You are often obliged to notify the regulator when you have a decent chunk of stock (5% or 10%, say).

So, one should take proper advice before attempting this sort of thing.

If you obtain a majority of the shares, you can call an EGM (extraordinary general meeting) sack the directors and appoint new ones.

Again, there's a whole pile of legal responsibilities that come with that.

In the case of HMNY, since it is in administration you can't appoint directors.

It's 99.9% likely that you get a letter from the Chapter 7 trustees explaining that after liquidating the company, paying its creditors and deducting their fees the shareholders will be getting nothing.

Yes, if you hold 100% of the shares, you own the company.

But the problem with "buying all the shares" is that you can not buy what isn't for sale.

The current holders of those shares need to be willing to sell them.

If you try a hostile takeover like that, then you might notice that a lot of shareholders are not interested in selling at this time: They might assume the price will raise in the future.

They might not just be speculators but have a personal stake in the company.

They might be employed there or they might have a strategic partnership with the company.

So they don't want it to be taken over by someone they don't even know.

Or they might just not pay attention to the market and overlook your buy offer.

In order to convince these shareholders to sell to you, you might have to offer them a price which is far higher than the price the company is listed at right now.

But you might not even need 100% of the shares to take ownership of a publicly traded company.

Depending on jurisdiction, owning 90%-95% of shares might permit you to perform a squeeze-out - forcing other shareholders to sell to you at market price, no matter if they want to or not.

Owning 50% +

1 of the shares gives you a shareholder majority.

This doesn't technically make you the sole owner, but gives you a high level of control over the company.

You can now make any decision which requires a shareholder majority by yourself.

You're buying from sellers, sellers are more or less willing to sell Always remember when you buy a share if means someone was found willing to sell it to you at an agreed price.

The quoted price represents the lowest price at which a random buyer could buy one extra share.

That price corresponds to the owner that is the most willing to sell.

The more shares you buy, the further you get past those willing to sell, so the more you get to people that aren't so willing to sell, which means higher price, possibly much higher price.

The notion of "Market Depth" conveys this: a shallow market depth means that after buying relatively few shares, you get to shares that you simply can't buy.

Market depth is the market's ability to sustain relatively large market orders without impacting the price of the security

Example

Say the company has 99,999 shares issues and a current trading price of $1; you might be able to buy the first 49,999 for 1$ each*, but the current shareholder(s) know that selling you that last share gives you control of the company.

If they don't want that, then that last share may become very expensive indeed!

In reality if you start to buy large volumes of anything you'll move the price, but let's keep the example simple.

EDIT:

Let's also think about how much the price might move even without the risk of you owning more than half: Start price = S0 =

1$Increase = r = 0.01% per share bought (that's not a lot right?)Shares to buy = N = 50,000Final share price =

S0 * r^N =

(1.0001)^50000 = 150

$Total spent =

S_0 * (1-r^N)/(1-r) =

* (1-1.0001^50000)/(1-1.0001) = 1.47 $m Set the rate a bit higher: Increase = 0.02% per shareTotal = 110$m !!

That doesn't look so cheap any more!

Things to consider: the number of outstanding-shares versus the public-float the amount of debt that the company has and including the possibility of a preferred share issue cash expenses versus cash revenue the stock market doesn't offer a large number of shares at a fixed price merger paperwork is required with securities regulators The reason to consider these is that companies are often bought just to get their stock market listing.

If you buy up 100% of the shares, you become the owner of the company.

Effectively, you take it private.

Then since you're the owner, you get to make all the decisions, e.g. fire this employee, work on this product, etc.

Of course if your decisions turn out to be bad then you are the one who suffers, since it's after all your company's profits that drops.

One thing you won't have to do is justify your actions to the public.

Publicly-listed companies have to declare their financials, their plans, etc, because the public is the owner of the company.

Here's an example of a company that was taken private several years ago: Dell .

Note the buyout price was 25% above the original stock price - as Flux points out in a comment, you need to pay more to convince all the other shareholders to sell.

However, once you own a certain portion of the company, you can compel the remaining shareholders to sell .

Question: I noticed that some companies have only 100,000 market cap.  And it's listed company that you can even buy its shares easily. The turnover rate is even > 100% which means it has enough liquidity.  What would happen if I use my money to buy all its shares? Just wondering...

Why are some listed companies so "cheap" in the market? What would happen if I use my money to buy 100% of its shares?

If you buy up all the shares then you become the owner of the company. Once you have 90% of shares you can force other shareholders to sell to you.

If you hold 100% of the shares, you own the company.  If you obtain a majority of the shares, you can call an EGM, sack the directors and appoint new ones. You might not even need 100% of the shares to take ownership of a publicly traded company.  Once you own a certain portion of the company, you can  compel the remaining shareholders to sell, whether they want to or not.


It's trying to say those who speculate are in for short term and tend to trade more often, thus paying more brokerage fees and making the broker rich.

A longer term investor on the other hand will not trade often and stays put with ups and downs and makes money in long run.

Brokers make money from traders and investors, especially in the days when "The Intelligent Investor" was written (1949)

when commissions were highway robbery.

I don't know what they were at that time but

in the late 70's, it cost $30-$40-$50 to buy a few hundred shares.

So at that time, frequent trading definitely enriched brokers.

Graham is also implying that investors make money whereas traders do not.

Some traders make significant money but it's a small percentage.

Speculation is gambling.

Speculants are the marks, they walk into the casino with lots of cash, most of them leave poor.

A few get rich and inspire the next generation of marks.

Brokers are the house.

They get rich.

A comment mentioned $0 fee brokerages.

I took a look at one of these sites.

On the front page they said "other fees may apply".

Searching further gave a list of fees, including the following text: Fee updates always apply to open positions.

Fees are subject to change at any given time and could change on a daily basis, without prior notice, depending on market conditions.

We encourage you to periodically visit this page to stay updated on current fees.

Brokers make money, or they go out of business.

If they don't take one type of fees, they take another.

They may also be swindlers, planning to disappear one day with all the money people have deposited.

As others have pointed out, the quote comes from many years ago, when broker commissions were much higher than they are now.

But even in these days of commission-free online trading, you're still making money for the brokerage.

According to In the race to zero-fee broker commissions, here’s who the big winner is no-fee brokerages often make money by selling their trading history to other traders.

This fits in with the well-known aphorism about free content on the Internet: If you're not paying for the product, you are the product.

Others provide other services such as money management, financial planning, etc.

to larger investors, which subsidize the free services to small investors.

Also, you need to think about the distinction between speculation and investing.

"Investing" refers to generally holding on to a diverse portfolio of high quality investments for the long term; since the market generally tends to increase, you're almost guaranteed to make a profit unless you select lots of real dogs, and diversification protects you from that.

"Speculation" implies gambling on companies with less of a track record, hoping they'll be the next Apple or Amazon.com, and/or frequent short-term trading; unless you're really lucky, you're not likely to make much money this way, but the broker still gets their share.

You might be wondering about venture capital firms, whose business model is based on investing in startup companies.

They address the problem by having enough money to be able to invest in dozens of these companies at a time.

They expect most of them to fail, but the hope is that a few of them will be successful enough to offset those losses and they come out ahead in the long run.

They also often deal directly with the companies they're investing in, rather than going through brokers, since the companies aren't yet trading on an exchange.

This type of investing is hard for individual investors to do, other than by purchasing shares in VC limited partnerships.

It's like playing slot machines -- unless you have lots of money, you're likely to go broke before you hit the jackpot.

In most retrospectives of the California gold rush, it is noted that it wasn't the people going out west to mine gold that made any money (though of course a select few did), it was the people who sold the shovels to those speculators.

I think the quote is playing off that sort of idea.

Aside from brokers making the money (when they do), the bigger problem is that you are an amateur, playing a largely zero-sum game against players who are professional, much larger than you, have vastly better research than you, better staffed, more experienced and with a better sense of timing .

By "zero sum game"

I mean that if you are speculating, you're obviously not just buying, buying, buying using an infinite pool of money; whenever you are buying, you are selling something else to raise the funds for that.

That means you're not staying in stocks very long.

And that means the natural long-term growth of stocks doesn't help you very much.

Even more than that, when you buy and sell, you're not trading into "the aether".

You are trading with other real people who are choosing to pay or offer that price.

In fact, if you ask yourself "Who is selling low such that they can buy low, and who is buying high such that they can sell high" -- you find yourself facing a sad realization.

Like they say about poker games, if you've been at the table 15 minutes and you haven't figured out who the mark is...

you're the mark .

So amateur speculating only works if you are so vain as to be unable to see the truth.

You are outclassed and outgunned.

I did speculate for a couple months.

I actually broke even, despite paying about $1000 to my broker (in other words, my broker got all my profits).

However, if I had put my money in an index fund at the time and let it sit, I would have been vastly ahead financially even based on the stock values nevermind the broker fees ... and more importantly, would have had about 120 more hours a month to do with as I pleased.

money.stackexchange.com/users/44366/Harper - Reinstate Monica

Question: In  The Intelligent Investor , page 36, Zwieg, who is writing the commentary, states "those who  invest  make money for themselves. Those who  speculate  make money for their brokers." Why is it the case that brokers profit off speculators?

