission) just conjecture and I'd be interested to see if an official answer is available somewhere.

I don't think that  - Charles dying and his ability triggering to kill the 3rd player - is a win condition for Charles. This is because any post-mortum win condition is explicitly stated (ie  - be the first to die / etc).
I'd say this would set the precedent for whether or not someone can include their own death in a body count/ tally (if its not explicitly stated, the assumption should be that they died and can't win).

Most games that I play have rules that have been very carefully play tested, and which can be parsed carefully for a correct interpretation.
Assuming this to be true, then the sequence described in this rule is very clear:

After you attack, you may give yourself 2 points of damage to attack the same character again

Charles attacks;
Charles reveals the special ability, and gives himself 2 damage.
Charles performs the second attack allowed by the special ability (but, as per the other rules, only if still alive).

In some board games, once a skill is triggered, it will take the full effect no matter the character is dead or not.
So I think, even if Charles was dead when he killed another character, he won the game. It is a kind of sacrifice attack.


text:
If I cast Flicker on an unearthed creature, does it remain exiled?
The rules for the Unearth ability are as follows:

702.82a Unearth is an activated ability that functions while the card with unearth is in a graveyard. Unearth [cost] means [Cost]: Return this card from your graveyard to the battlefield. It gains haste. Exile it at the beginning of the next end step. If it would leave the battlefield, exile it instead of putting it anywhere else. Activate this ability only any time you could cast a sorcery.

If I unearth a creature, and then cast Flicker to exile and return it, does the replacement effect cause Flicker to lose track of it, or is Flicker still able to see the exiled card and return it to the battlefield?
(Are there similar combinations of spells or abilities that would result in a different outcome?)

"If it would leave the battlefield, exile it instead of putting it anywhere else." means that if the creature would leave the battlefield for some zone other than exile (because exile doesn't fit the condition of "anywhere else"), it's exiled instead. Therefore unearth replacement effect doesn't apply here. Obviously flicker won't lose track of the creature and will return it to the battlefield just fine.
But even if the unearth replacement effect could apply, the creature would still return. Replacement effects modify other actions, they don't do anything by themselves. It's still flicker who is exiling the card even if we could apply unearth replacement effect, therefore it can track the card because of rule 400.7g. Rule 400.7g doesn't actually apply here, because it refers to cards that changed zones while the card/ability was being played/activated. Flicker finds the card because it doesn't need to know that it was the same card that was on the battlefield. It just knows that there is a card in exile that is going to be put on the battlefield.
Note: I'll edit this and quote the rule to support that replacement effects don't do anything by themselves when I get home, right now I can't access the rules (I couldn't find a rule talking specifically about this, but there is an official ruling here that talks about the same thing)

@ghoppe I don't think so. I can't find anything definitive for this, but the Shards of Alara FAQ says this: * If a creature returned to play with unearth would leave play for any reason, it's removed from the game instead -- unless the spell or ability that's causing the creature to leave play is actually trying to remove it from the game! In that case, it succeeds at removing it from the game. (...)

@ghoppe I'm not arguing that a replacement effect has no effect if it replaces the exact same effect. If it just said "If it would leave the battlefield, exile it instead." (whithout "anywhere else") of course it would be applied. The point is if "anywhere else" means "anywhere else than the battlefield" or "anywhere else than exile".

I've come around to your point of view. The english is a bit ambiguous, but the intention seems clear. Sorry for the confusion. :)

Really, 702.82 should include the "cards already moving to the exile zone aren't replaced by unearth's effect" caveat to make this clear.

@ghoppe They probably didn't include it in 702.82 because there are no existing cards that would care about this small difference. At least I can't find any.

Yes, Flicker will allow the creature to return to the battlefield, and it won't be exiled at the beginning of the next end step.
Unearth sets up a replacement event: "If it would leave the battlefield, exile it instead of putting it anywhere else."
Big Edit
To me, there is some ambiguity in the english here. Does the "anywhere else" refer to "anywhere other than the battlefield" or "anywhere other than the exile zone"?
I've thought about it, and I've come around to the other point of view. If it meant "anywhere other than the battlefield" then "exile it instead" would have sufficed. The Shards of Alara FAQ and Wizards Community Wiki makes the point that exile effects still happen, even to a creature "unearthed".
Since my conclusion is the same, but the path taken, different, I shall revise this answer accordingly.
Oracle text for Flicker:

Exile target nontoken permanent, then return it to the battlefield under its owner's control.

So "Exile" means the creature will leave the battlefield. Because of the above interpretation of the Unearth keyword's rules text, this event will go on unmodified, as the exile zone is where the creature was heading.
According to:

400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence. There are seven exceptions to this rule:
400.7g A resolving spell or activated ability can perform actions on an object that moved from one zone to another while that spell was being cast or that ability was being activated, if that object moved to a public zone.

Since the Exile zone is public, the second part of the resolving Flicker spell still happens due to 400.7g. It hasn't "forgotten" that the creature in the exile zone is the same one that was on the battlefield. The creature returns to the battlefield under your control.
There is no exception to 400.7 for Unearth, it lost track of the creature when it was exiled. Therefore, it will not be exiled at the beginning of the next end step. Flicker has allowed it to live on.

Unearth's replacement effect doesn't apply. It is looking for the unearthed card being put someplace other than exile, and then replacing that event with placing the card in exile. Since Flicker is moving the card to exile, it isn't being put "anywhere else." (There is nothing for unearth to replace, since it is already going where unearth is trying to send the card).
The Unearthed creature would remain on the battlefield as a new object, it will not be exiled by the delayed trigger setup by the original "Unearth."

400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence.

Yes, different spells would have different outcomes. (you need to clarify what you mean here).
One such difference would be a card that phases a card out (example Tefari's Veil). The delayed trigger from Unearth will trigger at the beginning of the current turn's end of turn step, and it will fail to remove the creature (since it doesn't exist). But, because the creature has never left the battlefield, the next time the creature would leave the battlefield, it will be exiled instead.

702.24b If a permanent phases out, its status changes to “phased out.” Except for rules and effects that specifically mention phased-out permanents, a phased-out permanent is treated as though it does not exist. It can’t affect or be affected by anything else in the game.
603.7b A delayed triggered ability will trigger only once—the next time its trigger event occurs unless it has a stated duration, such as “this turn.”

The second part of this answer is incorrect.  The delayed trigger is created by the resolution of Unearth.  It couldn't care less if the creature is still there.  It will go on the stack and exile nothing, then the creature is yours indefinitely when it phases back in.

I thought phasing out triggered "leaves play" effects, while phasing in didn't trigger "enters play". Doesn't that mean that when it phases out it triggers the "leaves play" and so is exiled? Or is "Leaves the battlefield" and "leaves play" not the same term?

@Nick, Phasing used to trigger leaves play, but now it is a status of an object (flipped, tapped, etc.)

It remains exiled
What happens is that Unearth replaces Flicker's exile effect with its own effect, which happens to be an exile effect as well. However, since the creature was exiled through an effect other than Flicker's, Flicker won't return the creature in this case, because the creature is now a different object, despite being in the same zone.
The rules reference should be this one:

607.1. An object may have two abilities printed on it such that one of them causes actions to be taken or objects to be affected and the other one directly refers to those actions or objects. If so, these two abilities are linked: the second refers only to actions that were taken or objects that were affected by the first, and not by any other ability.

So Flicker's ability is linked: (1) It exiles a non-token permanent, and then (2) returns exactly that object to the battlefield. However, since (1) never happened (it was replaced by Unearth), it also can't do (2).
I could also say the opposite:

400.7. An object that moves from one zone to another becomes a new object with no memory of, or relation to, its previous existence. There are seven exceptions to this rule:
400.7g A resolving spell or activated ability can perform actions on an object that moved from one zone to another while that spell was being cast or that ability was being activated, if that object moved to a public zone.

I retract my answer since it's not an answer any more.
I'm just not sure. Does Flicker lose track of the creature because of the replacement effect, or not? The object is clearly in the correct zone, and it has been in public zones all the time, and it didn't change zones wildly, so it might be able to keep track via 400.7g. I'm excited to see a convincing rules reference!

