As a rule, not important.

Far better to have a strategy that you follow than to buy the most expensive card you can afford.

The value of a card will vary depending on your deck, and knowing when to buy a less expensive card that your deck needs (or nothing at all) is, I think, part of the transition from a beginner to intermediate player.

If there's a Chapel, it's almost always worth spending $3 on it in your first turns, as getting it early is more important than waiting for an unlucky draw with only $2.

For certain kingdom sets you might not want any $5's at all , so buying one just because you have $5 would be deplorable.

Similarly, as @thesunneversets points out, Silver is often what your deck needs instead of a $3, $4 or even $5 action if you're not hitting $6 enough for gold.

Buy the card your deck most needs that you can afford!

As a very vague rule of thumb, I like buying a Silver on one of my first two turns, to keep my purchasing power from fizzling as my deck gets clogged up with "cool" action cards.

What this means in practice is that, if my Coppers divide 5 and 2 over my first two draws, I'll seriously consider buying a Silver with the 5; unless there's a 5-cost action card that really suits my style and strategy.

Not doing enough "boring" plays like buying more money is one of the main reasons for people losing Dominion way more often than they should, as far as I can see.

The strength difference between $3s and $4s isn't that big.

Underbuying at $5 and $6 should require a lot more thought.

You need to weigh the cards in play, both on their own value plus the value of any combinations you can use them in.

If other players are buying a lot of attack cards, you may want to pick up a defense card on one of the first two turns (Moat, Lighthouse, or Watchtower).

Also, watch what other players are buying.

For example, in my games at work (we play every day at lunch), Fishing Village gets sold out very quickly.

If you don't buy at least one during the first two turns, there may not be any left to buy.

The value of some cards may depend on what other cards are in play.

The value of Smugglers, for example, goes down if Colony and Platinum are in play.

The value of Village goes down if any of the other

+2 action cards are in play.

The value of Horse Traders, Cellar, Witch, Torturer, Sea Hag, Familiar, Montebank, and Young Witch go down if Chapel is in play.

It depends entirely on the strategy you're going for.

In the general case, buying the most expensive cards you can afford earlier will allow you to use on average more powerful abilities sooner.

Although in the grand scheme of things, these slightly more powerful cards you purchased early on may not play along with your strategy, and may actually slow you down.

In general, it's important to buy the most expensive card you can afford that works with your strategy for this set of available cards.

Sometimes, this is a point below the coin I have in hand; my strategies generally don't result in lower than that unless I've got multiple buy as well.

If no cards of the available coin total are going to help, it's worth looking one point cheaper.

Silver and Gold, when available, are usually good choices, but targeted action cards should trump them if you already have plenty.

(Disclaimer: the sets I play are the base Dominion + Intrigue, so things may be different with newer cards.)

I usually try to buy two action cards with my first two hands if they combine into a good strategy.

If there are no good fours, I would get a silver instead of trying to choose between Thief, Gardens and Feast.

If the only five on the table is a Festival, it only works as +2 money in the first five hands or so, and you would still want to intentionally overstock action cards for Festival to make better sense than Silver, which rarely is a good idea (it is kinda embarrassing to play six actions, with everybody looking at you playing the whole deck, gain two more action cards, and only end up with 5 money to buy yourself a Dutchy).

If I get two action cards in the first shuffle, and they indeed make up a reasonable strategy, then I make sure to get two or more silvers in the next two hands.

With more than two actions in your early deck, chances are you won't be able to use these actions effectively;

if you have +actions in them, chances are that the matching action won't come up, and if you have four actions in 14 cards after the second shuffle, chances are you will have too many terminal actions in any given hand.

I think my wife always buys a silver with 3 money in the first two hands, even if there's Chapel on the table, and we probably win equally often in our games of three or four with the friends (and more often than the friends do, because the friends rotate, and we stay :) ).

Here's a related, more specific question: with a Coppersmith and four Coppers, should you go for Province in your third hand, or for gold?

There was a Coppersmith discussion on SE, although this particular question was only briefly touched upon.

(I agree with that discussion that it only makes sense to buy Coppersmith if you can trash it two or three shuffles later, so it must be a pretty peculiar lineup of cards for me to be interested in it as a first buy.)

Question: How important is it to always buy the most expensive thing that you can with your first buys in Dominion? I appreciate that in the later stages of the game you often have more money than you can profitably spend, especially since the more expensive cards are often very situational. However, in the first three turns or so, how important is it to always buy the most expensive cards that I can afford with my copper?

Maxing out your buys in early Dominion

It is better to have a strategy than to just buy expensive cards. Buying expensive cards at the start will let you use more powerful abilities. They can also slow you down if they don't go with your strategy.