What does Benjamin Graham mean by "Those who speculate make money for their brokers"?

Brokers make money from traders. They often sell their trading history to traders.

Brokers make money from traders and investors. No-fee brokerages often make money by selling their trading history to other traders. If you're not paying for the product,  you  are the product.  When you gamble on companies with less of a track record, unless you are really lucky, you're not likely to make much money, but the broker still gets their share.

When you gambling on companies with less of a track record, unless you are really lucky, you're not likely to make much money, but the broker still gets their share.

S0: Aside from brokers making the money (when they do), the bigger problem is that  you are an amateur, playing a largely zero-sum game against players who are professional, much larger than you, have  vastly better research  than you, better staffed, more experienced and with a better sense of timing .


For card selection, I highly recommend the iDominion iPhone app .

Lets

you specify which sets to include, blacklist individual cards, require Reactions if there are Attacks, and even re-roll one card of the 10 if you just hate the Smithy.

There's also a "lite" free version.

I have all of my cards (Dominion, Intrigue, Seaside, and Alchemy) in two collectible-card-game "long boxes", sorted by set and by name.

(Mine are sleeved as well, but that's not required).

Use one of the many dividers on BoardGameGeek to assist in locating cards.

It's easy to have one person take each box and pull out the cards you need, and for others to chip in parceling out the gold, VPs and starting decks as they're pulled from the boxes.

You can divide up the work this way with the original boxes, but card boxes take up a LOT less table space and the ordering of cards in the original boxes can be highly confusing.

I find Dominion setup much faster than many (most?)

board games, but generally we have: One person who pulls out the gold and VPs and deals out the starting hands One person that chooses the kingdom types (there's an iPhone app that will make a random selection for you, which probably saves a lot of time)

One person that pulls out the types as they're read off the iPhone

It takes maybe three minutes and we're ready to go

Fine the way it is?

I don't feel that Dominion's out-of-the-box card storage, setup, or clean-up need any improvement.

The box comes with clearly labeled and organized trays: cards are grouped by type (kingdom, victory point, etc.)

and then alphabetically.

I have basic and two expansion sets and keep everything in the original boxes.

It might be a little big if you were flying, but to go over to a friend's house via car

it's hardly cumbersome.

Plus, once the game's set up the boxes don't have to take up table space.

Put them on the ground or on another table or stack them on top of each other.

All the ideas for divide and conquer during setup and cleanup make perfect sense.

I assume that almost all play groups do this without even thinking about it.

Several answers have mentioned an iPhone app for selecting Kingdom cards.

This strikes me as a solution in search of a problem, and I'm curious why the app is so popular.

lilserf explains it's capabilities well, but why is an app easier than the randomizer cards designed expressly for this purpose?

What's easier than selecting 10 cards at random from a deck?

I can do that before the app even loads.

In fact, the old-school method is probably quicker because each card can be handed to someone as it's selected so the deck can be retrieved.

Natural division of labor.

If you like to play with cards from all the expansions then shuffle and store the randomizer decks together; otherwise, pick a few from each expansion set based on what kind of game you want.

If you pull a card that folks don't like (Smithy for example) just draw another.

If you all hate it, remove the card from your randomizer deck.

If you're playing with black market, the unselected randomizer cards are the black market deck.

As for tailoring to ensure games with attack cards also have reactions, that undermines some of the charm of the game: learning to adapt to any situation that comes up.

Prohibiting something a priori is doing your group a dis-service.

Mine is similar to Michael Mrozek, but up until recently, we'd had 5-6 people on average playing, and we've had 8 show up before at once (we split into two games then).

We used to divide responsibilities like this: One person chooses the kingdom types (using an app)

One person has Dominion to pull out cards the first person names.

One person has Intrigue to pull out cards the first person names.

One person has Seaside to pull out cards the first person names.

If we have any more people, they pull out the treasure and victory cards.

If not, either the person who has Dominion or Intrigue does.

Now, two of our usual players left, leaving us with 3-5 at any given time.

Plus, we now have Prosperity.

We handle this by having the people pulling cards out of two sets instead of just one, alternating between the two pulling cards.

We do a bit of houserulery and slowly change the game between each session.

At the end of a game each player will pick one kingdom to remove, and then we'll split the randomisers about equally and everyone picks a kingdom to replace the ones they've removed.

We wait to pick the replacements until everyone has selected the ones that are going away, and generally try and keep the various costs between 2-5 in play.

After a 3 player game whomever came in third gets to remove and replace 2 kingdoms.

In a two player, both player removes two.

This way there are four new cards each time.

Question: When playing Dominion, how do you go about organizing all of the various cards and sets while maintaining a priority to getting games started quickly?

What is the best way to keep everything organized and spend less time setting up?

You can use an iPhone app or group the cards by type.

For card selection, the  iDominion iPhone app  is recommended. Dominion's out-of-the-box card storage, setup, or clean-up don't need any improvement. The box comes with clearly labeled and organized trays and the cards are grouped by type.


Make sure EVERYONE knows that Italy is the weakest country, by reminding them of it constantly, both during the game and every time the subject of Diplomacy comes up in conversation generally.

Hopefully this will lull them into a false sense of security, so that you can actually get somewhere with your beleaguered green armies.

Certainly if anyone starts picking on you, you are entitled to complain loudly:

"C'mon!

Everyone knows that Italy doesn't stand a chance of winning this game!

Stop hassling me!"

Of course, this meta-strategy can easily backfire: if you become just too annoying and whiny, people may start attacking you just in the hope of shutting you up!

But generally I think it's perfectly reasonable, given the common knowledge that Italy is far from the strongest position in the game, to present yourself as an underdog and no real threat... until you've rallied your forces sufficiently to strike.

It's all part of the fun of the game!

The Diplomacy Archive has a large number of strategies for Italy and all the other countries .

It also has some articles by Allan B. Calhamer (the inventor of Diplomacy).

You absolutely need to have some dirt on Austria; it will be very difficult for Italy to do well in the face of a hostile Austria.

Even if you join a coalition against Austria early on, you'll find that most of the SCs wind up falling into Turkish hands, rather than yours, leaving you with little better in the way of options.

I'm a big fan of the Lepanto opening: Spring 1901:

Rom - Nap, Nap - IonFall 1901:

Nap - Ion - TunBuild F NapSpring 1902:

Ion - Eme, Nap - Ion Setting up a fall 1902 convoy into the heart of Turkey.

The main weakness is that this leaves your defenses entirely the responsibility of your northern army, and so requires that you use diplomacy to keep your neighbors from attacking you.

One winning strategy is to make an early alliance, preferably with Austria and then knock out Turkey and turn on France.

You'll probably have to backstab Austria at some point -

certainly, I've never got to 18 without Trieste - but

that's the usual backstab timing question.

Don't worry about "backstabbing" Austria.

Try to follow the real life World War

I strategy of making peace with France, and ally with Russia against Austria and Turkey.

If necessary, let Turkey in the initial alliance against Austria, then convince Russia to side with you against Turkey, who would otherwise be stronger than Russia.

Trieste is HUGE for Italy.

You will have a line of four connected supply centers (Naples, Rome, Venice, Trieste).

Five, if you say that Tunis is "connected" by sea with the others (I'd call it 4 1/2).

If France won't make peace and Austria will, ally with England and/or Germany against France.

Hopefully, you'll end up with Marseilles and Spain.

But they aren't connect to homeland supply bases like Trieste, Serbia, etc. would be.

The other problem is that while Russia is a natural ally with you against Turkey, she isn't against England.

I am a big proponent of playing as Italy.

Here's how I do it: no diplomacy for the first year!

A

Ven - Pied & A Rome - Ven! Attack Marseilles and Trieste!

(also grab Tunis)

If you get both SC's, try to ally with Eng/Germ/Russ.

If you fail to get allies, promise to vacate one and focus on the other.

It is easier to ally with Austria than France in my opinion at this point, because it is harder for Austria to not care and attack you all out.

France can swing south and make it hurt.

Ideally, you want to get a Fleet in to the English Channel by 1904!

This way you own the EAST.

Do not ally with Turkey unless he becomes a land power, because his fleets are dangerous.

Good luck!

Question: Italy is almost the worst country to start with. But that makes it a nice challenge.   What is your winning strategy with Italy?

What is a winning strategy for Italy with Diplomacy

Let Turkey be in the initial alliance with Austria, then convince Russia to side with you against Turkey. Do not ally with Turkey.

The Diplomacy Archive has a large number of strategies for Italy  and all  the other countries. One suggestion is to play as Italy. It might be easier to ally with Austria than France, because it is harder for Austria to attack you all out. You could let Turkey in the initial alliance against Austria, then convince Russia to side with you against Turkey. Do not ally with Turkey unless it becomes a land power, because its fleets are dangerous.

The Diplomacy Archive has a large number of strategies for Italy  and all  the other countries .

If necessary, let Turkey in the initial alliance against Austria, then convince Russia to side with you against Turkey.

I am a big proponent of playing as Italy.

It is easier to ally with Austria than France in my opinion at this point, because it is harder for Austria to attack you all out.


For me the big strategy for seafarers is to realize that most of the time the islands are not worth it.