Man that's a tricky one. Can't really get my head around it. The rules reference is likely wrong because Flicker has only one ability, not two, so linked ability rules can't apply. This has nerd-sniped me...

I think 400.7g is pretty clear. Flicker is still resolving, therefore can still keep track of the creature even if the exile part of the spell is replaced, since the Exile zone is public.

Check out rulings for Anvil of Bogardan: "If the draw part of the effect is skipped due to a replacement effect, the discard part of the effect is not skipped." Same situation here, even if the part before then is skipped/replaced, the second part is unaffected (as long as it can still track the creature as per 400.7g).

The replacement effect does not apply.  "Instead of anywhere else" is the condition, it's not going somewhere else.

Note - Deleting your own post is possible, and badge worthy in this case.  It's up to you if it's warranted or not.


text:
What is a creature's power when it has some equipment equipped?
I would like to use Rite of Consumption by sacrificing a creature that is using equipment (e.g. that has a +1/+2 bonus). Is the creature's power then increased by the equipment effect, and thus available for the Rite of Consumption?

Yes - spells like Rite of Consumption check the last known information on the most recent public zone (in this case, the battlefield, where the equipment will be attached when that power is checked).
From the comprehensive rules:

608.2g If an effect requires information from the game (such as the number of creatures on the battlefield), the answer is determined only once, when the effect is applied. If the effect requires information from a specific object, including the source of the ability itself or a target that's become illegal, the effect uses the current information of that object if it's in the public zone it was expected to be in; if it's no longer in that zone, or if the effect has moved it from a public zone to a hidden zone, the effect uses the object's last known information. See rule 112.7a. If an ability states that an object does something, it's the object as it exists -- or as it most recently existed -- that does it, not the ability.


text:
When should I take a curse in response to Torturer?
In Dominion, when someone plays a Torturer, I almost invariably choose to discard rather than take a curse. The exceptions are if I have a trasher (Chapel, Steward, Upgrade, etc.) that I have the actions to use anyway, or if I think there's a good chance a Masquerade will be played and I don't want to give away any cards. In the case of multiple Torturers (whether action-chaining or 3-4 players), unless it's happening every time I'll prefer to discard 4 cards and essentially lose a turn than add 2 curses to my deck.
I think the most common reason people take curses instead is they think their cards are too good to discard, but unless I am guaranteed a good turn (e.g. Village and 2 Torturers in hand, not relying on lucky draw), I'll choose to discard.
What is the value trade-off of discarding vs. taking a curse? How good of a hand do you need to take a curse? How do you evaluate the damage a curse does to your deck?
Of course, all Dominion games are subjective to the Kingdom Set. In a set with lots of ways to trash things, taking curses isn't so bad. I'm more interested in answers where trashing is harder, say a Remodel or Expand are the only options, or where +actions are hard to come by.

One nastiness I've seen done is to remodel curses into coppers...

@aramis - in the first game I ever played with curses, that's the route I took.

Short answer
You should take a curse when discarding two cards would hurt your strategic plan, but you should also take into account your curse total compared to the other players and how it's likely to change.
Long answer
I 'm not going to dwell on "obvious" circumstances like

There are no curses left
Your hand is all victory cards
etc.

Under normal circumstances you should make the decision based on strategic (long-term) factors. If discarding would mean not being able to buy a card you need in the long term (this usually means 5+ cost cards, and of course not all of them) then you should consider taking the hit so that you can advance your plan.
If all you were going to buy anyway is a "nice to have" card, then taking a curse is probably not warranted.
In a 3- or 4- player game,

you should gravitate a little more towards discarding in the beginning of the game, as taking curses too early (before you have the chance to load up on necessities) might leave you too far behind the other players
you should consider the possibility of multiple Torturers being played before your next turn; in this case, taking one curse and then playing a good turn might be warranted because with multiple players playing Torturers you can never be sure just when you 'll get the opportunity to play your turn unhindered

Excellent point about leaning toward discard in the beginning of the game. Assume no removal, a curse you take in the beginning will come up every time you reshuffle for the rest of the game! Deck size is also an important (related) factor. In the beginning, smaller deck -> more reshuffling -> each curse in your deck has a greater effect. This is my favorite answer so far, but I'm not quite ready to accept yet.

You missed an important point about the multiple Torturer scenario. If you take a Curse on the first Torturer you can discard the Curse on the second Torturer.

I personally only take the discard-2 if it can be done without harming my hand (I had an extra Copper, or 2 Estates anyway, etc).
My view on Torturer is that it's really just a Witch.  They played a Witch, except that I got a special freebie opportunity to avoid the curse if my hand sucked already!  So I do the kinds of things in deckbuilding that I'd do to counter a Witch, and I don't stress out about the Curses.  And I certainly don't knock a hand of $5 or $6 down to $3 or $4 just to avoid a Curse.
Expecting to end up with some Curses and planning to account for that is, in my opinion, better than sabotaging your own buying power over and over in a desperate attempt to avoid the Curses.

To add on Jon's last point: I also consider taking the curse in a 3-4 player game if more than one other play with the Torturer, and the current Torturer got played by the player playing directly after me. Then there's a good likelihood more Torturers are coming in one round, so the curses I draw for the first 1-2 players, I can discard with the next Torturer and I keep my current move. Of course, all what has been said in the other answers about balancing your current move versus weakening one's deck have to be considered.
If I notice everybody going for the Torturer (it seems many people go for it once the first Torturer got bought), then I try to keep track of the times of shuffling of the others, and how many Torturers are still in their deck. And if there are lots of them yet to come, I'll take the curse, so I've got something to discard in the same round when the next Torturer is played.
Some players are so fond of Torturers they combine them with Villages or other action multipliers. It really pays off then to try to estimate the Torturers still remaining in the other players' decks.

I found that I started losing against Torturer a lot less once I started taking Curses more often.  Here's why I think that is:
In the early game, you're going to use the card you buy, and soon, and repeatedly.  Discarding 2 cards in the early game is often the difference between buying a 4-cost and a 5-cost card.  Is it worth losing a VP and getting a useless card in your deck so that you can buy a Market or a Treasury instead of a Caravan or Smithy?  I think so.  I think the answer is often even clearer when the choice is between a 5- and 6-cost.
Especially if the card you're buying is one that's going to help you mitigate the fact that the Torturer is going to get played again.
In the middle game, I'm much more likely to discard.  And the Curse or two that I've picked up, well, they're not a positive good, certainly, but hey, it's easy to make the decision to discard them.
I'm certainly not saying, "Go ahead!  Take Curse with abandon!"  But I think reflexively discarding, especially in the early game, isn't the right answer.

I usually discard as well, unless I'm already below 5 cards.  Usually my decision hinges on if I'll still be able to do something with that turn.  Of course if i'm holding 2 Victory cards, I'll just drop them.  However, if I have a verifiable action chain in my hand, I'll take a curse, or if I have a card that allows me to discard (not trash) for an effect, I'll likely take a curse to boost it's effect.
Like you said though, it's very subjective, so it all depends on your hand, the kingdom cards that are available, and how built up/stagnated your deck is.  If you have had a run of horrible hands and just need to buy something because you've already wasted a turn or two, it might be worth grabbing the curse(s) in order to buy something you really need. Or perhaps you've got a good advantage with a streamlined deck, and adding curses to it would hurt your action chains, in that case maybe skipping a turn wouldn't be so bad.
Examples (if opponent Throne Room's a Torturer):

Hand - Victory, Village, Great Hall, Copper, Silver
Decision - Discard 4 cards, keep the Silver, and buy a 2 cost with it

Hand - Victory (non-Estate), Secret Chamber, Copper, Copper, Baron
Decision - Here I'd probably take the curses, and use them with Secret Chamber to buy a 6-cost (Gold comes to mind)

Hand - Victory, Victory, Pawn, Village, Smithy
Decision - Even though I have no money in hand, the draw/action chain available to me is pretty good, so most likely I'd discard the two Victories for the first, and take a Curse with the second and hope for the best with my Action cards.