You need to weigh the cards both according to their value plus the value of any combinations you can use them in.  Generally, buying the most expensive cards you can afford earlier will allow you to use more powerful abilities sooner.However the smore powerful cards you purchased early on may not play along with your strategy, and may end up slowing you down. It's far better to have a strategy that you follow than to buy the most expensive card you can afford, although in general, it is good to buy the most expensive card you can afford that works with your strategy for this set of available cards.


The simplest way is to simply shuffle up the tiles, then pull about 60-150 of them for use.

This will typically mean a 1-3 hour game, depending upon player speed and exact number of tiles.

It also limits the needed table space.

It does, however, also mean it is possible to not have any tiles turn up from a given expansion.

Also, don't use the River nor River II, nor the Count.

The River I & 2 simply lengthen setup and increase think-time needed at start....

in addition to taking time to start, and adding 10+ tiles each.

The count, by allowing reinforcement as it does, really adds to tactical think-times.

If using princess and dragon, you may want to hold out one volcano, and shuffle it into the play stack after generating the ones you're going to play with.

This way, you know the dragon WILL show up, but might not be showing up twice.

Same for Tower tiles from The Tower.

I probably wouldn't use the River in a 2-player game: it acts to rapidly expand the available playing area and gives the players more "elbow room".

This may not be really what you want with just players, as it just means you may end up doing your separate things at opposite ends of the table.

I'm a big advocate of Traders & Builders and Inns & Cathedrals as adding a lot of strategic depth of the game, and I definitely wouldn't recommend removing them from the mix.

You could try trying to add a time limit to your play - obviously you're now playing with over 100 tiles total, so if you're regularly taking over a minute to choose your move then of course you'll be looking at a 2-hour game.

Or else you could agree to stop after half an hour or an hour or whatever: as long as all players got an equal number of turns then there's no real harm in calling time, right?

If it is just two of you use a chess clock to force yourselves to play faster.

Play with the rule that if anyone runs out of time then they cannot play any more tiles.

We play with a multiplayer game timer that I wrote for my mobile phone, and we (3/4/5 of us) can get through 3 games with the basic set in an hour.

Before we had the game timer, we could drag out a game to well over an hour, and to be honest it was pretty tedious.

You could just not use all of the expansions at once.

Instead, pick one or two expansions, maybe at random, every game.

Now there is variability, and each game will be different, but you don't have a ton of extra tiles and rules in play in any given game.

This is how collectible card games like Magic the Gathering, or deck building games like Dominion, manage to stay enjoyable, despite having tons of expansion and variability.

You don't increase the size of the game, or use all expansions at once, but rather each game you play can be played with a different set of elements but still within approximately the same level of time and complexity.

The best way to increase variability without impacting game length is to focus on the aspects of the expansions that do not involve tile drawing.

For example, you could use the base set (with or without the River), the large followers from I&C, and the builder and pig pieces from T&B, which would add most of the options without changing the length of the game.

An excellent 2-player method for lots of expansions: Use a 30-minute timer that is out of view of both players.

Use all expansions you own mixed together in a big bag (The Traders and Builders bag will work).

When the timer goes off, no more tiles or meeples can be placed.

My wife and I are no strangers to Carcassonne expansions.

We regularly play with: The Phantom, Inns and Cathedrals, Traders and Builders, The Princess and the Dragon (without the fairy), The Flying Machine, The Messages (without the second scoring meeple), The Ferries, The Witch and the Mage, The Gold Mines, and the Cult.

We use colored dice on the scoreboard instead of a meeple, because we usually “pass go” 4-5 times each in a 30-minute game.

We roll a die to see who goes first, then the first player chooses how to start - selecting one of the following: the original starting tile, the River, the River II, or the City of Carcassonne.

We start the timer when the setup is ready and then play our hearts out until the timer goes off.

Cleanup is easy.

Just take out the starting tile(s) then shuffle the rest back into the bag.

We've tried lots of different methods over the years for balancing expansions and play-time, and this is definitely the best we’ve found.

Because it’s only 30 minutes, it stays fun, and we often have time to squeeze in a second board game.

Question: My wife and I were playing Carcassonne last night with several of the expansions and we found that the game was taking a ridiculously long time.  We had the base game, the River, Inns & Cathedrals, and Traders & Builders all in play at once.  I am hoping to find a way to minimize the tiles in play without sacrificing the variations created by the expansions.  Any suggestions?

How can we use multiple Carcassonne expansions without the game taking forever?

Shuffle the tiles and pull out a limited number to use. Don't use the River in a 2-player game. Use a timer that is out of view.

The best way to vary the game without impacting length is to focus on the aspects of the expansions that do not involve tile drawing, or just pick one or two expansions, maybe at random, every game. Alternately you could agree to stop after half an hour or an hour or you could use a timer. The simplest way is to simply shuffle up the tiles, then pull about 60-150 of them for use. Also do not use the River in a 2 person game.

Best not to use the River in a 2-player game.

You could agree to stop after half an hour or an hour or you could use a timer.