If it is very convenient to go for an island then do it, but usually I find that the resources I expend could have been better used elsewhere.

(Though if everyone is following this strategy, then the islands are great because of the free space.

Basically you want everyone else to go for the islands but you.)

When placing 1st or 2nd in the basic game, I always look at the board and determine which of the two basic strategies (ore/hay & wood/brick) works best.

If I place 3rd or 4th, and my opponents know what they are doing, I often have to use the opposite strategy (or one of the others i.e. balanced/monopoly/etc).

Seafarers adds wood/sheep as a third equally viable strategy.

I enjoy this since it gives you more options when placing 3rd or 4th.

Since both wood/sheep are needed for boats, players with higher probability wood/sheep hexes will be more able to explore.

Don't under value

the 2 bonus points for building on an island.

Unlike longest road and largest army, you can't lose these points.

One key difference to the wood/sheep strategy in seafarers is that it is a two-part strategy.

Building towards a high-probability outer island hex allows you to make-up for a lack of that resource on the main island.

In this way, you almost shift strategies mid-game.

My first choice is to build towards a good Gold hex.

You can do anything with it.

My second choice is to build towards a good hay or ore hex.

Both allow you upgrade your cities and free up settlement tokens for further expansion.

Good access to sheep/hay/ore also allows you to hoard development cards and go for largest army & victory point cards.

(If you are using the wood/sheep strategy, I assume you already have good access to wool.)

If I don't have good access to brick on the mainland, building towards brick helps to build settlements without having to trade-in, and also to go for longest road.

To me, the big benefit of playing Seafarers is the diversity of maps, and the ability to play random maps.

I find the default random map is a little sparse on land, but this only makes you think harder on where you want to build.

These new maps open up new strategies, and change the dynamic of land settlement from being contained on a single land mass.

Depending on the map and the starting positions, you could want to focus on boats or completely ignore them.

As said above, you might want to strike out visit new land in order to get more victory points.

Depending on what scenario your playing, and what the map looks like, changes how you play.

Seafarers games take longer, but if your playing random maps, it makes each new game different.

There is also the discovery map, where you never know what tile your uncover next.

You need sheeps and wood to build a ship, so sheep are slightly more important.

Second, most games give extra victory points for the first settlement on a new island.

This can be nice, but realise that you will have at least two settlements on a coast, reducing the number of goods for them.

In my experience, small islands are usually not worth going for in the beginning of the game because the amount of territory you get access to is not worth the resource requirements.

Obviously, the larger the island, the closer it is to your starting position, and the more dots worth of production, then the more worth while it is to go for.

However, even if you don't settle any islands for the first 80% of your game, there are two big strategy changes: 1)

Ships can be moved (1 per turn).

Building many ships can be a strategic choice that offers many tactical advantages during the game:

It is possible to build an additional settlement without needing to first builda road or ship, by relocating a ship.

In basic Settlers it can be very risky to go for a settlement site whenthere's competition, as you may end up with 2 or more stranded anduseless road links.

Now if you compete with ships to a coastal site,you can relocate them if you lose a race.

You can do tricky things with getting longest road.

In scenarios where resources are earned for island exploration, youcan move your ships around to keep getting more resources, thenrelocate them to their final destination later.

With ships opening up so many more opportunities, wood and sheep are more valuable in Seafarers than in Settlers.

The bonus victory point(s) offered in many scenarios for building your first island settlement makes for an interesting end game strategy not available in basic settlers.

As discussed in What is optimal end play in Settlers? , it can be hard to win Settlers by increasing one victory point at a time, as players gang up to slow the leader.

In Seafarers, islands make it possible to catapult to victory with a 4-6 victory point turn.

You do this by waiting to settle your first island on the turn

you think you can win because you have the right combination of resource and development cards, as follows: play a key development card (Monopoly?

Year of Plenty?

RoadBuilding?)

move a ship build more ships/roads until you have longest road (2 victory points)

build a settlement on the island (2-3 victory points)

add in your developments cards that are victory points (0 or morepoints)

Building your first settlement on an island counts for 1 victory point for the settlement, and 1-2 bonus points depending on the scenario and the edition of Settlers of Catan edition you're using.

Older editions have a 1 victory point bonus, while the newest edition usually offers a 2 victory point bonus.

About gold: In most games I've played, islands with gold usually take a lot of resources to reach and then attract the robber disproportionately.

So going for gold is rarely a winning strategy.

Question: Just starting out with Seafarers of Catan—what are the key strategy differences between Settlers of Catan and Seafarers?

What are the key strategy differences between Settlers of Catan and Seafarers?

The big strategy is to realise the islands are not worth it. The big benefit of this game is the diversity of maps, that makes each new game different.

A good strategy for seafarers is to realize that most of the time the islands are not worth it, but they also make it possible to catapult to victory with a 4-6 victory point turn. One important benefit of playing Seafarers is the diversity of maps, and the ability to play random maps. Seafarers games take longer, but if you are playing random maps, each new game will be different.  In Seafarers, one key difference to the wood/sheep strategy is that it is a two-part strategy.  It can be hard to win Settlers by increasing one victory point at a time, as players gang up to slow down the leader.

A big strategy for seafarers is to realize that most of the time the islands are not worth it, but they also make it possible to catapult to victory with a 4-6 victory point turn. One important benefit of playing Seafarers is the diversity of maps, and the ability to play random maps. Seafarers games take longer, but if you are playing random maps, each new game will be different.


Once you have learned some basic strategy, the best way to learn is to play.

If you don't have a friend or neighbor to play with, then I highly recommend the American Go Association.

They have a great resources page , links to clubs, books and teaching software .

The AGA maintains a list of Internet Go Servers for on-line play, including some turn-based servers.

Turn-based servers are good for beginners because there is no pressure to move quickly — you play via email.

The Dragon Go Server is dedicated to Go.

The great thing about Go is that it is easy to handicap.

You and a much more accomplished player can both enjoy a game together, you just have to handicap the expert player.

The interactive way to Go .

It is only rudiments, but helpful at the beginning.

Only one advice: Play on small boards !

Just start by understanding a "simplified-but-faithful" formulation of the rules, like Strasbourg Rules , and then practice with a partner (either a beginner or an experienced player) on a 5x5 board .

Once you both feel too cramped on 5x5 (typically after 5 to 10 games) then move to 7x7, and so on.

Only after quite a long time does it become enjoyable to play on 19x19.

Don't try it too soon, or you'll be disoriented by the many possibilities and loose interest in the game.

GoGrinder is a free desktop program for practicing Go problems.

There's also a (paid) version of GoGrinder for iPhone on iTunes.

Mac Software .

It hasn't been updated in a while, and I have no idea if they're interested in porting it to iOS, but a company in Switzerland called Sente have produced a very nice, and free, Go client for OSX called Goban

(and it still works on Snow Leopard, despite not having updates since 2006).

It lets you play against the Gnu-Go program (which it bundles), and it lets you connect to internet Go servers that support

Go Modem and Go Text protocols.

How good you think the opposing play AI is, well, I'm not sure an experienced Go player would appreciate it, but I sure do as a learner.

At one point, I was able to download and compile up a simple Go Server for OSX on my own, so I could host my own Go Server

and then people at my workplace could connect to it

and we could play games over our intranet, but I wouldn't recommend that for the non-technical. Books .

Kiseido publishes a series of books on Go, in English.

I have K31 ("The Second Book of Go"), which I thought was quite useful, and most of the Elementary Go Series (K10-K15), and, again, I found them quite useful.

K31 says that it assumes that "you're new to the game, but you've already read a newbie intro book on Go", but I didn't think it was necessary.

Once you know the rules, I thought that K31 was a perfectly fine place to start your studies.

I don't consider myself anything more than a beginner, and I also am not the sort of person who enjoys reading series of problems and such, so I haven't progressed past these books from Kiseido, but they do offer a whole raft of books for players of all skill levels (ostensibly).

Start by playing with "strong" (or at least stronger) players if you can.

You'll get whipped, but at least you'll learn some of their "typical" moves. After you have served an "apprenticeship," then look for opponents close to your own strength.

Try to beat them with the techniques you have learned from others.

Question: I am a beginner at this great game, and I would like to improve my skills at the game of Go. What resources would you recommend?

What do you recommend to learn Go?

The best way to learn is to play. You can try the American Go Association. Play with strong players if you can.

Once you have learned some basic strategies, e.g. Strasbourg Rules. If you don't have a friend or neighbour to play with, then you can join the American Go Association. Start by playing with strong or at least stronger players if you can and play on a small board.

Once you have learned some basic strategies, e.g. Strasbourg Rules. If you don't have a friend or neighbour to play with, then you can join the American Go Association. Start by playing with strong or at least stronger players if you can.


I think the main thing you need to do is correctly identify your strengths and weaknesses, and don't try to force a strategy you're not set up for.

If you don't have abundant brick and wood, don't even bother going for Longest Road.

Even the worst placement will have some resources they are rich in.

Try to get a port that capitalizes on your resources, and make the necessary trades with other players to get the resources you're poor in.