In the second example, why wouldn't you just use the secret chamber to avoid the attack (and the curses)?

Secret Chamber wouldn't avoid the attack, it would just let you possible swap cards in your hand which wouldn't guarantee you to have 2 (or 4) discardable cards.

@Pithlit: Yes, but it's still a good idea to at least draw the next two cards, see what they are, and see if that would change your hand.  Particularly since you can put the first curse back on top of your deck when you process the second Torturer.

@Powerlord: True, you should always use Secret Chamber to see what you can do.  I was trying to provide examples and didn't think it prudent to go through all possible actions with the limited format.

When to take a curse:

When there are no curses left in the curse pile.
If you have a way to get curses out of your deck (even if it's just Island) and you don't have excess cards in your hand.
If you have an Ambassador or or Masquerade in your hand and plan on playing it next turn.

When to Discard

You have 2 "deadweight" cards in your hand, whether those are extra Terminal Actions you know you won't be able to play, curses or victory cards doesn't matter.
Discarding would make it so you can't buy the thing you need to buy.

Ultimately it's a trade off... which slows you down more, 1 turn of reduced circumstances, or an extra curse for the rest of the game?

Your last comment is spot on, exactly the question I want answered, but the bullet points only seem to cover the cases where it's obvious one way or the other. How do you judge that trade-off?

The problem is that there isn't really a simple answer. It will either be cut & dried, or super situational. The more curses you've already taken, the worse idea it becomes, but you'll probably need to take a few to get those high dollar cards you need.


text:
Do you have to move backwards with a 10 in Sorry?
If you are unable to move forward when drawing a 10, do you have to move backwards 1?

Yes,
From the rules are on Wikipedia.

10 - Move a pawn 10 spaces forward or 1 space backward. If a player cannot go forward ten spaces, he must go back one space.

Also, as discussed here, "... if at any time you can move, you must move, even if it's to your disadvantage." (Hasbro also has a scanned copy of the rules here on their site ... note that Wikipedia essentially clarifies these rules.)


text:
What is meant by "built" regarding the Vineyard card?
On the recommendation of a friend, I picked up 7 Wonders, and two other friends and I played our first game a few nights ago.  When one of my friends played Vineyard, we had a lengthy discussion of what the rules meant.

The card is worth 1 coin per brown card built in the player's city AND in the two neighboring cities.
Clarification: The brown cards built on in the neighboring cities on the same turn as the Vineyard are counted.

Emphasis mine.  The key discussion is what is meant by built.  In this context, it's ambiguous as to whether "built" is in the past tense or the future tense.  During our first game, we came to the conclusion that it must mean future.  We arrived at this conclusion through the misconception that the players would be paying the Vineyard owner instead of the owner drawing the funds from the central bank.  By the second game, we had forgotten our misconception, and decided that built must be past tense, as there are far too few  resource cards in the second age, and none in the third, to make Vineyard worth while.  We didn't really worry about it that much, since I discarded Vineyard on the last turn.
So, what is actually meant?  Do I collect a coin for every brown card I have in play right now, as well as a coin for the brown cards my neighbors have in play at the end of this turn?  Do I disregard existing brown cards, and collect a coin when my neighbors or I play a new brown card?  Or is it everything - do I instantly collect a coin for existing brown cards, as well as a coin for each future brown cards when they're played?

You get 1 coin per brown card that already exists, including brown cards built by your neighbors in the same round. Note that brown resources built into player boards do not count for this.
You do not get any coins for brown cards built in future rounds. All Age cards that provide coins provide them immediately.

You get 1 coin per brown card built in your city and in the two neighboring cities, including any built on the same turn as the Vineyard.
The clarification is to remind you to count cards built this turn, which is different than the normal rules, like commerce, which don't make resources built this turn available until the next turn.
The rules specify that you only count cards, and any resources on the Wonder boards don't count (top page 8)

Clarification: The resources produced by the board are not considered to be cards.


text:
When should Curses be used?
Should Curses always be laid out as a supply pile even when no kingdom cards give curses? Or should the only be available when a curse kingdom card is chose?
An extension of this question could be should Curses be able to be purchased without being forced to get them by a card.

The Dominion rules contain the following note:
Note: Curse cards are present in every game, however, they are rarely used in the basic game other than with the Witch card.
I believe you can buy them just like any other card.  The question is, why anyone in their right mind would ever want to!  Just to show off, I guess :D

There are some subtle situations where you need to have curses on the table even without an explicit curse kingdom card. For example, the Swindler from the Intrigue expansion lets you trash opponents cards and replace them with cards of equal value. If you're trashing a zero-value copper you can replace it with a zero-value curse. Without curses all you could do is replace it with another copper.

Friend of mine bought one in a Garden-based deck - he had 79 cards and copper ran out.

When playing with "Fairgrounds" from the Cornucopia expansion I sometimes buy a curse just to have another type of card in play.

"Should curses be available for purchase ?" -
Yes!
The most common scenario for purchasing curses (in a game where they aren't otherwise gained) is in a two-player game where buying all (at most) ten of them would end the game, resulting in a win for the player who does so. Usually this requires some/all of the following:

Watchtower in hand, so you can trash them immediately. (Note: I was about to put Trader here also, but that doesn't trash the curses; you just don't get a curse...)
Talisman in hand, so buying a curse gets you an extra.
Multiple buys.

This ("scooping" the game) frequently happens when one or both players in a two-player game are buying-up all of a few kingdom cards (e.g. Fishing Village, Bridge, City).

If you don't have all the expansions they're great for proxying other cards if you don't have attack cards that would use them. I only have the base set right now, and I've used curses to represent Colonies, platinums, and even more complicated cards from the other sets if everyone understands them. The blanks are also great for this. You can use kingdom cards as well, but I find its easier to forget that they actually mean something else.

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


text:
Rivals for Catan card game clarification
Some cards (Abbey for example) have a (1x) next to the name.  What does this mean?

The rules on page 7 has this note:

Please note: Some cards are marked "1x."  This means that you may only have one of these cards in your principality.

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


text:
Is the Catapult expansion as cool as it sounds?
I've often heard of the Carcassonne Catapult expansion, and I'm wondering, is it actually cool to use, or is it one of those novelties that will quickly wear off? Please give me your experience with this expansion. Thanks!

+1, I'd love to hear answers to this.  My gut reaction thus far has been "Run away!!  Run away!!" but I've not actually played it.

I have seen it demoed before, and I have no intention of getting it.
It definitely seems like a novelty, or at least for a younger demographic.  Judging by the reviews and ratings on BoardGameGeek, I'm not the only one who feels that way -- on their 1-10 scale, the Catapult expansion is rated a full 2.5 stars lower than the main Carcassonne set itself.
Personally, I don't like the idea of adding dexterity to my strategy games, and the new tiles look overly cutesy, but I could see kids getting a big kick out of it.

That's about what I thought. Still might consider getting it at some time, but not likely. Thanks!

I am playing this since it showed up. The catapult among other extensions is one of the best improvements to the game. Mostly because you can exchange a meeple against yours, or  strike opponent's meeple(s) from the board or just score points (catching, shooting  closest to circus tile you just placed), Especially exchange of meeples turns the rather stagnant play into an action pack thing.
Get rid of your prejudice and give it a shot. Besides the extra tiles added with the Catapult (i.e. those roads!!) are wicked. I guess only the princess and dragon or bazaars extensions had better.


text:
How can we speed up Killer Bunnies?
What are some common house rules that you might use for a Killer Bunnies game?
Because the game has so many rules/cards to begin with, the only one that we've come up with is not allowing Super Bunnies to be blanched.  Any others we should adopt to help simplify/speed up the game?
We've tried halving the cost of carrots, but that made "Take a carrot" cards nearly unnecessary.  We've also tried allowing people to have a free Black Pawn in order to limit the effectiveness of weapons but that kept too many bunnies on the board.  The free Black Pawn helped make the game move faster, but it meant that you nearly never had to play around not having a Bunny.