Another option is to pick one or two expansions, maybe at random, every game.

The best way to increase variability without impacting game length is to focus on the aspects of the expansions that do not involve tile drawing.


No.

Example: If all of your cards face up on the board are red, and the cards that come up every third card are also red, and none of them are aces.

You lose.

Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

There is very interesting reading at wikipedia about this topic.

For a "standard" game of Klondike (of the form: Draw 3, Re-Deal Infinite, Win 52)

the number of solvable games (assuming all cards are known) is between 82-91.5%.

Literally just played a game in which one of the stacks (the one containing 4 cards) was lead by the 9 of diamonds, and the cards inside of it were the King of Spades, the 5 of diamonds, the 10 of spades, and the 10 of clubs (I know this because I had the entire field solved except for this stack and used process of elimination).

As far as I can see this makes the game impossible.

I have a 9 of diamonds in which can never be moved, as the two 10s that it's eligible to rest upon are trapped underneath it in the stack face down.

Attempting to get rid of the 9 by moving it to the diamond stack would also be fruitless, as the 5 of diamonds is stuck underneath it too.

Unless someone can tell me some way that this could be solved, I'm pretty darned certain that if a card that is leading a stack is covering a stack that contains the two cards it is capable of resting on, and a lower number of it's own suit, then the game is made impossible right from the get-go.

Solitaire is a game that precedes its computer version, and that means that all the cards are truly shuffled, without the computer peeking in to verify the game is solvable.

And like McKay mentioned, with a random shuffle you can definitely end up with an unsolvable game.

I'm sure it is possible to design a Solitaire variant in which each game is solvable, though.

However, if you started a list and enumerated the initial conditions -- I feel like I've seen this on a linux version of Solitare: the numbering of deck order, that is -- and you definitively decide a certain one is un-winnable, you then could compare notes across nodes (share with friends) and VOILA: a list of un-winnable starting deck stacks.

I've been starting to think the Windows 7 version has the un-winnable decks removed, ...

I don't know, it's a little heavy-handed and smug about the statistics.

No. Eric Sink decided that he would start a micro-ISV to create a version of solitaire that is always winnable.

This was mostly just an experiment to see what it would be like running a software company with one person, but he eventually sold the product which is still available for purchase.

There have been some estimates about the number of Klondike Solitaire games that are unplayable (no moves possible, about 1 in 400), and several guesses about how many games are unwinnable , although this percentage varies wildly from 30%-10%.

The difficulty of this problem stems from the sheer number of initial deals 54!

that would need to be evaluated to determine which were winnable and which were not.

To add to the other great answers, this link has a nice explanation of how a deal is un-winnable.

Reasons for Getting Stuck in Klondike Solitaire

Question: I play a lot of Solitaire games on my Android phone and love to keep an eye out for the statistics.  Given that the Solitaire version lets you restart the game endlessly, I usually play until I solve it. But I never managed to solve more than 80% of the games played (1000+).  So now I wonder, is every Solitaire game solvable?

Can every game of Klondike-Solitaire be solved?

The number of solvable games is 82-91.5%. When the cards are truly shuffled, some games are truly unsolvable.

Solitaire is a game where all the cards are truly shuffled, without the computer verifying the game is solvable.  The estimates on the number of Klondike Solitaire games that are unplayable varies wildly from 30%-10%.

The number of solvable games is  between 82-91.5%.

There have been estimates about the number of Klondike Solitaire games that are  unplayable and  this percentage varies wildly from 30%-10%.


KGS http://www.gokgs.com/ IMO the best server for lower level games.

It as an active English speaking community Ranking system is relatively meaningful, even in the lower ranks

Many features in the client, such as game reviews

IGS http://www.pandanet-igs.com/ ) IGS has a lot of players, but going up the rank ladder can also be quite time consuming.

Anyway, if you have an idea about your rank, you can set it up when you sing up.

Their english resources have been enhanced in the last year, with a social web and a new Java-based client that's actually quite usable (including an opponent search function).

Games tend to be serious and it lacks the communication facilities that you can find on KGS, but it's a good place to learn and it also has quite strong players.

There are some robots on the ranked games room to help you get a rank if you start at BC level (beginner class).

Dragon Go Server (DGS)

For turn-based playing I highly recommend Dragon Go Server , where I play all the time, too.

Simple and clean interface Private notes (very handy

if you are playing lots of turn-based go games at once)

There is a client for Android and iOS and a Windows notifier "Fine" rating (kyu/dan level with +- 50%) with "proper komi feature" to fine tune komi based on fine rating.

Its rating graph (shows rating reliability, has a Games/Time switch on X axis)

I know Gōng Yuán Chéng already included a link to Turn-based go servers on the Sensei's Library, and DGS is the first on that list, but DGS should have its own special place on this list.

More on DGS here: http://senseis.xmp.net/?DragonGoServer

OGS online-go.com is an excellent server if you're interested in turn-based go.