If you're rich in... Brick or Wood -- try for longest road and build plenty of settlements Grain or Ore -- upgrade your starting settlements to cities and buy development cards Sheep -- go for Largest Army via development cards, or depending on your next best resource, you'll probably follow one of the other two basic strategies Of course even with all of this, sometimes the dice just won't drop your way :)

If your initial placement is bad, hopefully you can still build a little.

The first couple road placements are critical.

By then you should be able to figure out which commodities are in short supply this game .

Either because they haven't been rolled yet, or they're sitting on a 3 and an 11.

Use your first two roads to build for that scare resource, claim it, and then see who will overtrade you for it!

If you find you're often badly placed, initially, it may be that you're either making errors there, or misjudging where other players are going to place their initial settlements.

It's easy to pick your optimal placement when in a four player game you place fourth-fifth, and you can usually figure where the fourth player to play will go when you place third-sixth.

If you go first you usually grab one of the two best producing junctions, and should aim for brick and wood since if you have those two with your first settlement, if your options are limited when it gets back to you

at least you're able to move, and other players are often hungry for brick and wood early in the game, meaning you're the trading king.

Going second-seventh is often the toughest slot, since the first player to go typically grabs the best brick and wood combination (assuming there is one), and there often isn't another good brick and wood combo on the table.

Then, of course, by the time it gets back to you pickings tend to be slim.

Still and all, given the good advice people have offered, above, you really shouldn't run into setup situations too often at the beginning of the game that seriously handicap you.

One of the three main lines of play should be open to you.

It's unusual to be stuck with setups where all you get are ore, sheep, and brick; or wheat, sheep, and wood; those triumvirates that leave you unable to move, unable to build, and unable to pick up development cards.

Avoid those scenarios if you possibly can, since you're absolutely dependent on the tender mercies of other traders to bail you out and let you progress.

Even so, if that's the best situation available to you, you may need to try to build to the nearest 2:1 port of a resource you're rich in, just to get the flexibility that'll get you back in the game.

Diplomacy.

During the mid game, constantly point out how badly you are doing, encouraging others to trade with you in preference to other players - even offering you better deals.

This can allow you to develop a couple of settlements and get back in the game while the others are playing stop-the-leader.

Initial placement is critical, but once you've seen the layout, you can devise a strategy that will get you something.

One of the big goals you should be going for is number diversity, so that you're always getting something.

When there is a valuable resource(the average amount of pips for each resource is 11.6)

that has less than 10 pips, and there is no red hex corresponding to that resource, and there is only a 4 pip for that resource(ie there is only a 9,3, and 12 hex for wheat, then try to claim the 9 and block other people from it) and don't trade with people for that resource unless it's 3:1(and usually if you want to trade 3:1

they have a harbor, else usually at least 4:1).

So if you don't have that resource as initial placement, you should try to get a port and trade

what you have(for example you have 2 cities and they correspond to a 8 and a 9 for sheep, get a sheep port) with the bank.

Question: In Settlers of Catan, how do you overcome bad initial settlement placement?  In a lot of games of Catan I've played, initial settlement placement seems to really make or break the game for a player.  Are there any good strategies for overcoming a weak starting placement?

In Settlers of Catan, how do you overcome bad initial settlement placement?

The first road placements are critical. Try to get a port that capitalizes on your resources.

The first couple of road placements are critical.  If you don't have abundant brick and wood, it is not worth bothering going for Longest Road. Even the worst placement will have some resources they are rich in and you can still build a little. Try to get a port that capitalizes on your resources, and trade with other players to get the resources you are poor in.  You may need to try to build to the nearest 2:1 port of a resource you're rich in, just to get back in the game. You should try to get a port and trade. One of your big goals should be going for diversity, so that you're always getting something.

The first couple road placements are critical.  If you don't have abundant brick and wood, it is not worth bothering going for Longest Road.

Even the worst placement will have some resources they are rich in amd you can still build a little

Try to get a port that capitalizes on your resources, and tradeswith other players to get the resources you are poor in.


Some mix of the following: Buy the biggest one you can afford - Remembering that you have to afford fuel as well.

Try to get a plant that has dual fuel sources Don't buy a coal only plant if 2 other people already have coal fired plants.

Don't get into bidding wars with more experienced players If the above isn't working out, switch tactics - save your money and get the cheapest one

you can this turn and get a better plant next turn.

Assuming you're playing with 3 or 4 players, use the 1-2-3-4-5-6-6 strategy.

That is, first power plant should power 1 city, second 2, etc.

Then you'll grow your capacity in a measured pace, and you'll end up with a capacity of exactly 17.

A bad strategy would be: 1-1-3-4-4-5-... because that will make it very hard to reach 17.

Also, by not buying top-of-the-line power plants, you'll probably never be in first place and having to pay most for fuel.

Part of it will depend on your long term strategy; buying a low power plant puts you up first for the cheap resources and the prime places on the board.

While more expensive and efficient power plants can give you a leg up in accumulating cash early in the game.

Personally I prefer to start with a relatively inexpensive power plant (as low and cheap as feasible - never more than 2x than the initial value

is my rule of thumb to start out) until I've seen the board locations and then focus on keeping my power plants close to the number of cities I actually own.

With the auction system don't be afraid to let one go if it gets too expensive - the green power plants can be a real bonus if you aren't paying an arm and a leg for them.

I don't mind to, in the first turn, buying a cheap plant with a lot of storage space (say, three coal).

The cheap plant will help you in the turn order.

Now I stock up on cheap resources (cheap because we are in the start of the game)

so later my one-coal plant can run for 6 turns.

This has the additional bonus that resources become more expensive for the other players.

If you can get a city where you can connect to the next city for free, the money saved allows you to stock up nicely.

Do not waste your money on plants up to plant number 13, you'll ned to change them soon.

Later ones are better.

And also you don't have many cities at the begining.

Later I'm trying to get plants which could electrify as many cities as possible.

These plants waste a lot of resources, but you will not need to change them until the end of game.

Four is thought to be one of the best ones to start with.

You'll be assured of going first or second (though I'd avoid three), and you can buy a full boat of coal that will tide you over until turn 3.

Very hard to say really.

It depends on so many factors.

The best strategy is to have the power plants that use the resources that your competitors do not use.

This then makes the cost of goods cheap to buy, and therefore cheap to fire up.

Question: I've played Power Grid once so far. What is a good beginner's strategy in the initial accumulation of power plants?

Power plants in Power Grid

Try to get a plant with dual fuel sources. Don't get into bidding wars with more experienced players. Buying a cheap power plant first and look for plants that use fuel that your competitors don't.

Don't get into bidding wars with more experienced players. If you're playing with 3 or 4 players, use the 1-2-3-4-5-6-6 strategy. Try to get a plant that has dual fuel sources  For example don't buy a coal only plant if 2 other people already have coal fired plants. If you buy a low power plant this will place you first for cheap resources and the prime places on the board. One tactic is to start with a relatively inexpensive power plant. Do not waste your money on plants up to plant number 13, you'll need to change them soon. Until you have seen the board locations keep your power plants close to the number of cities you actually own. The best strategy is to have the power plants that use the resources that your competitors do not use.

If you buy a low power plant this will place you first for cheap resources and the prime places on the board. S2: One tactic is to start with a relatively inexpensive power plant.


The Oxford History of Board Games is a very thorough book that discusses board games from their ancient inception to the (almost) present-day dividing into Race Games, Space Games, Chase Games, Displace Games, and War Games (such as chess).

While not a direct answer, check out the recent " Hobby Games, the 100 best " book.

It has games from the last 100 years and there is a lot of history contained within its page.

Each entry is written by a game designer as well.

I enjoyed the book very much, learned a ton.

I think A History of Board Games Other Than Chess is one of the definitive books in this category.

The Library Thing page I linked to also has several related books to check out.

R.C

Bell wrote several books on board games, though I don't think they were as structured as the Oxford book that Jeremiah already mentioned.

Dork Tower #34: A Brief History of Gaming is a comic book featuring the early history of board games.

John Kovalic is the author/illustrator (he is also a game designer) who created Dork Tower, a comic book that frequently features gaming of all kinds.

I am currently reading (and very much enjoying) A World of Chess: Its Development and Variations Through Centuries and Civilizations , by Jean-Louis Cazaux and Rick Knowlton.

It's very much specific to chess, but of course chess was and continues to be a big part of the history of board games.

What I'm finding particularly awesome about the book is that it goes into the mechanics of chess in each of its many incarnations over the times and places its been played.

Anyone interested in this topic (history of board games) will absolutely find it fascinating.

Question: Is there a good book about the history of board games?   Preferably the book would cover all the way from the ancient games to the newest fads in the market.

History of board games

Try the Oxford History of Board Games, A History of Board Games and a Brief History of Gaming.

The  Oxford History of Board Games  is a book that goes into great depth discussing board games from their ancient inception to the present-day. It is divided into Race Games, Space Games, Chase Games, Displace Games, and War Games (including chess).  A History of Board Games Other Than Chess  is another book in this category. Dork Tower #34: A Brief History of Gaming  is a comic book that features on the early history of board games.


It's called castling .

It's important because it gets your king out of danger (the centre is not safe), while simultaneously moving your 'tower' (also called a Castle, or a Rook) into the centre, where it is much more useful.