I'm going to +1 you simply because the only time I've ever played this game it took about 9 hours (and at the end you randomise the winner, which is just insult on top of injury).  NEVER AGAIN.  Anything that saves future generations from such lengthy ordeals has got to be good in my book!

What rules have you tried? Without experience with house rules to address that problem, these questions don't usually work well: see this meta discussion for tips on writing good questions about house rules.

@Pithlit, sorry, I saw that and edited my comment accordingly. You want to simplify or speed up the game ... what house rules have you tried? What happened when you tried them?

@DaveDuPlantis, I see your edit and removed my comment.  I tried to add a few examples of things we've tried that didn't seem to work well enough to incorporate into a House Rule.

@Pithlit, I think that helps a lot. Now we've got an idea of your specific problem, ways you've tried to address it, and consequences of not doing so ... those should help direct answers away from "Here is a list of house rules" and toward "Here's what we've done that helps to move the game along."

@thesunneversets Ha. That reminds me of the last time I played Killer bunnies.  While it only took about two hours, the end of the game consisted of someone falling out of his chair (during the carrot reveal) because he was too drunk, and then winning the game while only having one carrot.

An old group of mine found it very effective to give each player a "holy hand grenade" token at the start of the game.  This can be used to destroy any card, weapon, bunny, etc.
Feel free to adjust the number of tokens, if one simply isn't enough.  Just remember, "three shalt be the number thou shalt count!"

ooh, I like this idea, it limits some stuff, but doesn't unbalance the any one area of the game too much.  We'll give this a shot, thanks!

Please post a comment if you try it out and it works or doesn't work for you and why.

yeah, we gave it a shot last night, and it's a great solution (nice job).  We used 1 as the standard, and for newer players, we gave them a 2nd "holy hand grenade".  We considered trying 3 for everyone, but no amount of Killer Bunnies could handle that many flying around.

I've played the "normal" version of Killer Bunnies Quest (i.e. Blue and Yellow decks) and also the Remix version. I found the normal version can be a bit slow mainly due to a lack of Bunnies - there are 25 Bunnies out of about 160 cards so if you don't have a Bunny you can be waiting a long time to pick one up.
For the normal version I'm planning on trying the following rules:
Everyone Starts With A Bunny
Anyone who wasn't dealt a Bunny at the start can go through the draw deck until they find a Bunny and discard one of the cards they were dealt.
This is suggested in the rules for the first time you play, but I see no reason not to do it every time.
You Can Buy Dead Bunnies
When Bunnies die put them in a separate pile. Dead Bunny cards can be bought for 10 dolla. The Bunny card is placed in your hand and has to put through the run as normal.
This rule is in the Remix version (and I think it's in one of the later expansion decks too), it seems to speed things up considerably.
Free Money
Give everyone some tokens (I'm going to use Monopoly money) at the start that represent dolla, these tokens act exactly the same as normal money. I'm going to try giving everyone 10 dolla, that's enough to buy a Bunny or a Carrot and it's usually enough to feed a Bunny.
A slight variation on this would be for everyone to get some free money at the start of their go instead, I'd suggest 1 or 2 dolla.

When we play with all the expansions, last of which is chocolate, we deal out a carrot to each player at the start. We also make roaming red runs (ebola, orp, mystery urn, etc) turn based and not round, makes it faster. usually dealing out carrots at the beginning speeds it up a bunch and not allowing players to steal a carrot until a player has more than the original dealt ones. Also if you feel the game is laying too long, implement a rule at that time to force all choose a carrot cards to be market only, not stolen. Our games usually last 2-3 hours that way.

We have started setting a timer and every time it goes off the person/people with the fewest carrot cards each get to draw one.

An easy way to speed up the game is to play cards directly from your hand instead of waiting for it to pop up in the run list. This speeds up the game allowing players to play bunnies and weapons more often. When I play with this rule games last about 1-2 hours at most.

I generally play with the regular rules, but sometimes we have a spare hour (not nearly enough to play a full game).  For these games, we just reduce the number of carrots possible (since the game is over when the last carrot is selected).  The more carrots, the longer the game.  I liked the other suggestion to give everyone a carrot at the beginning... that essentially does the same thing.
There's a slight difference I like... where you don't draw a card until the END of your turn (instead of before laying down a card on the table).  That way people can read their new card during other people's turns.  No one wants to just watch people read their new cards... this speeds things up quite a bit.
There are some cards that make the game longer.  There's a card that closes Kabala's market.  Man... all of my longest games were games were someone played that card which means no one can buy a carrot.  There's only about 2 cards in the whole deck that can re-open it.  I'd take that out (kinda makes me think I should take it out of my deck too).  Also, some cards can cause players to lose all of their carrots.  You might want to eliminate these out of the deck as well.
Admittedly, the shorter games aren't quite as rewarding... but they'll cut down on the game time.

We  thin the deck down ( maybe do this differently every time) and make sure there are a lot of "choose a carrot" cards in the thinned deck. This way the carrots are going fast.

I'm going to revive this with a cheap solution we've come up with. We've found with all the expansions, there aren't enough bunnies or choose a carrot cards to keep the game moving - and some of the weapons and red run cards are way too powerful for the limited amount of bunnies each player has, essentially wiping the slate each time they come into play.
We ended up buying 3 additional starter sets (used, on ebay for less than $8 each - incomplete sets work too). We took all the bunnies and choose a carrot cards out and added them to our existing set, tossed the rest of the 3 starter sets cards.
This stacked the game in favor of getting bunnies and carrot cards - but not enough to off-balance the game.
Originally, with all expansions, the odds of getting either a bunny or choose a carrot were 1:5.5, with the additional cards, those odds went to 1:3.8.
All other rules remained the same. It's made the game much more enjoyable, the mechanics of working around occasionally not having a bunny are still there, but the bunnies come frequently enough that it doesn't drag on - and the additional choose carrot cards let us use all the carrots but still have a reasonably-timed game.

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


text:
Is there a 10 player expansion for Settlers of Catan? Where can I get it?
Somebody told me that he has an extension for Settlers of Catan that allows play with up to ten players. Who made it?
Is it still sold?

There is a video of a 10 player game.
I don't believe there is anything official, but as the video demonstrates, its just a matter of putting together a couple extra sets to get a playable 10 player game.
I'd imagine the trading rounds would be a bit chaotic though!

We have played an 8 player game.  We simply used two sets, making the board huge.  We played with the expansion rules (IE special building phases)
~~edit~~
For pieces, we already had the 6 player expansion.  For the additional 2 players, we used black and grey Lego pieces.

I have used PhotoShop to make my own resource hexes, as well as new development cards.  We have never used all the things I have made, but if we did, it would be possible to have 15 players in a game.  I have a "gold" resource hex; a "development card" resource hex; a "pie" resource hex [(like Trivial Pursuit) (has all five normal resources plus a gold, for a total of 6)]; "gold" harbors (2 for 1, and 3 for 1); and even more!  I also have made, as stated, new development cards to speed up the game, and make it more interesting.  Currently there are 9 of them.  One of them is a "lottery winner" development card.  It allows you to pick up any 10 resource cards and 3 development cards.  Using all my variations, we have finished games in 20-25 minutes.  We have not used the original set-up for several years, as our family prefers to have things which make the game more interesting.  Guess you could say that we have outgrown the original version(s), due to an excessive amount of play.  Love this game!!

Did you ever play with 10 people using your homebrew materials?

What do you do with gold?

Whatever you do, you have to either nerf or totally remove the Monopoly card. A suggestion could be to allow it to steal only 1 resource from each player, but I feel it could be too powerful even in that case.
Since there would have to be a huge number of hexes, the luck would increase too much, hence I would recommend a diceless variant.
You should also allow at least two "longest road" and "most knights" bonuses.
Finally, you would really have to strictly limit the trade phase somehow.

You might limit the Monopoly card to 2 resources like the Resource Monopoly card from Cities and Knights. "Name a resource. Each player must give you 2 of that type of resource if they have them."