The best thing about the site is the tournament system.

There are five annual tournaments with multiple rounds in each category - even games, handicap games, and 9x9.

Some tournaments require you to win your group to advance, and some allow all players to advance, and then be matched up according to number of wins.

GoShrine The GoShrine is a good alternative to other servers: No download/install needed No Java/Flash requirement Play in the browser simply Levels similar to those on kgs Possibility to play bots as well

It's where I play when I use my Android tablet.

One disadvantage is there are too few players online at all time.

And of course you can review the links on these pages

Tygem http://www.tygembaduk.com/

One of the most popular Korean servers and well known in the West for its large player base.

It was difficult to sign up to Tygem years ago, but they recently introduced an English client and website, solving this issue.

Players range from super weak to super strong (several top pros play on Tygem).

Their style tends to be more agressive.

There are noticeably many sandbaggers and the ranking system isn't optimal in the weaker ranks.

WBaduk / CyberOro http://www.wbaduk.com/ Similar properties compared to Tygem.

But I haven't played much there.

DashN http://club.dashn.com/english DashN is a Korean go server with an English interface.

It is also known as DashBaduk or Dash & Dot.

DashN and wBaduk are the only major Korean Go servers that offer clients with an English interface.

The common belief is that this is the place to play fighting games.

Tactics seem to also suggest a strong emphasis on territorial reduction.

( Sensei's )

Yahoo Games

I'm surprised no one's mentioned that Yahoo has Go - there's consistently around 100~200 people on.

It's a good place for English beginners to play, and there's even some higher-rated players if you're up for a challenge.

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

GOmatches.com www.gomatches.com

Great turn-based GO server.

It's completely web-based

so you don't need to download anything.

FlyOrDie

Sometimes I play here

You can play on browser without registration, the only one requirement is java...

Actually I do not know if it's good, but for a fast match it works well...

If you can get a beta key (they give out 200 every time the counter runs down on their site)

kaya.gs is a good site.

They're working on doing everything that KGS does wrong right.

I've played a few games there and I must say, its very cool.

You should give it a try or look on their FAQ if you have a minute.

List of both Real Time Servers , as well as Turn-Based Servers (which I heard are recommended for beginners because of no time-limit).

Some of the sites mentioned in answers here might be found on this list.

I haven't really tried many of the sites mentioned on the list, because I'm just beginning my adventure with Go.

So I can't recommend any of the available links for now.

Question: I used to play regularly on KGS but have been inactive for several years. I am frustrated by the Catch-22 of the KGS system: in order to play rated games, you must have a solid rating. Solid ratings come from playing many rated games.  Does anyone have advice for an enthusiast who wants to play competitively online? Where should I go and how do I establish a rank?

Where to play Go online?

There are a lot servers for going up the rank ladder: IGS, KGS, Dragon Go Server, OGS, DashN and Yahoo.

http://www.gokgs.com is a recommended server for lower level games.  http://www.pandanet-igs.com has a lot of players, and for turn-based playing Dragon Go Server is also recommended. online-go.com  is another excellent server if you're interested in turn-based go.  http://club.dashn.com/english  is a Korean go server with an English interface.  And Yahoo  has Go , where there are consistently around 100~200 people on.


A lot depends on your strength.

I find that memorizing them is useful for me.

I've also heard a lot of people suggest that you need to play them out on a real board.

It helps teach your fingers where the pro moves are :)

If you're not a dan-level player, you probably shouldn't focus too much on fighting sequences - you won't be able to understand all of the variations the players are considering.

It's a really good idea to look at each sequence or exchange in the game and try to tell what each player got out of it.

From an amateur perspective almost everything that happens in a pro game is an even trade, so you should look for sequences that don't seem even to you and try to figure out why they actually are.

Most pro games are fairly even until a "turning point.

" This is when one player makes a mistake, as related by the author of the game commentary, usually a pro.

Sometimes the commentator is one of the players, who says, "I made move

X that lost the game, or "My opponent's move

Y lost him the game."

Then the thing to do is to study the game up to the turning point, to see why it was even till then, and

then after the turning point, to see why the winner had a clear advantage.

Some games are closely matched to the end, with White finally winning by less than the komi, or alternately, Black beating komi by say, one and a half points.

A model book in this regard is Kato's "Attack and Kill," about his winning streak of some 20-odd games, in which he points out his opponent's "losing moves."

He is also self-critical, pointing out places where he made move X, which should have lost, but that the opponent's move Y was an even worse mistake, that resulted in a Kato victory.

I used to memorize games as a fairly large staple of my studies.

Some general points: 1)

The position at any point is approximately even.

A "losing move" to a professional–one that everyone agrees is bad–is still probably close enough to even for anyone but a high-level dan.

If you are at that point or getting close to it, be sure to look up the commentaries if there are in and read through them.

2) Take your time on each move.