See this related question: Is castling still done in the openings in modern chess?

This is called "castling".

The Wikipedia article has information about the origins of the move.

The move is important to build a fortress for your king, and to free the rook for attacking the enemy king.

The name of the move is castling.

The history of the move is explained well on the wikipedia page .

The main advantage is that you move 2 at the same time.

It's important to note that the 2 castlings are not the same.

The long one is more aggressive and if you do it right, you get your rook in line with your queen.

Traditionally, taking the center should be an objective.

Castling enables this.

I don't consider myself a strong player, but in my experience, Castling is best used for positioning rather as a defense for your King.

Remember, you need to have the Initiative...

About the importance of the move: (Usually) Helps to get your king to safety.

Very often, center line is not safe in a battlefield.

Brings the rook closer to the center line.

Oftentimes, the fight will be around those lines.

You could read on "importance of center" if you are interested.

Only move that lets you move two pieces helping in tempo

Only move that lets you move your king two squares Allows one to connect the rooks.

We say rooks are connected when they protect each other.

Of these, the first two are the most important.

King safety is essential by the very nature of the game.

Getting the rook out in the game is also important.

For example, in many queen side castling moves, players intend to bring the rook for the attack.

Many people use this move in almost all their games.

And when was it included in chess?

Obviously, it was not in the early versions of the game.

It is an addition to the fast European chess for sure.

14th or 15th century is an estimated time.

The wikipedia entry for castling looks nice.

This related question is on the history of castling.

It is a nice read.

https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/486/how-did-castling-originate Happy Castling.

The main purpose of castling is to "develop" the king, not the rook.

The king is easier to defend towards the end squares but can be in danger anywhere.

However around the e-file the king also gets in the way of the other pieces, in particular blocking the rook in.

Thus the castling move "swaps" the positions of the king and rook simultaneously.

The normal sequence of opening moves is to first get minor pieces out and a few pawns, castle, get the queen out and that leaves the two rooks alone in the back-rank aside from the king near the end where they can move around freely between the files.

In highly "attacking" chess games, the two players may castle on opposite sides, i.e. one does the king-side and the other the queen-side.

You then launch an attack on the side where the other play has his king by moving the pawns forward.

However you also need to defend your own side from the opponents attack.

Such games often suit white better.

I therefore once had a rule that if I was black I would wait for my opponent to castle first.

I'm not sure about the general validity of that rule, but something to consider.

Question: I'm a chess beginner, and I was wondering: why was this movement introduced to chess, and why is it important to the game?

What's the name of the move where the player swaps King and Rook/Castle in Chess? Why is this move important?

This is called castling. It is used to develop the king. It swaps the positions of the king and the rook.

The name of the move is castling.  The main purpose of castling is to "develop" the king, rather than the rook. The castling move therefore  "swaps" the positions of the king and rook simultaneously.


While low interaction is a frequent critique of the game, I think most experienced players would tell you that you're not playing the game as effectively as you could.

First, I'm assuming you're playing the game without the Brink of War rules which add direct player conflict to the game.

Second, a large part of the subtlety of the game is the need to very carefully make decisions about role selection - optimally, you want to balance your selection against the roles you think other players will select while avoiding selections that benefit other players more than they benefit you (in other words, you want to maximize the value/activity you achieve during a term while minimizing the value/activity of your opponents).

Another subtle point is the need to review other player's tableaus for point scoring combos - when you see someone else's combo fall into place, it's generally advisable to move the game to its end (unless of course your own combo is up and running and superior).

The last tidbit that is typically overlooked is card denial.

In most games of RftG, the deck will be shuffled a few times, increasing the odds that your opponents will get the chance to play rarer cards that can shift the victory point totals significantly.

Holding on to cards that you intend to spend for a bit longer can mean that a useful card never sees play due to the timing of shuffles!

I think it is worth extending the answers already here, As a big fan of RTFG, I do not think there is low or no interaction with other players.

The thing is, that after the learning curve has been surpassed (it is a bit extended) you will find yourself responding to opponent actions or forcing him to do the same.

The model simply doesn't feature card taking (until extensions) nor a visible pool of card that players compete for.

As the game states, it is called Race For the Galaxy, thus you are all racing to build a better empire.

To anyone reading this, if you are a new player: Ever thought that "the game is too fast" or "I was about to play this or that card"?

That's precisely the point, you shouldn't look at your hand only and devise the most point combo, but rather look at your hand and your opponent's tableu

: that's the race condition right there; any advantage in developping, settling, trade, etc may give him the edge.

Finally about the takeovers , I will add that while it is true that they allow for direct interaction, they are used rarely at least in all the games I've seen, simply because there's always an alternative to them.

Even if there are takeovers it doesn't happen more than 1 or twice in a 4+ players game.

The key interaction that we've found has been the timing of production and consumption roles.

If your opponent is always playing the consumption roles, they're getting a bunch of extra cards and points that you aren't.

Sometimes you have to play these roles a bit earlier than you would like, just to avoid getting scooped.

You can certainly place Race while in your own "bubble".

Many newbies do this since they're still learning and have too many things to worry about.

However, even though there's no direct or negative interaction (well, exp #2 and exp #3 add takeovers, but you can't always count on that anyways), being able to anticipate what others will call so you can leech off of them, and avoiding phases that help others, while calling phases that help you more are what separate those who win disproportionately more games vs. luck.

heck, uou can even play war games or their rough equivalent like Civilization the Board game, Small World, or Eclipse in your own bubble, but you especially want to pay attention to others here too.

There's no "negative interaction" in this game.

Well, with Rebel Vs.

Imperium and Brink Of War expansions, the Takeover mechanic can be optional, and even when it is on, players need the appropriate cards for the TO powers, opponents need to be vulnerable (have certain conditions), and the aggressor needs to have sufficient military strength.

However, there are plenty of other interactions that'll help you play a better game by paying attention to others...

--obviously if someone has 10 to 11 cards on tableau, there's a good chance the game will end in 1 or 2 rounds, so you're better off "mad grabbing" for points than improving your engine.

Especially if those players have larger hand of cards --If the VP pool is low, and players are collectively sitting on mountains of goods with Consume powers, better pick an action card that'll get you the VP you need (e.g. II to build that 6-cost dev) --If

someone has no cards in hand, there's a decent chance Explore will get called.

If they have goods, you can likely count on a Consume Trade --If

you're looking for specific cards, like a 6-cost dev

.. seeing it on another player's tableau means you won't be getting it.

Likewise, the other devs only have 2 copies, so seeing both of them out means the same thing --If players have powers, they're likely to pick those to exploit those.

For example, military strength tends to do more settling of Military worlds, or Produce bonuses for the sheer card draw. --player

specific ones too, like how some people may call Explore a bit too much

Question: In Race For The Galaxy, I'm usually focused on my own cards, and only find out who wins during the scoring at the end of the game.  Is this a feature of the game — that is, is it low on interaction? Or is my strategy inadequate?

Interaction in Race For The Galaxy

Low interaction is a frequent critique but you are probably not playing the game as effectively as you could. There are plenty of interactions that will help you play a better game.

Low interaction is a frequent critique of the game, but more experienced players would disagree and suggest that you're not playing the game as effectively as you could. One key interaction is the timing of production and consumption roles. There are also plenty of other interactions that will help you play a better game by paying attention to others.
There is no "negative interaction" in this game.

Low interaction is a frequent critique of the game, bu more experienced players would disagree and suggest that you're not playing the game as effectively as you could.


I generally think of Axis and Allies as being like advanced Risk.

Also there are all of the different Risk clones, 2210, LoTR, Star Wars, Godstorm and others which introduce slight variants in maps and rules.

Of those I'd recommend 2210, but if you can handle the complexity, which isn't bad in the grand scheme, Axis and Allies is the way to go.

Diplomacy is a similar game in that its aim is to conquer other players land.

However it removes the dice and the element of chance, replacing it with face to face negotiation (making it a much better game IMHO).

You can play it online for a quick taster.

There are also lots of other web based learning resources.

Shogun is another similar game.

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

I really like Risk 2210 A.D. .

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

History of the World is played much like Risk .

There are 7 epochs.

During each epoch a player takes control of a different empire from the past.

They expand and conquer as much as they can (this part plays out very similar to Risk).

Next epoch they play a new vibrant empire.

Scoring is based on area control at the end of each player's turn.

Last year a new edition was released called, A Brief History of the World which is supposed to play to completion quicker.

I haven't yet tried it.

There is also Dust , which is set in an alternate World War II.

There you have mechs and tanks, submarines and destroyers, bombers and fighters.

New additions also include character-based powers, fortified positions and capitals.

Unlike vanilla RISK, it uses a VP track to determine victory.

One of the interesting part of the combat is that tanks soak damage before mechs, fighters soak damage before bombers and destroyers soak damage before submarines (If I recall correctly).

Mechs, Bombers and Submarines provide more offense in the game The official site for the game is here .

How about Twilight Imperium.

We always play and when I explain to someone who is not into the scene what it is I always end up

saying:"Ok, do you know Risk?

Well it's like that but more complicated".

But I guess there are loads of game that then qualify as advanced Risk :).

Ozymandia is simultaneous Risk, simplified to its essence.