@Greg as I said, it could be too powerful even if you limited that to one resource...

Sure, the players will have to agree to something they are comfortable with. I am just pointing out an option used by the Catan franchise.

it shouldnt be difficult just add more extension packs (which add 2 players) and either paint them different colours or build new pieces. it is a good idea to have two longest road and largest army. however the monopoly card( or any other rules) shouldnt be needed to mess with, yes the monopoly is powerful but the 7 is rolled the most ( most likely anyway) and this would negate the monopoly card.


text:
Which circumstances make one favour track better than another in Caylus?
When the King awards you a favour in Caylus, which track should you choose?
When is one track more beneficial than another?
What circumstances make a particular favour track more or less useful?

Timing is really important in that game.  A lot of building can only be build once.  If you are at a particular moment when a specific choice allow you make a important move, at that time you will go for a line that is not necessary the best to develop.  For the rest of the answer, I will assume that you are not in one of those situation.
Of course, since each track get better and better, you have interest to develop a few track to their end, instead of just starting all.
Victory point
Since everything is ultimately convert to victory point, I will use that track as the reference.  So you should develop this track unless you are in a particular situation making another more interesting.  At the end of the game when you know you won't have conversion opportunity, you should go for this line (unless you can make a building that gave you more points).
Money
With the conversion ratio at the end of the game (1 for 4), this track is worth a lot less the that the victory point.  However, when the bank and the church are available, you are able to convert money to a lot more victory point, but you should only get as much money as you will be able to convert (plus what you need for each turn up to the end of the game).
Resources
This line was never useful as a fully developed line in the game I played.  I assume it became useful when green building start to replace existing resources and no new resources building has been build.
When I have several favors and I am short of a resource for a big building favor, I use this line to get it.  It is also useful if you need that resource to build a particular building before another player.  But those two situations are really rare.
Building
This line give you a lot more bonus when the corresponding building are not available.  How ever, you need to develop it early in the game, so you have to guest what the other players are going to do.
If you have the choice of using a building in your normal turn or via a favor, the bonus of the favor is very little compare to the other line and none for the fifth square.

The real (and boring) answer is: it's going to vary, depending on the specific circumstances of the game you're playing.
My answer: the victory point track is very strong, and a good default option.  The build track is also extremely strong, as can be guessed from the fact that you don't even get a bonus the first time you move on it!  The money track is not so great, but sometimes it's exactly what you need if you're finding it hard to get funds any other way.  In my personal experience, the goods track is the weakest.  It's usually possible to get goods through normal actions, and the gold at the top end of the track is less good than just getting 5 victory points... unless you've set up a bunch of exciting things to spend your gold on.  But that seems like a lot of extra hoops to jump through.
Other people's mileage may vary, naturally!

I won my last game of Caylus, by a wide margin, by hammering the victory point track (plus money as my secondary track).  Everyone else was going crazy building buildings, so I let them get on with it and completely ignored that side of the game.  It's a bit of a truism that, in Caylus, it's usually really good to be doing something that all the other players aren't :D

I tend to go for the building track myself if nobody else does it first. If someone does do the building track first, I take the VP track, but I also make sure to build the architect to reduce the advantage of the player who went for the building track.

I think the circumstance of the game influence a lot the value of the track.  You just mention : "if you're finding it hard to get funds any other way."  I think they are a lot of different circumstances that influence the track choice that you don't cover.  You could improve your answer by addressing them.

The Building Track.  The smaller buildings are good for increasing your gain in future turns, but the real goal for this strategy is the large buildings at the end that score massive points.
The Money Track has usually ended up as my secondary because of the need for money, and I hate playing my pieces just to get money.  If you have a game where you're doing fine financially then you can ignore this track, and it would be best to be in this position, but not always easy to achieve.
The VP track doesn't seem very good in the early stages of the game, since it doesn't produce any gain in future turns, so it doesn't help your game economy.  There is a strategy to hammer the big VP points at the end, but you'll have to commit to it early on to be able to get through the small stuff.
The Resource Track I've found mainly useful for the gold, that you need to buy the big buildings at the end.
You have to gauge your position, and it's weaknesses and strengths (relative to others) after you're into the game a few turns and choose a strategy.
Building Strategy:  1. Building 2. Resource if you don't need money, otherwise money.
VP Strategy: 1. VP 2. varies based on position

Obviously I disagree about the VP track.  With no context, I think it's the best track: 5 victory points is obviously better than a gold or 7 money... unless of course you have a plan to use that gold or money to get secure more than 5 VPs!  But that takes more effort and planning, and it's more susceptible to other players seeing what you're trying to achieve and doing what they can to sabotage it.  The VP track is a solid, dependable all-rounder that does nothing flashy except help you win more.  Which can often let you slip beneath the other players' radar!

@thesun, it's like in Puerto Rico, money is better at the beginning, and VP better at the end.  Buildings or money early in the game can put you in a position to earn more, while VP just sits there.  Near the end VP is better (and I realize that you have to move up that track to get the 'good' VP at the end).

@Lance: Totally.  I'm not saying it's unequivocally the best track, there are definitely pros and cons, I just don't think it can be dismissed out of hand.  The building track is definitely very strong, especially if the other players don't realise how strong lots of cheap building can be!

@thesun, I definitely think the VP track can be a strategy, and I probably just haven't played it enough to get a grip on it.

Could you detail what you mean by 'how the game is going'?  Which circumstance make you favor which track?

@Guillaume, I've completely edited my answer, and will try to come back in the future when I have the time to add and specify some more.

Your analysis of the victory point track seems reasonable at a glance, but you have to consider stepping up the track to be "engine building" all by itself! Going on the VP track one turn is improving your future turns by making you get one more VP the next time you go on the track. So a guy who has done VP track 5 times hasn't improved their infrastructure, but now when he gets a favor he can convert it to 5 VP while the guy who did the money track to improve for future turns can just get money worth 2 VP.

@Brian, I agree.

In the games I play, players tend to go for the building track. They use the track to build the best buildings early, such as those that provide great resources. They rack up victory points when people visit them in later turns, as they are often want to do.

As I say, I avoided the building track in the last game I played, because it seemed like every other player was building buildings (the normal way) as fast as possible.  You're less likely to make a killing if everyone else has tons of other buildings to use their men in!  But yeah, if buildings are being slow to come into the game then the building track is a great way to take control.

I know what the track do, the question is about which track is better or worst in which game.

It's unclear to me why this was downvoted. While I didn't use the term "best", I did directly address the question.

I didn't downvote, but I expect the reason is that you've only partially addressed the question, and in a somewhat ad-hoc way. Really the question is about when different tracks are more or less useful. As written, it sounds like your answer is "the building track is what you should go for, always, because that's what my friends do." Which isn't a great answer. It would be interesting if you could expand your reasoning a little more.

Thank you for the feedback. I concede, it's not a complete answer. Based on my experience on other Stack Overflow sites, I'm surprised no one helped me refine this answer at the time. Unfortunately, I haven't played Caylus since shortly after this post, so I'm not in a position to comment further.


text:
Can Kaalia of the Vast put Slumbering Dragon into play tapped and attacking?
I was looking at Slumbering dragon on Gatherer and ran across this quote in the discussion forum:

Finally a dragon that doesn't mesh well with Kaalia of the Vast

As I pondered this possibility, it occured to me that assumption might be wrong. Kaalia of the Vast puts a Dragon creature card from your hand onto the battlefield tapped and attacking.
My understanding of the rules of magic is that ability text on a creature card only applies once the card is on the battlefield, unless it specifically references another zone (exile, graveyard, in your hand). So by the time Kaalia puts it on the battlefield, the Slumbering Dragon is already tapped and attacking an Opponent, unfettered by its restriction that it cannot attack.
Or am I wrong? What if there was a dragon/angel/demon card with Defender? Could that also be tapped and attacking?
I'm going to do a bit more research on this myself, but if anyone has a solid comprehensive rules reference, that would be great!