Analyze how you would move

, see how the professional moves, and analyze why the professional might have moved there.

It is oft repeated that you are about 3-4 stones stronger when you study, so take advantage of that and try to see as much as you can.

Even if you are wrong, the process of thinking about it is very valuable.

3) Start with ten moves at a time and see if you can increase it over time.

So put down ten moves, then reset.

When I would do it

I would go back to a blank board every ten moves and try to play back to the current point.

4) Replay your own games from memory immediately after you play them.

If you played a person at a club, see if you can get them to go with you.

Memorizing pro games is training your pattern memory, and replaying through your own games after you've played them is excellent practice here.

During the endgame try to count the value of each move.

This is an easy time to do that, and it is excellent practice.

Hope that helps!

Replay through a game twice.

Each time focus on just 1 side.

Memorizing games can help, but it's even better to memorize games that cover variations and/or provide commentary.

Don't try and understand every single move though, that is just too daunting even with provided in-depth commentary.

Instead, try and gain the overall idea and feel the flow behind their play.

Yuan Zhou just published a book on this topic.

Check out Slate and Shell for sample pages.

I am a big fan of Zhou's books and will certainly buy this one.

He has a nice way of writing towards kyu level players.

Title:

Learning from Pro Games Author:

Zhou, Yuan

Year:

2011 ISBN: 9781932001-57-0 Price: $20.00 http://www.slateandshell.com/SSYZ015.html

I am a novice player, so take everything I might say cautiously.

But I have been working through "Invincible - The Games of Shusaku" by John Power

and I think it has been helping me, even if there is a lot I don't understand yet.

It is mostly commentaries on games from Honinbo Shusaku, who is arguably one of the greatest Go players.

The one thing to keep in mind is that these games were played before Komi was invented, so generally black can be more defensive and white must be more aggressive

then you would likely see in a modern competitive game.

Still, the general tactics should remain the same.

I learned the game's rule when I was 5 or 6 years old.

However, I was really hooked after I read a go book in a small bookstore in Xian (西安) when I was eighteen.

The book was written by Go Seigen (吳清源－名局細解).

The book explains every single detail in games between Go Seigen and other top Japanese Go players.

It was so inspiring.

It was like reading a great painting.

It was just beautiful.

I'd say I fell in love with go because of the journal to Xian.

More than twenty years later, I have written a program on iPad to read the annotated games of great pro players.

The first game to test the program with, is a game of Go Seigen XD

So, I'd say pro games, like great paintings, are art.

Question: I recently took A. Dinershtein's  Go style test . It was useful to me, as the test is aimed at finding professional players who might think the way you do, for study purposes. It has definitely worked for me. But what should I bear in mind while studying professional games?

Strategy for studying professional games?

Memorizing your games is useful and will train your pattern memory. You can then play them out on a real board.

Memorizing games can help, and it's even better to memorize games that cover variations. Also replaying through your own games after you've played them is excellent practice.  A lot of people suggest that you need to play them out on a real board.  Take your time on each move.  Also go back to a blank board every ten moves and try to play back to the current point.
A model book to refer to is Kato's "Attack and Kill".

A model book for this is Kato's "Attack and Kill".


There are tons of options: Attrition or Blood Rites , while requiring to pay mana, would kill your opponents creatures (or the opponent himself in the case of the rites).

If you need something that doesn't require mana to activate you could try Bloodthrone Vampire , Carrion Feeder or Devouring Swarm .

Hell's Caretaker can be an interesting choice, because it gets creatures back when sacrificing others, but can be activated only once per turn.

Lyzolda, the Blood Witch can be sweet, drawing you cards when sacrificing black creatures or dealing damage when sacrificing red ones.

There are lots more, here you have Magiccards search of creatures that have an activated ability which requires to sacrifice a creature and are black, blue or red.

http://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Search/Default.aspx?action=advanced&color=+![G]+![W]&text=+[%22sacrifice%20a%20creature:%22] Teach a man to fish.

The Gatherer is your friend.

Once you know how to use it, you can find many of your own answers.

You might want to examine the Advanced Search to narrow your search, or the Help Page to get an idea how to search.

Explanation of the URL variables above

('?' starts the query, '&' separates variables, Left Hand Side (LHS) is the variable name, RHS is the value of the variable): action

=advanced (gives responses for a greater range of variables) color=+![G]+![W]

(card mana cost does NOT ('!') contain Green AND does NOT contain White mana) text=[%22sacrifice%20a%20creature:%22]

(contains the exact RULES TEXT ('"' is %22, space is %20.

URLs cannot contain these special characters, so they must be encoded)

"sacrifice a creature:" You can type your own search examples on the Advanced page, and then examine the URL to see exactly how your query is posted to the database.

Technically, this search result would possibly show us cards that don't match the color identity of the Commander, if a card existed that contained a [G] or [W] activated ability, but not a whole lot of these exist.