I used to play Samurai Swords (also known as Shogun) as a kid.

It's a lot like Risk, with several unit types, more complex battles, and more territories.

It takes forever though.

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for, but there are various Risk variants that use exactly the same rules and mechanics, but on a different board.

I've got the Lord of the Rings and Star Wars variants, and there are others .

As far as I can tell (from the LOTR and Star Wars verions) they normally/often have some extra (and optional) themed rule and unit variations, which, combined with the new map topology, can keep it interesting if you're bored of classic Risk.

Question: Are there any other board games that have similar game mechanics to  Risk ?

What games are similar to Risk?

Try Risk 2210 AD, Axis and Allies, Diplomacy, Shotgun or History of the World.

There is Risk 2210 A.D. Games similar to Risk include Axis and Allies which are like an advanced version of Risk. There are also different Risk clones, 2210, LoTR, Star Wars, Godstorm, all of which introduce slight variants in maps and rules.  Diplomacy is also a similar game with the aim to conquer other players’ land. Shogun and History of the World are similar games. Dust is set in an alternate World War II. There is also Twilight Imperium and Ozymandia, which is Risk simplified to its essence.


Patience is the only thing I can think of, with my kids (aged 6)

I started by fanning them out and place them in their hands finished, lately they collect them and take a grip

and I only fan them out for them.

As an alternative just buy a couple of Playing Card Holders and worry about it later on :)

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

When I was a kid, I would put my cards on a chair beside me.

That way my parents couldn't see them, but I didn't have to hold them.

As an alternative to Don's pretty comprehensive solution: Have you considered playing some games with the hands 'open' (the cards showing, usually inevitably spread on the table)?

Although this removes a large chunk of the strategy in most games (which may well be beyond them initially), it will give them a chance to look at their opponent's hands and anticipate their next move.

Thus allowing them an easier introduction to closed-hand game strategies.

I have the answer!

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

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

Now you can put the kids' cards in them - face down

and you're not even peeking!

Oh.

I see that this answer has a picture of what I'm describing a DIY version of....

To help my 6-year-old daughter play Uno with the family, my 10-year-old son just grabbed a chip clip that you would use to hold a bag of potato chips and flipped it upside down.

He showed my daughter how to fan her cards and place them in the clip.

With a little practice, she is using it to play Uno with the rest of the family.

Prior to this, we had a family friend who helped her set up a cereal box in front of her cards with her cards laying face up on the table.

This was doable, but she still felt like a "baby," and she felt disconnected with the cereal box in front of her face.

She loves the chip clip solution!!!

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

How to help kids to hold their cards in their hands ?

You can buy playing card holders or a clip that will hold the cards in place.

You can fan the cards out and place them in their hands or you can buy a couple of Playing Card Holders until they are able to hold them themselves. A great solution is to secure them with a clip that you would use to hold a bag of potato chips.

You can fan the cards out and place them in their hands.

You can buy a couple of Playing Card Holders until they are able to hold them themselves.

You can secure them with a clip that you would use to hold a bag of potato chips.


Zack Hiwiller's Dominion Card Randomizer is nice.

It works fine on laptops and mobile devices, is free, has card images, and has some nice options.

http://www.hiwiller.com/dominion/ Downside: requires internet connection.

Dominion Shuffle for Android I'd have to go back and use iDominion some more to compare the two, but this is the best option I've found for Android users.

Turn various expansions on and off.

Require or prohibit a certain card.

You can set minimums and maximums for any number of things Examples:

Require at least one card each of costs 2 through 5; require three cost-5 cards; require no more than 4 cards from Intrigue; require [X] +Action/+Buy/trashing cards; etc.

If you can dream it up, you can probably do it.

It allows you to set up a pretty detailed list of rules, like requiring a minimum number of X when any Y cards show up.

This lets you do the obvious reaction card(s) to go with attack cards, but you can even use it for odd preferences like: require Mine if prosperity cards are in play; require at least 4 Alchemy cards if any Alchemy cards are in play; require a Moat if a Witch is in play; require Embargo if that annoying card your friend likes is in play; etc.

Dominion Kingdom Deck for iPhone, free!

From the iTunes description: offers an optional structured randomization mode.

In this mode, it guarantees that there is at least 1 card each of 2 cost, 3 cost, 4 cost and 5 cost.

All current cards for Dominion, Intrigue, Seaside, Alchemy and Prosperity as well as the promo cards Black Market, Envoy and Stash are included as starting data.

All sets can be turned on and off to match your playing situation.

Don't like a card in the list?

Swipe the row and replace it with a new one. Have a custom set?

Add it in with the built-in set editor.

Had a particularly interesting mix of cards?

Save the list and recall it later.

iDominion EDIT: iDominion has not been updated for several sets - it lacks Cornucopia and Hinterlands Features Turn each expansion on or off (supports all expansions through Prosperity)

Turn each promo card (Envoy, Black Market, Stash) on or off Generates the Black Market deck as well

if you're using it Sort the resulting list by name, cost, or set (or a combination) to facilitate easy retrieval of the cards Randomization Options Ensure Attack Ensure Reaction

No Curses

No 6 Plus Cost Ensure

Buy Ensure +Action Blacklist for cards

you're just sick of Swipe to replace any card in the set with a new one Correctly selects 3-5 Alchemy cards or none at all Cons Not free

(although iDominion Lite is free, and a fully functioning randomizer.

It doesn't offer the blacklist and randomization options)

"Correct" Alchemy selection means you may have to refresh several times before it actually chooses any Alchemy cards

Dominion Minion

(iOS Only)

Similar to iDominion - was the first Dominion related app on the App Store.

Enable/Disable Expansions Blacklist Change ordering - cost, alphabetical, by set Can only show Alchemy cards if at least 3-5 Alchemy cards

This is a great (the best, far and away, IMO) offline randomizer with a TON of options.

You'll love it.

disclaimer

: I wrote the app :)

Get it here: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/gajlaijicbmdnbpdficpdlkhgajhgkkd

Not real sure why this recommendation keeps getting deleted.

I'll try one more time and if it gets deleted this time I'll appeal to admin.

We've been pretty happy with WebMinion .

It has plenty of options for how to set the cards up and lets you selectively re-randomize any of them, which we use a lot in our games if something comes up that we've seen too much or nobody likes, but we don't want to scrap the whole set.

Question: In  this question  I received two different recommendations for iPhone specific apps to assist with Dominion setups.  My group uses a third (non iPhone specific).  Which is the best, and why?  Please, only one app per answer, thanks!

What is the Best Random Card Setup Tool?

Dominion Shuffle for Android, Dominion Kingdom Deck for iPhone or Webminion.

Zack Hiwiller's Dominion Card Randomizer is recommended, as is WebMinion . There is also Dominion Shuffle  for Android and iDominion. Dominion Kingdom Deck  for iPhone, is free.

Zack Hiwiller's Dominion Card Randomizer is nice.

We've been pretty happy with  WebMinion .


Ante and blinds are both forced bets.

Ante is a bet that everyone in the game must make in order to stay at the table.

It forces there to always be at least some payout in the pot, increasing the relative value of playing a hand to folding.

Blinds are bets that only one or two players are forced to make, usually a small blind and a big blind, the small blind at half the big blind.

They are bet by the two players after the dealer, and thus rotate around as the dealer rotates.

The blinds start betting off; bidding starts with the player after the big blind, and players must call or raise the blind bet to stay in the game, otherwise they fold.

It puts less in the pot than ante does, thus it does less to incentivize staying in the game, but it still puts enough in that it's worth it for some people to stay in as they do stand to win something, and the players who played the blinds stand to lose them if they simply fold.

Ante is given by all players before cards are dealt.

It's effect is to make sure that everyone has some skin in the game, and that people don't instantly fold when dealt less than stellar cards.

Blinds are a different way of dividing up the ante so that only a few player are committed to the game before seeing their cards.

They are generally split into big and small blinds.

The big blind is the full 'ante' for the round.

The small blind is a smaller sum.

The blinds are bet before cards are dealt, but after seeing the initial cards, players can either fold, pay so that they have equaled the big blind, or place a higher bet.

When playing with an ante, all players have to give the same amount before they are allowed to see their cards.

Thus, everyone has an equal stake in the current hand, and folding is less common in early betting rounds.

(It's the "I already paid

so I might as well stick around for another card" mentality.)

Antes have the benefit of allowing players to sit out any hand (say, to go to the restroom or take a phone call) or even quite the game without any sense of unfairness.

Blinds are unequal forced bets usually imposed on two players per round.

After seeing their cards, the remaining players have to call or raise to stay in the hand.

Since there is initially an unequal stake in the hand, folding is common.

(Why stay in if you haven't put anything in the pot and you have a lousy hand so far?)

Also, savvy players can "over-raise" on the blind round to force everyone into folding, thus slowly building wealth by bleeding their opponents of the blinds.

And with a blind system, if a player needs to leave the table for some reason, the fairness of the game becomes problematic, as they obviously can't leave when they are up for a blind, but leaving at another time would rob them of a "free" hand.

Or does everyone wait however long it takes for that player to return?

(In case you can't tell, I consider blinds to be a blight on the noble game of poker.