After a bit of research, it seems my intuition is confirmed. I could quote 112.3d 506.4a, and 508.2a of the Comprehensive Rules, but the most explicit confirmation comes from the Tiller Nephilim rulings on Gatherer:

The creature you put onto the battlefield from your graveyard is attacking, even if the attack couldn't legally be declared (for example, if that creature has defender or an effect says that no more than one creature can attack).

Putting an attacking creature onto the battlefield doesn't trigger "When this creature attacks" abilities. It also won't check attacking restrictions, costs, or requirements.

That is correct, putting a creature into play in an attacking state is something else than declaring it to attack. In subsequent turns, however, it still can't be declared as an attacker unless its ability is satisfied.

The same way putting a creature into play tapped isn't the same as tapping a creature, etc.


text:
In Axis and Allies, Should Germany build a first turn transport and try and control the Med/Africa?
When playing Germany in A&A 2nd Edition, is it a feasible strategy for Germany to buy a Italian transport on the first turn, for the purposes of cementing Germany's Mediterranean naval presence and enabling it to sustain troop transports into Africa?
Don Rae's essay on purchasing recommends this buy, but I rarely see it used and I wonder why. Is it because people think it's a flawed strategy (and thus never give it a shot), because they've tried it but not successfully executed (thus giving up on it), or because most people have simply never heard of (or independently come up with) the idea?
If you think this strategy works, what does it change about your first turn German attacks (i.e. presumably your med Battleship and Transport do not engage in naval battles, so how do you re-balance your attacks accordingly)?

Germany has a small window in which it can afford to bolster its navy. Presuming the Russians are building a suitable wall in Karelia and the US and UK are planning to shuck-shuck, Germany needs every IPC later in the game to build infantry and armor and cannot afford to build a transport, sub, or (gasp) air craft carrier or battleship.
For that reason, Germany's only chance to improve her navy is first or second turn. Moreover, she must build it in the Mediterranean Sea, as attempting to build a navy in the Baltic Sea Zone is suicide given the proximity to UK and Russia's air forces.
Without that extra Mediterranean transport, Germany's options in Africa are limited (presuming the Allies make it a priority to eradicate the German navy). The transport buys a little insurance for Germany, an extra few turns in which it has to secure Africa and enjoy her IPCs before the Allies come storming into Algeria. And if the UK player is bent on building a South African factory that second transport is a requisite to have any hope in taking it out before enough of a defense can be constructed.

If you think this strategy works, what does it change about your first turn German attacks (i.e. presumably your med Battleship and Transport do not engage in naval battles, so how do you re-balance your attacks accordingly)?

Personally, I almost always use Don Rae's suggested first turn buying advice for Germany: purchase a transport and 8 infantry. Since this immobilizes my battleship and transport, I use a sub and fighter to off the British battleship and a bomber to nix the sub.
If those attacks fail, Germany is pretty much screwed, though. That's one thing I dislike about Axis & Allies in general - the first turn or two really has rippling effects through the rest of the game. A couple of bad dice rolls in the early game almost guarantees defeat, especially as the Axis where the margin for error is so narrow.

@adam: I don't quite agree. I believe that the German navy and air force (more than the army) needs to "take up arms against a sea of trouble. My opening Naval moves would be: F Ukraine vs. sub off Egypt. Fs Norway, EE Europe to UK Sea Zone (with T and sub in Baltic). F and B in Germany vs. Battleship off Gibraltar. Sub off France vs. transport off U.S. east coast. battleship + trans to Black Sea. If this works, GERMANY will have the stronger navy pro temp.

@Tom: Is this a comment to me (Scott) or to Adam, who posted the original question?

It was meant for Adam. But I'm also happy to address it to you. Just proposing an "alternative" way to play Germany. If it succeeds, I believe it can delay shuck-shuck. The US and UK may have to take a turn to build their navies. Or see their transports taken out by German subs and fighters.

May I ask what you think of the "Tirpitz rule" (that you inspired)? It is 1) subdivide the UK seazone into the UK seazone proper (south) and the Norewegian Sea zone (north of the 57th parallel. 2) Put a German battleship unit (Tirpitz and battle cruisers) in it, compensating the British with a second battleship in their seazone. 3) Move the transport and sub from the Baltic to the Norwegian Sea to join the battleship, thereby eliminating "easy" German naval targets.

I think that purchasing a transport in the Mediterranean with Germany is justified only if Russia's opening attack(s) went poorly. We are discussing the 'Classic Edition' of Axis and Allies as opposed to the newer Spring of 1942 edition, correct? If so, I often load up two infantry onto the starting Mediterranean transport and move it and the battleship to the sea zone above Anglo-Egypt Sudan. The battleship should be able to take care of the British submarine there. If you aren't feeling lucky, throw in a fighter from either Eastern Europe or the Ukraine S.S.R. If the British submarine lands a hit on you, take the battleship. Even though it's three times as expensive as the transport, for tactical purposes, I find that you're better off losing it. If Russia didn't take out one of your fighter units from either Eastern Europe or the Ukraine (they probably did, but you never know), throw it into this battle as well and land it in Libya. If you don't use it against the British submarine, use it in the land battle for Anglo-Egypt Sudan just for additional reassurance.
From there, three infantry and the tank blitzing through French Equatorial Africa into Egypt should be enough to overwhelm Britain's Egyptian defenses by Germany's first turn. The battleship off of Gibraltar can be dealt with using your bomber out of Germany and a fighter from Western Europe (you may lose the fighter, but Germany should be buying at least one fighter for the first two turns anyway). This move has an above average chance for success, as you'll have the British outgunned in Egypt six or more hit dice to their four. Additionally, this forces the British player to transfer valuable units in India to counter your victory in Egypt (which opens it up to three free i.p.c. points for Japan, which Britain will never get back), or risk losing significant amounts of points to Germany in Africa.
Use the U-boat in the Atlantic, two fighters (one from Germany, the other from Finland/Norway), and the Baltic fleet to (assuming either that the Russian navy didn't attack it, or was defeated in the attempt to) attack the U.K. home fleet. Use your ground forces to take back in strength whatever the Russians took off of you on their opening turn. The key to keeping Germany in the war is keeping British transports out of the U.K. sea zone and keeping the manpower moving towards the Russians. Buying an additional transport on Germany's first turn can be costly to their initial 32 precious i.p.c. points, points which should be spent on combating Russia.

What I have had success with is sending both subs with 3 fighters to the North Sea and 2 fighters and bomber to wipe England's battleship in Gibraltar. This allows the two transports and battleship to hook up in Spain's sea zone and put pressure on atlantic.
The English have to decide to send in their transport and all the airforce to sink the German Battleship, which puts their fighters out of randge of kar or possibly  even losing their airforce which would make it impossible for an india factory. If instead they leave either the German fleet or any surviving subs in North Sea alone, USA can only use a transport and a bomber to try a 2nd wave of attacks.
As far as Africa with this move you pull libya back to Algeria and save the Norway tank and move the infantry in west europe to Algeira to slowly advance and have Japan land in Egypt by turn 3. I have done plenty of tests of this strategy, and typically it forces England to not buy any navy or (ind?) first turn, and instead buy some infantry and fighter to cover their butt if the German fleet survives for sea lion or even a brazil assault. so with this move Germany can buy and employ all forces towards Russia with UK and USA scrambling to rebuild an airforce and navy which puts any direct threats past turn 3.

This has the rules wrong. The Baltic transport can't get to Spain because you can't sail past an enemy fleet.  So that transport is going to die in the UK sea zone.