So just for fun, try replacing the RULES TEXT with this search strings.

text=+![B]+[%22Sacrifice%20a%20creature:%22]

This will return all sacrifice a creature activated abilities on cards that don't contain Black Mana symbols on the card.

You will note that the botto of page 0 is Quagmire Druid which doesn't match our Commander's color identity.

Although I generally shy away from suggesting a single card, in this case Braids, Cabal Minion fits the bill so perfectly that it's tough to ignore.

You should have a look at cards that make each player sacrifice creatures/permanents.

Examples:

Pox, smallpox, smokestack, innocent blood, fleshbag marauder.

Without wishing to suggest specific decks for you, the above link should at least give you plenty of ideas to get your creative juices going!

Most Thrax decks I've seen use Grave Pact or Butcher of Malakir .

These are good "rattlesnake" cards that also greatly magnify the value of anything you feed to a sacrifice outlet.

Attrition is also worth mentioning, since it's such a cheap outlet with one of the best beneficial effects.

Consider Malfegor and Death Cloud if you want additional bulk effects of this type.

Sacrificing your own dudes for mana is also pretty awesome because you can often turn that mana into more dudes to sacrifice.

Phyrexian Altar and Ashnod's Altar serve as the basis for many token-sacrifice engines.

Skirk Prospector can do the same for Goblins, as can Basal Sliver for Slivers.

Cards that create Eldrazi Spawn -- in particular, repeating ones like Pawn of Ulamog and Rapacious One -- are also good for giving you a bit of extra mana while Thrax has something to munch on.

In my Sheoldred reanimator deck, I actually use fatties as sacrifice victims, feeding them to Soldevi Adnate , Miren, the Moaning

Well , and Xathrid Demon .

Minion Reflector is an excellent way to get double value out of ETB triggers.

The tokens it creates have a built-in self-sacrifice effect, but you might as well feed them to something else.

Found a few that I have somewhere in my collection that look like good options: Carrion Feeder Phyrexian Ghoul

Thanks for all the suggestions

there are far more cards suited enabling sacrifices than I thought.

Question: I'm building my first EDH deck and have chosen  Thraximundar  (Grixis) as my general.  My deck has a lot of synergy centered around sacrificing creatures.  I find it easy to benefit from sacrificing and have plenty of targets for sacrificing but I need more ways of enabling the sacrifice triggers.    So far I have  Viscera Seer , not much to go on.

Sacrifice enablers for EDH

You could try Bloodthrone Vampire, Carrion Feeder or Devouring Swarm. Hell's Caretaker can also be an interesting choice, as well as Lyzolda.

There are many options to choose from e.g.  Attrition , Braids, Cabal Minion or  Blood Rites. Or if you need something that doesn't require mana to activate you could try  Bloodthrone Vampire ,  Carrion Feeder  or  Devouring Swarm .  Hell's Caretaker gets creatures back when sacrificing others, but can be activated only once per turn.   Lyzolda, the Blood Witch  can draw you cards when sacrificing black creatures. Look at cards that make each player sacrifice creatures.  Malfegor  and  Death Cloud  are good for additional bulk effects.  And Phyrexian Ghoul  is also useful.


I'm an aging grog...

For me, I judge a game based upon player-hours of play.

At about $1 per player-hour.

Same rate I've used since the late 80's...

And at that rate, the $30 supplement I just got for TTR/TTRE has some way to go.

two plays were 4p @ 2.5h and 3p @

3h - so far, $19 of the $30.

One more large play should do it.

Dominion and Intrigue got enough time to "pay off"... and did so rapidly, even tho most were 2p games.

The $50 Cargo Noir is close.

At 1.5 to 2h per play, and 3-4p per play, I've gotten 7 plays out of it since mid Dec.

Now, I will say, I never adjusted for inflation, and find most movies on DVD today not worth the $1/person/hour, so that metric still works for me.

You might, however, consider a more movie based metric.

A movie is $5 at matinee, per person, and typically 1.5 to 2 hours.

If we add the anticipation and post-movie discussions, we can justify calling them 3 hours.

That calls for $2 per person-hour.

I'll note also that I'm 56 hours in on a $50 videogame (Skyward Sword) and

30 in on another (Ocarina of Time 3D), so that $1-$2 per player-hour is quite well holding.

Mario-Cart, at that rate, paid off in the first week: 10 hours, 3 players, two days; $20 paid for the disk.

Update for Dec 9 2012:

The latest supplement I got for TTR paid off with another $12 of play.

Update for July 2013: All the mentioned games have since paid off.

And the Wii has paid off.

For me personally, dollar per hour calculations aren't useful.

I usually peg costs to something else.

Recently, I've been using Chipotle burritos.

When I look at a $50 game, I determine whether I would rather have that, or 7 burritos over time.