Antes are much more fair and superior to blinds in almost every way.)

Antes and blinds are both collected from players to "seed" the pot with a single bet.

But they are collected in different ways.

An ante is collected from EACH player, but represents only a FRACTION of the basic bet.

(The sum of the fractions, collected from each player, amount to about one bet.)

As such, everyone "pays the same," and no one is at a disadvantage versus anyone else.

A (big) blind is a basic bet collected from ONE player.

(A small blind, half the basic bet is sometimes collected from a second player.)

They are called "blinds" because these players have to bet "blind" before receiving their cards.

The others can look at their cards before deciding to call, raise, or fold to this "forced" bet.

The (big) "blind" bettor is thus placed at a disadvantage, but can reasonably stay in with "any two cards" (if not raised), since s/he bet before receiving cards.

This adds an element of randomness to the game.

(The small blind can play "loose" for only half a bet.)

I'm coding a poker tracker right now, and I've found an other subtle difference :

Let's say "ante/SB/BB" are at "10/100/200" When you've already put a SB (100)

and you want to "call" the BB (200) ,

you will only pay 100 from your stack.

But when you've put an "ante" (10), it's removed from the table before the "PRE-FLOP" bet phase, so "calling" the BB means you pay 200 from your stack, not 190.

At least, this is how it works at Winamax tables.

Question: What is the difference between an "ante" and a "blind" in poker?

What's the difference between ante and blinds?

Antes and blinds are collected from players to "seed" the pot. They are both forced bets. Everyone must make an ante to stay in in the game, while blinds are only for a few players per round. They are called "blind" because the players have to bet before receiving their cards.

Ante and blinds are both forced bets and are collected from players to "seed" the pot with a single bet. An ante  is a bet that  everyone  in the game must make to stay at the table and collected from every player, but represents only a fraction of the basic bet. Blinds  are bets that only one or two players are forced to make, usually a small blind and a big blind. A big blind is a basic bet collected from one player. A small blind, half the basic bet is sometimes collected from a second player. They are called blinds, because these players have to bet blind before receiving their cards.


The G8 Game Timer sounds like what you're looking for, and Greg Aleknevicus has has a very nice review of it in The Games Journal .

It seems like it might be hard to come by these days, as its out of stock in many stores, though it appears the manufacturer still sells them directly .

From the review: To my mind the device only really works well when playing games in which the players take sequential, non-interactive turns of several minutes duration.

While this might seem rather restrictive there are lots of games that do fall into this category.

Also, it's precisely these games in which a timer is most useful.

The aforementioned Tikal is one such example and Vinci is another with which it worked quite well.

Ultimately, I can't really say whether I recommend this or not.

Not because I don't think it's a worthy piece of game equipment, it is.

Rather, because its usefulness will depend so much on the particular game and group that's using it.

As mentioned in the review, a timer is less useful in certain games.

Games that involve lots of interaction with other players during your turn, such as trading in Settlers of Catan, mean that the length of your turn doesn't depend only on how fast you play, but also on how fast your opponents make decisions.

I don't think that Settlers of Catan would work well with a timer.

You also need to consider what you do when a player runs out of time; do you simply eliminate them from the game?

In a two player game, when you run out of time you lose, and the other player wins; in some multiplayer games, elimination can disproportionately benefit one player over the other ones.

Then there are games in which people's turns generally go fast enough that the timer is more of a distraction than a benefit.

I would put Carcassonne in this category; it doesn't usually take long for someone to place a single tile.

If people are taking too long, there's a simple house rule that I use: people draw their tile at the end of their previous turn, instead of the start of the next one.

That way, they have everyone else's turn to think about where they want to place it, and the board only changes a bit by the time it gets back around to them.

That said, there are some games in which the timer would be useful.

Games in which elimination doesn't disrupt the game, which have long turns in which each player plays independently of the others, and which are prone to analysis paralysis.

I thought it was worth adding an update to this that I ended up using a free Android app for this:

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=de.schwider.multiplayertimer It works very well, and is able to switch to time whoever the phone is pointed at by using the phone's compass.

It also calls out the name of whoever's turn it is.

I had the same problem

so I created a free iPhone/iPod touch app for this-- it supports up to 6 players and is very simple to use.

Check out "Game MultiTimer Free" on the app store.

As someone said above, it's not a great model for something like Settlers, but it works great for games like Rummikub or scrabble.

I don't know if they exist, but it is fairly easy to create using kitchen clocks or stopwatches.

One for each player.

Or it can be programmed on the computer.

I an game like Settlers of Catan, a timer like that wont really work.

What should happen when a player uses too much time?

Should he be excluded from the game?

Using cumulative timing in multi player games usually wont work well.

Also for Settlers of Catan, there is a lot of player interaction going on, trading haggling etc, which is a big part of the game.

This holds true for most of such types of games.

I found it much more useful to either: Use a single timer, fx you can only use a certain amount of time each turn.

If things are deadlocked, fx can't make a trade in Settlers that both parties can agree upon, give a count of 5 to make a move, or pass the turn.

When playing for fun with friends I wouldn't use a timer to limit someone, after all not everyone has the same favorite game and spend different amount of times on it so they'll know the combinations faster/slower.

It just feels (for me) wrong and more competitive then a social fun thing which is why I play them at all.

So I'd vote for not using them.

Anyway if you disagree then there's always those small sand timers that even comes with some games (drawing games I think?)

you can pick up a few of those for multiplayer where each has his own I suppose.

1 min sand timer on Amazon is like $1-2 a piece.

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

Multiplayer timer for board games

Try the G8 Game Timer or the Game MultiTimer Free. You could also create something like this using a stopwatch or a sandtimer.

The  G8 Game Timer  sounds like what you're looking for or "Game MultiTimer Free" on the app store.  Alternatively, you can use a kitchen clock or stopwatch for this purpose or one of those samll sand timers that come with some games.

The  G8 Game Timer  sounds like what you're looking for.

Check out "Game MultiTimer Free" on the app store.

You can use a kitchen clock or stopwatch for this.

There are always those small sand timers that come with some games.


BoardGameGeek can be a great resource, but it can be a bit hard to figure out where everything is.

First, you can search for games by name, if you know what game you're looking for.

Or you can use the "Browse" feature to find games by category or mechanic.

Once you've found a game, you find yourself on a page that's stuffed full of information , somewhat haphazardly laid out.

At the top, there is the name of the game, a picture, and some basic information on number of players, suggested age range, and so on.

This can be useful to determine if it will work well for your group.

You then see a description of the game, followed by some places it might be for sale, followed by some additional information.

Keep on looking as you go down, you eventually come to the Forums.

Click on the "Reviews" link, and you will see a list of all of the reviews for that game.

Look through these; they tend to be fairly detailed, explaining the mechanics of the game and how they work.

That's not all that BGG has to offer, though.

If you keep looking further down the page, you come to the Statistics section.

This is where statistics about people's ratings and the game's ranking are collected.

One of the links is to "Personal comments.

" This will give you a list of many short comments that people have made on the games, organized by their rating.

I find this invaluable for getting a quick feel of why some people liked the game, and some didn't; I usually try to check out a few of the comments with a 10 rating, a few with a 7 rating, and a few with lower ratings, to get a sense of how different people see the game.

Only a few people leave long, detailed reviews, but there are usually hundreds of people who leave comments.

BoardGame Review is a blog that provides useful board game reviews.

BoardGameGeek has lots of user reviews and ratings of board games.

It's a little hard to navigate sometimes, but there's a lot of valuable information there.

Dice Tower Reviews goes over a mind-boggling variety of games.

They have a great youtube channel worth subscribing too.

I'd also suggest Downtime Town for great, ludicrous, and nuanced reviews - the Scottsman who reviews there is a total nut.

Sadly, hasn't been updated lately.

Board Games with Scott is an excellent review site that provides video reviews of games and attempts to describe whether the game in question is a good match for the type of game you'd like to own.

There are quite a few reviews available, but he isn't necessarily going to cover every single game on the market.

Scott has been reviewing fewer games lately, but the reviews that continue to come out are always of very high quality.

I write for MTV Geek, Wired GeekDad, and The Geek Collective.

None of the sites are as comprehensive as BGG (in fact, all of my reviews are cross-posted to their linked items list).

You cannot go wrong with BGG

but if you really do want other sites, those are great places to check out!

MTV Geek

The Geek Collective Wired GeekDad

There is also a long-running German board game magazine called Spielbox .

As of (I think)

last year, they are also publishing an English version.

I've only received one issue, but it is chalk full of reviews for new games.

The translations can be... interesting, but it is quite readable.

A VERY interesting resource.

I'm a fan of Ogre Cave .

They're good, down-to earth guys with an active community of commenters.

There's RPG stuff there too, but there's plenty of boardgame reviews too.

It's not really an online resource, but Games Magazine does game reviews, too. (board games, video games, etc.).

Even if you don't pick up the subscription, in the December issue each year they have a 'best games of the year' feature.

Amazon has user reviews for the vast majority of their products, and they also sell board games.

Some of the most well-written reviews I've seen for games has been on their Amazon page.

The best collection of reviews I have seen are on a site called Games from Pevans .

It contains a summary table plus a detailed review.