My sense that it is not only feasible but necessary for Germany to spend more effort on building/maintaining a navy than is usually the case. One of my opening gambits is move the Med battleship and transport (plus infantry) to Black Sea for amphibious assault on the Caucasus to give the FORMER a "safe" mission. If that's the case, you really need to build a second Med transport to ferry troops to Africa. (I'd use airpower against the British battleship off Gibraltar. A bomber or fighter lost vs. that ship would represent a savings.) These were some of the issues I explored in various iterations of my naval/sub question.
It's not just the transport. Then I'd build subs to control the Atlantic as long as possible, but there may come a day to build a second battleship, cost what it may. (Or an aircraft carrier with two fighters.) But think of that as what you need to do to keep Africa. Otherwise you'll lose anyway.
One possibility of avoiding this is to enlist Japan's help in the Mediterranean. (The British actually did this with Japan against the Germans in World War ONE.) One of the answers I was hoping to hear from my US vs. Japan in the Pacific question was, "BOTH sides should break off Pacific combat and send their fleets to the MED, which should be the site of the game-deciding battle. (But you provided some GREAT alternatives for Japan in the South Pacific.)
Note: Despite my numerous questions, I've never actually PLAYED the game. What I've done is "play test," it i.e. play both sides of say, a Japan-U.S. Pacific confrontation, a German-Russian east front battle, a German British-Med fight, etc.
I like your question. If I ask questions that seem not to be from actual games (yet), they WILL be, if I ever get around to playing.

My longtime strategy for Germany is to build a massive amount of tanks and destroy Russia.  The point at which the Allies can start seriously imposing on Germany's IPC production starts between rounds 2 and 3, depending on how good of Allied coordination you are facing.  Thus, you have 2-3 rounds of uninterrupted Russia pummeling.  During that time, you can build a substantial amount of German armor to take Russia head on.  They cannot match you armor for armor, as you hold IPC dominance from them.  Even if Japan doesn't assist, you can still attack them force-for-force.  I try and use German naval forces and aircraft to take out as much of the UK fleet as possible, then regroup them and hold tight.  40 IPC means 8 tanks and counting as you take land in Russia.
Russia can do two things:
1) try and attack you, which they will take ground; but ultimately lose as Germany has more tank reinforcements than they can muster.
2) defend for dear life and hope help comes, which means they will lose as the German tank invasion is too powerful for them.
Once Russia is a crater, focus all of your buying power on a anti-UK fleet and destroy.
I must also mention that I fortify the western and southern European wall with my starting infantry and fighters.  Too many people take these defensive forces into battle to their peril.  Focus on one threat at a time, allocate all of your resources without sacrificing the west, then annihilate!

Most strategy I hear proposed seems to follow a pattern. "After the enemy has taken the predictable action, you can respond in this fashion..."
The russian strategy of massive defense is based on the idea that Germany will blindly throw itself on your wall. Thanks I'll pass. If infantry defend twice as well as they attack, suggests to me that I need buy only half as many units as the expected attacker. Russia buys 8 inf, Germany need buy only 4 to maintain parity. This leaves you a little wiggle room to think outside the box. A Med fleet build-up allows Germany to not only capture Africa, But even perhaps, hold it. This will quickly become painful to the British cash flow.
In any event, Allowing the enemy to dictate your tactics is the first step toward defeat.

Germany SHOULD NEVER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE FOLLOW DAN'S FIRST TURN PURCHASE OF 8 INFANTRY PLUS 1 TRANSPORT.
Instead Germany should simply bring 2 infantry to support the starting 1 infantry 1 tank there and will now take Egypt Round 2 with 3 infantry PLUS 1 tank (can send a fighter for that battle as needed).  The reason I am so confident in this play is because there are very few choices for the Allies to respond to this tactic, and each one results in an advantage for the Axis:

UK Response 1: U.K. doesn't build an IC. Uses money on Naval (likely lost rd. 2 since America hasn't sent support yet), or fighters/Bombers (fighters help Russia defend, Bombers bomb Germany for money).  Result - UK forfeits Africa dollar spend.
UK Response 2: U.K. builds IC in S.Africa.  Result - UK defends/takes Africa after 4 turns (needs 3 rounds or 6 tanks to successfully attack/win Africa. In the mean time Japan takes India, and pressures Russia ahead of schedule, thus before U.S. implements Shuck-Shuck.
UK Response 3: U.K. builds IC in India and slowly loses Africa 1 country at a time.  Result - the most optimal response is to stick to the game plan, hold India as long as possible so that U.S. Shuck-Shuck can get started.

Now we must look at the U.S. response

U.S. response 1: transports troops to W.Africa rd 1.  Result - Germany kills lone transport, Germany wastes time backtracking to kill U.S. troops but is still left as the remaining force in Africa. More importantly America loses the transport as cannon fodder required to set up Shuck Shuck.  Net positive since U.S. has the money to waste and Germany is more hurt by slowing progress in Africa.
U.S. response 2: continue operation Shuck-Shuck, Germany gets Africa and is well positioned for the long-haul. It's now a question of if Japan can pressure Russia before Shuck Shuck diverts enough German resources westward....

Conclusion - the optimal allied response should always come back to enabling a U.S. led shuck-shuck strategy. Thus, sending 2 infantry from S.Europe rd.1 by Germany and delaying taking Egypt is the optimal move, but spending any further resources are simply a waste and will only put Germany on the back foot that much quicker once shuck shuck is operational.  If U.S./U.K. waste/spend any money in saving Africa after Germany has made this move, be a smart Axis player, say thank you for delaying shuck shuck and capitalize on that advantage by putting even more pressure on Karelia, further limiting Russia's ability to defend eastward when Japan eventually comes.

Germany  first two turns ten+ infantry  after that  1 fighter plus infantry the rest of the game  it is IMPERATIVE however that you do not lose ANY fighters or your bomber  once you have 8 or 9 fighters and 1 bomber you can do whatever you like in europe  by that time japan will have eroded russia and picked off every available dollar eg. australia new zealand hawaii french madagascar and axis victory is assured as long as you avoid horrific rolling of dice


text:
In Haunt #43 - The Star Sickness: I'm a Traitor and Have the Serum, now what?
During Haunt #43 - The Star Sickness, I was infected as a traitor early in the Haunt, but also previously harvested enough Mandrake root to make the serum. Not knowing what to do, I proceeded to the Lab and made the serum, but at this point it wasn't obvious what I should do.
The first thing the players asked was if I injected myself, which I did not, so they immediately suspected me of being a traitor. Given that I wasn't the last traitor to should I have just run away from the players to prevent them from curing themselves and hoping the damage rolls at the end of each turn eventually killed them?
If I was the last traitor to have been infected should I have tried to infect a weak player and hope they weren't strong enough to steal the serum from me?

You were in a very awkward position: you had one "obvious" thing to do, and if you didn't do it, you would clearly be a traitor. For best results, don't make the serum in the first place. Any advantages you get from remaining hidden for a few turns longer are vastly offset by creating the items that the Heroes require to win. (And you are only going to remain hidden for a few turns; any further requires a Sterling-silver tongue and extremely gullible players.)
You had three options:

Stall for time. Instead of making the serum, you harvest extra mandrake, while claiming that you're harvesting enough for two doses "to save time running around." Depending on how hard it is to get extra mandrake, this may be too obvious of a lie.
Run away. First, walk towards the lab to stall for a turn or two, then run as far away as you can.
MURDER. If you can't plausibly pass off your actions as innocuous (and frankly, holding the serum or enough mandrake to make it means it's very hard), then embrace your Traitor nature and try to infect or kill the un-infected players. If you already have the serum, then bring it into combat anyway. (You could drop it in a distant room, but that will make it too easy to recover.) Your optimal targets will be:

Weak against your attack (Usually Might, but it could be Speed or Sanity with the right items)
Far from other players
Already have some mandrake, so their death/infection will slow down the Heroes' victory

I'm not sure why you made the serum as a traitor.  Had you not, you might have won just by keeping away.  However, assuming you did, then your next best bet is to pass off your infection token ASAP, then keep away from them all.  Also, you might have considered lying about injecting yourself: since you didn't actually perform an illegal action in the game, you aren't cheating or breaking any rules.