As far as being an expensive hobby, I'll quote someone from BoardGameGeek, on the MSRP of Antiquity being $125: "I would pay $125 for two sheets of plain white paper if they consistently provided the kind of enjoyment I get from Antiquity.

" Value is relative.

It's certainly cheaper than skiing (for instance) and the right game should be playable dozens, if not hundreds, of times, which most single player video games and movies can't boast for most people.

It is an expensive hobby if you need to have new games all the time, but most people don't do that.

My copies of Splotter's Indonesia and Duck Dealer have long since paid for themselves, and paid for my copies of Roads & Boats and Antiquity (which haven't yet, but I anticipate they shall eventually).

My general rule of thumb is that a game needs three to five fun plays in it before I really feel like it's been worth the money, even with the cheaper end of things.

It's not just a matter of hours of play, it's also important to factor in that the time I spent playing game X , I did not get to spend playing game Y .

The few hours I spent playing Shadows Over Camelot I will never get back at any price.

Seeing how most Video Games start at $60 for standard versions it puts it on par with the price of a designer board game.

Same would be true for 2 people to go to the movies with popcorn+soda mixed in.

DVDs are probably the only case where the cost to entry is lower than a board game.

I tend to calculate the cost of a game vs the number of times

I am likely to play it.

Settlers in all

it's variants, Ticket to Ride, and even Mah Jong for me have paid for themselves many times over.

Dominion

I have played only a couple of times but feel I got value out of it.

Revolution was hot enough for the number of plays I had to make it seem like a worth wile purchase

even tho

I haven't played it for like 8 months now.

I think a key factor you have to work into the price in the intangible entertainment value.

When you sit around a board talking with your friends there is more social interaction than in most movies, DVDs, or video games unless they are specifically party games.

It's hard to put a price tag on good conversation, jokes, and potential stories you will tell for years about what happened while playing a game versus going to a movie.

If you are measuring dollars per player-hour , board games are an excellent value--provided you find a game that your group actually will play time and again.

For example, my group has played my copy of Chaos in the Old World probably 50 times.

At $40, and each of those games being a 4-player 90-minute game, that works out to $0.13 per player-hour.

That's better than anything I can think of except for exercising outside or a library card.

The expense of driving too meet at game nights certainly eclipses the cost of this game.

(Traditional card games are probably the very best bet; you can get hundreds of player-hours of Bridge, Poker, Spades, Hearts, etc.

out of a $2 deck of cards.)

On the other hand, a game you don't enjoy and never play again is much worse, quite possibly $10 per player-hour.

(And you're not even enjoying that!)

So if you're buying games without having played them before, you'll have to accept more risk with the purchase.

Reading reviews or being prepared to sell/trade the game can mitigate this risk.

Question: Some people complain about the cost of designer board games. With most board games near the $50 mark, and some approaching $100, they might look at the price of a movie ticket, DVD, or video game and think that this is an expensive hobby.  What do you think is the approximate cost of playing board games per hour of enjoyment when compared to other forms of entertainment?

How does the cost of designer board games compare to other forms of entertainment?

A game can provide hundreds of hours of play. Video games can be much more expensive.

I you need to have new games all the time, it can become an expensive hobby but most people don't do that. It's cheaper than skiing  for example and a game can potentially be played hundreds of times. Considering most Video Games start at $60 this is similar to the price of a designer board game.
It's also hard to put a price tag on the social aspect of playing board games.


There are a few popular ways.

Have a duplicate game board with a referee to validate things.

Have a map of the game board set aside with the secret locations marked.

Have numbered locations on the board where the hidden units can be and mark the number down secretly.

Use decoy markers.

Place

several markers on the board and treat them like a real unit.

Only one of the decoy markers represents the actual unit.

In Stratego, you don't know which units are which, but I am sure that isn't what you mean.

Scotland Yard and Clue: The Great Museum Caper have a player record their moves secretly, and only reveal their location at the end of the game.

Battleship does it with independent boards.

You could also institute a Fog of War by placing unit tiles facedown among blank tiles.

Moving unit tiles on your turn (only you know the location of your units) when your opponent isn't in the room.

When you maneuver a unit adjacent to another you flip the tile and reveal an opponent’s unit or a blank.

At the end of your turn, you replace the blanks and your opponent returns to the room and takes their turn.

The Ravensburger game Pyramid has a fairly creative solution to this problem: The board is stood vertically, with all the pieces attached by magnets to respective sides.

All but one of the players sit on one side and move their pieces to collect treasure inside a pyramid.

The other player is a mummy and is trying to capture them, but he only knows where they are when they reveal treasure.

In practice, the mummy sits on the other side.

Additionally, there is a mummy magnet on the adventurers' side as well, so that when the mummy moves, the other players can see where he moves to, making the mummy's location known to all, but the adventurers' locations secret to the mummy.

Not a particularly deep game, but one I really like just for this creative approach to secret piece movement!