It seems completely impartial and well written with lots of details and pictures.

Question: Before buying a board game, I would like to read some detailed reviews.  It's also hard to tell if the review is just a paid announcement from the publisher.  Is there any website that is " the reference " for those?

Where can I find reviews of board games?

Try BoardGameGeek, Dice Tower Reviews or Downtime Town. You could also try the magazine Games Magazine for reviews.

BoardGameGeek  is a great resource, but it can be a bit hard to figure out where everything is.  BoardGame Review  is a blog with board game reviews and another place to read reviews is Dice Tower: In addition, Downtime Town has great reviews.
Board Games with Scott  is an excellent review site providing video reviews of games and aims to describe whether the game in question is a good match for the type of game you'd like to have.  There is also a long-running German board game magazine called  Spielbox . Ogre Cave and Pevans are useful sites and not to forget that Amazon has user reviews. Offline Games Magazine also has game reviews.

BoardGame Review  is a blog with board game reviews and another place to read reviews is Dice Tower.S2: In addition, Downtime Town has great reviews.


Its far better to thoroughly understand a small number of openings than it is to mindlessly memorize a large number of openings.

Frequently, if you know why a set of moves is considered optimal, then you're in a better position to adapt once the board gets "off the opening".

However, if you have a wide set of openings memorized, you may find that while you are moving down your 'optimal opening', ready to transition to a strong midgame, your opponent may have other plans, and make a move that takes him off your chosen opening.

Now frequently, there's a good reason why that move is not covered by your opening chart; that move may be terrible.

But if you don't understand why that move is terrible, then you may not be able to take advantage of it, and if the other player improvises better/faster than you, you may find yourself at a disadvantage despite your 'superior' play to this point in time.

Don't let that happen to you.

1000x more important (and more fun!)

than even studying theory is.. improving your tactics!

The best place I know for this is chesstempo.com .

You can easily get up to 1700~1900 USCF

never learning any theory at all (casual players are usually 800~1400 ) , and I've even met a few players over 2000 (master level) who have never studied any theory!

However, if you insist on studying theory, learn the barebone basics, then study endgames

- knowing an opening might give you a slight theoretical edge going into the middlegame, but knowing an endgame

could mean the difference between winning and drawing/losing .

Remember, the winner is the person who makes the second-to-last mistake!

boardgames.stackexchange.com/users/175/BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft

For casual play, I don't think memorizing chess openings is all that important.

However, studying and understanding why some counter-moves are appropriate for this or that opening may prove quite useful.

Chess openings are very important if you are interested in winning games, as they are sets of moves that help develop your pieces quickly and gain some control of the centre of the board.

Having a grasp of an opening sequence that your opponent doesn't know should give you an edge in the early game that you may be able to turn into a clear lead during the middle game.

On the other hand, if you are playing against an opponent who doesn't know the opening then you may quickly find yourself in an unexpected position - so try to concentrate on learning a shallow amount of an opening.

Finally the other thing to say is that some openings are a must know.

See for example scholar's mate!

Opening memorization is not important at all, especially to casual play, and shouldn't be the focus of study time for serious players, either, even up to around expert/master level.

For casual play, you should instead follow basic opening principles: put a pawn or two in the center, move all your pieces once before moving any piece twice (unless there's a tactic), castle.

For serious players, it's worth playing a few openings and learning them well, slowly building your mental tree of opening variations game by game, by playing a game and looking up the official lines afterwards, to see where you diverged.

I once spoke with a well known local expert player, who confided to me that he wished he could "get all those years back" that he spent studying openings.

I asked "what would you study instead?"

He instantly responded: "tactics and endgames."

He usually played unorthodox gambit openings and almost always built a great attack with the initiative.

You don't need to memorise every opening move and variation to be able to play it - not for casual play at least.

It's better to just play and get a feel of the different characters that varied first moves and common responses can give a game.

You may find you enjoy losing games trying to crack a c4 first move more than winning with a King's Pawn game, and you'll learn to understand the opening better than you ever will by memorising the first X moves.

And let's face it, for most of us the game isn't won or lost in the first few moves; there are plenty more opportunities for middle and end-game blunders.

A world of experimentation and catastrophic strategic mistakes awaits!

In casual play, it's not necessary to memorize openings.

Because your "casual" (by definition) opponent won't know them.

It's much more important to know tactics, and to "read" the opponent's moves.

If s/he departs from the "book," its usually to that player's detriment.

Occasionally he'll stumble on an alternate variation, rarely find a new line.

Figure out why your opponent's moves are (probably) wrong, and take advantage of that fact.

Question: I've played chess since I was kid and after much practice have become a decent player.  I still though, have little strategy to my opening moves besides starting with a  King's Pawn Game .  I know professional players and grandmasters have a large repertoire of openings they know.  They also know a large number of responses to those openings.  How important is knowing different openings when playing chess casually?

How important is memorizing chess openings in casual play?

It's not all that important for casual play. Chess openings can be important for winning games. An opening your opponent doesn't know can give you an edge. It's better to know a small number than try to memorise a large number.

In casual play, it's not really necessary to memorize openings. However,  some would argue that chess openings are very important if you are interested in winning games. Having a grasp of an opening sequence that your opponent doesn't know can give you the edge early on in the game that you may be able to turn into a lead during the middle of the game. It’s better to understand a small number of openings well than to mindlessly memorize a large number of openings.  But, if you have memorized a wide set of openings, you may find that while you are making your planned moves, your opponent may have other plans.

Chess openings are very important if you are interested in winning games. Having a grasp of an opening sequence that your opponent doesn't know can give you the edge early on in the game that you may be able to turn into a lead during the middle of the game. It’s better to understand a small number of openings well than to mindlessly memorize a large number of openings.

However, if you have memorized a wide set of openings, you may find that while you are making your planned moves, your opponent may have other plans.

In casual play, it's not necessary to memorize openings.


The best large-group card game that I know of is Up and Down the River , which Wikipedia knows as

Oh, Hell .

I find the rules given by Wikipedia to be confusing, though, and found a better set here at eHow .

(Note that both of these rulesets differ slightly from the version I'm familiar with, as there are endless variants of most of these games.)

Eleusis

This is one of my favourite card games.

You have to use inductive reasoning to figure out the dealer's secret rule.

It's actually better with a large group because you learn more from other players' mistakes while waiting for your turn to come around.

It can be a bit intimidating for new players, so you might want to start with a small group playing Eleusis Express to get the hang of it.

If you have enough players (8+) you can play werewolf with playing cards: Clubs 2-9 ==

Wolves Hearts 2-9 ==

Villagers Jack of clubs ==

Hunter Jack of diamonds ==

Thief Queen of hearts ==

Cupid Queen of spades ==

Witch King of diamonds ==

Seer Ace of Spades == Mayor marker

Many poker variants, including the very popular Texas Hold'em , can support a large number of players.

In Texas Hold'em, each player is dealt only two cards of their own, there are 5 community cards, and 3 burn cards, meaning that you could in theory support 22 players if you deal out all of the cards, though generally you play with 10 or fewer players on a table, maybe up to 12 or so.

It does require something to bet with—chips, pennies, stones, dried beans, or any other form of counter—so it can't be played with just a deck of cards, but usually it's pretty easy to find some kind of betting counters.

If you don't like gambling, you can play it as a tournament, in which each person gets a fixed number of chips and the last player left with chips wins.

You can find lists of card games for different numbers of players at pagat.com .

In particular, Looking for Friends (找朋友) looks interesting, though I haven't tried it.

It's described as a trick-taking game that works well with large groups.

Mao can work well with large numbers of players, or you can open a few more decks and get several different games going in the same room.

It's also an intriguing game to watch, for those who don't understand how to play.

Hearts (yes, similar to the Microsoft game) works surprisingly well with 8 people and 2 packs: I've not tried with more, but there's no theoretical reason why not .

Racing Demon (one pack per person) is also good, if a little raucous with high numbers.

Creights is a very engaging, Uno-like party game played with a standard deck.

It is about 70% luck and 30% skill, in my estimation.

It scales easily to about 7-8 players, but requires two decks shuffled together with 5/6+ players.

It doesn't require those two decks to have the same backs, but make sure to remove a couple of 5s from the deck if you play with two decks.

Liar is simple, requires some tactics to have a chance to win and can be played by all ages.

Question: What card games work well with a large number of players (say 6+ players) and only require a standard pack of playing cards?  I'm particularly interested in games where the rules can be explained fairly quickly, but there is still a reasonable level of tactics.  Also it would be preferable if the game can be played in a single room.  One game per answer please.

What games are suitable for a large number of people with only a pack of playing cards?

Many poker variants can support a large number of players. You can also try Mao, Hearts and Racing Demon.

One of the best large-group card games is  Up and Down the River. If you have enough players (8+) you can also play werewolf with playing cards.S0: In addition, many poker variants, including the very popular  Texas Hold'em , can be played with a large number of players. Mao  can work well with large numbers of players, and Hearts also works surprisingly well with 8 people and 2 packs. Racing Demon is another game that works well.  Liar is simple game that requires tactics nd can be played by all ages.

S0: Liar is simple game that requires tactics nd can be played by all ages.