Lying about injecting yourself would be a breach of the rules: there are clear rules of what happens when you inject yourself, and the correct way to inject yourself is to say "I inject myself" or similar.

authors: עידן מנעולן ופורץ מנעולים


text:
In Chariot Race, do you incur a cornering penalty on being knocked back onto a numbered space after ramming?
We came across a curious situation in a game of Chariot Race where our reading of the rules seems to be curiously non-thematic. The situation was like this:

The red chariot is going to use its last movement to swerve and ram the green chariot. The rules on ramming say that when you ram someone as the final movement of your go, place the red chariot in the first unoccupied space behind the rammed chariot:

If the ramming chariot ends its movement on a space
  with a rammed chariot: the ramming is completed as
  described above and the ramming chariot is placed on the
  first unoccupied space in the same line behind the rammed
  chariot. The rammed chariot stays in its space

However, the first unoccupied space behind the green chariot is a numbered corner space (3, obscured by the caltrop - sorry!). We were unsure about whether being bumped back onto that corner space would incur the penalty for cornering too fast. (The red chariot was travelling at a speed above 3.)
The rules on cornering say:

Cornering at a wild gallop is not really a bright idea! High
  speeds mean significant damage in corners. All numbered
  corner spaces indicate the maximum safe speed when you enter
  these spaces. Ending your movement in such a space counts
  as entering the space. For each point of speed exceeding this
  value you must take 1 point of damage. Adjust your Damage
  Track accordingly.

My reading of this is that entering the space even when being placed back onto the space after ramming another chariot would incur the penalty. This doesn't seem to me to make much sense thematically, though - the penalty on cornering too fast would seem only to make sense when you're careering through a corner making forward progress, rather than when being bumped back one place after ramming someone.
Does anyone know if there's any official ruling on this, or how the rules on this should be interpreted?
(As a side note, we were also assuming that the red chariot would take damage from the caltrop on being bumped back into it, which does make sense thematically to me.)

No, you do not take cornering damage when you're forced back into a corner space showing a maximum safe speed. You only need to do this when you enter the corner via normal movement.
Note, however, if there a string of chariots lined up around a corner and you had really bad dice, you might be forced to ram several of them in succession after taking cornering damage. You might then be forced back into an empty space before the corner such that on your next turn, you'd be forced to re-enter the corner again through normal means. In that case, you'd take damage from the corner again. I've never seen this happen, but it's theoretically possible.


text:
Games to learn a foreign language or to enrich your vocabulary in your native language?
I like Scrabble for learning a foreign language or enriching my vocabulary in my native language. What other games also help you do that?
Please submit one game per answer only - that works best with voting. If you want to submit multiple games, just leave multiple answers.

In a Pickle (English). For up to six players.

Can a giraffe fit in a phone booth? Does a sofa fit in a shopping cart? It all depends on how you size it up in this game of creative thinking and outrageous scenarios. Try to win a set of cards by fitting smaller things into bigger things — there's some juice in a pickle, in a supermarket, in a parking lot. Play the fourth word card to claim the set, unless one of your opponents can trump with a larger word. The player with the most sets at the end is the big winner! Includes 300 cards and instructions.

I can tell from personal experience that the game is quite fun, for native and non-native speakers alike. It encourages thinking outside the box, re-interpreting words and defending your interpretation. Someone puts a president in a jam, but then someone else puts that jam in a glass. Or someone plays the card with the word "universe", thinking that no one can beat that, but then the next person plays the card with the word "dictionary" and wins the set (after all, "universe" is a word in a dictionary).

Why Did the Chicken...? (English). For up to eight players.

Each round, you'll have two minutes to create funny answers for a randomly generated riddle. But know your audience: One player will be judging answers instead of writing them! The judge's choices for the two best answers earn points. When the game's over, tally up your points to see who's the life of the party.

So basically, each round there's:

a randomly drawn question card, e.g.

"What do you get when you cross ... with ...?"
"What is the difference between ... and ...?"
"What did ... say to ...?"

and two randomly drawn noun cards to fill in the blanks.

And then whoever turns that into the funniest joke within two minutes, earns points. There are 20 different question cards and over 300 different noun cards.
The game can be useful in improving both your active vocabulary (by trying to come up with the funniest joke) and your passive vocabulary (by trying to understand other's jokes and wordplays).

Fictionary (Balderdash)
There's a game called Fictionary by wikipedia, variations of which are known as Balderdash and under several other names. In it, one player selects a very uncommon word from a dictionary and tells the other players what the word is. It should be a word that none of the other players know the meaning of. Then the player that picked the word writes the dictionary definition on a small piece of paper, and the other players all try to come up with a definition of the word that sounds plausible and also write these definitions on pieces of paper. These pieces of paper are then shuffled by the first player and read in random order. All of the other players select which meaning of the word they find the most plausible (but they are not allowed to select their own invention). Once everyone has made their selection, these selections are revealed. Every player (other than the first player) gets a point if their definition was selected by another player or if they selected the correct definition. Then it is the next player's turn to pick a word from the dictionary, and the game continues.
The best part of the game is the insane word definitions that you sometimes can't resist writing down, even though you know they will not attract any votes.

Fun game, but I'm not sure I'd recommend it for learning a language; it relies on words so obscure that none of the players knows them, which tend not to be the most useful for someone learning the language to learn, since, well, most native speakers won't even know those words.

Very true - but the question was also about enriching your vocabulary, and in theory it's good for that. However, in practice the fake explanations are often more memorable than the true ones, so it doesn't really work that well.

Quiddler
http://www.toycrossing.com/quiddler/basic-rules.shtml (follow the link to see the rules)
is "a cross between Scrabble and Rummy" that might suit your needs - it's just a deck of cards with letters on really, so you could probably make your own if you needed to, and it'd be good for playing on trains too!
I enjoyed it the few times I played it, though it suffers from all the same problems as Scrabble: one player with a phenomenal vocabulary can easily outmatch the rest of table; plus you will definitely need a good dictionary on hand to resolve disputes!

Think about which kind of game would you come up if you could play poker with this kind of cards? A-1, B-2, C-3,...,25-Z and then color cards 1-12 with red, 14-25 with blue and 13 would be a poker. Again but with two other colours. Is it already a poker or Quiddler-Scrabble-poker? Reuse at the best :)

My wife and I tried Quiddler but we lost interest pretty quickly.  On many hands one or both players are in a position to lay down their cards immediately after the deal.  I should post a question about good alternate rules.

@Ben - Yeah, I kind of agree.  I was in the fortunate position of being a power Scrabble enthusiast at a table of non-word-gamey people, so I pretty much destroyed the competition, and everyone swore never to play me again!  Having said all that I think it's still a fairly good answer to the original question, asking for a game that would let non-native-speakers practice their vocabulary in a fun way...

Bananagrams
Though it may be too similar to Scrabble, as an answer to your question, in Bananagrams your playing a more or less solo scrabble board. Playing tiles to make words in a "crossword"/Scrabble pattern.  When playing with others, there's a speed feel because when a player uses up their last tile, they yell "peel!" and everyone else is forced to take another tile and added it to their pile of tiles.  It's pretty enjoyable. I've rarely seen a game won by someone making a come back, once you're beating everyone a win is almost guaranteed.

Quizzle
I have a board game called Quizzle in Dutch. I couldn't find the English name - I'm not sure it even exists in English. The idea is, every player has an 8x8 square board in front of them and places letters and "black squares" on it; players take turns selecting one or multiple letters that they can use, and then every player has to use a copy of that letter on their board. This yields a crossword-like arrangement on every player's board. At the end of the game, you get points for every horizontally or vertically oriented valid Dutch word delimited by either the edge of the board or the black squares.


text:
Is there a way to play Munchkin Quest with 5 people without the expansion?
Given that there are 2 extra colors on the color die, and you can buy the pawns separately, is there a way to play Munchkin Quest without the expansion?
I realize there are no stands for the monsters, but would any of the rules be affected?

There is a rulesheet for expansion here.
I took a glance on it, there are some special expansion-specific things, but I found nothing concerning gameplay changes, so I suppose you can buy (or make your own) munchkins and stands for the monsters of the appropriate colours and enjoy the game :-)
I can't recall any rule prohibiting it, and, as rules usually say, "Like we could stop you" ;-)