ASL has two levels of secrecy: the simpler is concealment , where you place a blank counter (actually marked '?')

on top of every stack, and have a few stacks consisting only of blanks; when the other player 'would see' the stack (it moves in the open, is successfully fired at, etc.)

, you take the blank (or blanks) off.

Hidden requires you to write down a hex number for each hidden unit, with any relevant information (equipment, facing...).

When you want that unit to act, you have to put it on the board (possibly concealed).

It is also possible to have one board for each player, with a barrier between them.

On your board you place your own units and your guess as to the enemy dispositions.

A neutral referee checks each move (ideally having his own board, which will be right for both sides), and reports what is visible.

Some game resolve this with having your units as cards, with a monogenous backside.

The player will have a stack of cards with units on them, ranging from strong to weak.

He also have a stack of blank decoy cards, and when he places the cards on the battlemap, only he knows which contains units and which are blanks.

With this method, you can also make some sneaky bluffs with the number of cards you put in each stack, which order you place them in and so forth.

One idea for keeping secret units, well, secret on a shared board would be for the player controlling said units to maintain a notepad with current (and past) unit locations.

Keeping track would be trivial on a grid-based board where you could note "Spy is moving from A-2 to B-4".

This could be even simpler if combined with some variety of rules-enforcing system like a small computer application, a game master, or even a numbered turn counter to add to the notes.

The simplest way is for units which cannot move while hidden.

They can simply start off hidden with a counter one every location.

When you want to activate a hidden unit, turn over one of the counters.

If people can search a location for hidden units, then let them look at a counter and discard/replace it.

Alternatively you can merely write down where they are and reveal them whenever you want.

Written approaches lack the transparency of the counter method though, since you could easily cheat or forget a unit is in a location where it should have been revealed.

If you want to move hidden units, you could swap two neighbouring location counters.

This will give clues to the other players where units might be moving, however.

You could possibly allow more then one move at a time so some might be real and some fake.

This approach has the advantage that you cannot accidentally lose track of your hidden unit, and forget they should have been killed/revealed.

One way to place units at a hidden location that has not yet been mentioned is in MB's Gamemaster series Shogun , later renamed Samurai Swords due to naming conflicts.

There players hold a card for each province they control.

When they hire ronin (mercenaries they only get for one turn) they place the card(s) of the province(s) where they want to put the ronin facedown and put the ronin pieces onto the back of the card.

Thus the other players can see how they are spread (like 3 different provinces each reinforced with 2 ronin or all 6 in a single province)

but unless that province is attacked or the ronin should be moved (picked up by a regular army)

they can only guess where exactly the ronin are.

Question: I've heard that there are games where the units on the board are secret -- that the other player doesn't know where they are.  How does this actually work?  How can you have units on the board without the other players knowing their location?

How can you have units with secret locations on the board?

Scotland Yard and Clue have a player record their moves secretly. ASL also has two levels of secrecy.

Scotland Yard and Clue: The Great Museum Caper have a player record their moves secretly, and only reveal their location at the end of the game.  ASL has two levels of secrecy. The Ravensburger game  Pyramid  has a vertical board with all the pieces attached by magnets to respective sides.  One idea for keeping secret units on a shared board would be for the player controlling these units to maintain a notepad with unit locations.


There is a lot of discussion on whether starting on 19x19 or 9x9 is preferable, the general consensus tends to 9x9.

Personally, I started on 19x19 but would have preferred 9x9.

As a beginner, you first need to understand the most basic melee fighting tactics (atari, ladder, snapback, basic life and death, etc).

Those can be learned on both big and small boards, but small boards avoid introducing complex strategic issues and make for faster games that are easier to review.

You probably should stick to small boards until you are familiar enough with the game to stop making "obvious" mistakes (crawling with a dead group on the first line, playing out ladders, stuff like that).

If you have played go for a while, a full board can seem like a natural place to learn.

Obviously it is possible; So

that asks the question: "Why do so many people learn on a 9x9 board?"

and "Why does a 9x9 board exist at all?"

I have found, (past 10 years of teaching

Go), that a 9x9 is the right place to teach people.

There are lots of reasons, (that you will probably find in the other answers - "get through your first 100 games quickly"), but my top reason is fear.

19x19 lines looks like 18x18 squares to someone that has learnt to play, almost all other board games.

The mind can boggle at how complicated that must be;

A 9x9 looks like 8x8 squares, which is the same dimensions as some other games use, (though they are mostly tactic based games and Go adds strategy into the mix.)

So to sum up, some reasons to learn on a 9x9: Friendly size Get through teaching games quicker Learn the rules without the distraction of the deeper complexities, (the fun part), getting in the way.

Still fun Cheaper to make or buy Easier to store

A 1/4 board (11x11), is not a standard size , so I do not believe that any official setup for black handicap stones exists.

Some confusion exists on what a quarter board is though, as I have seen a 9x9 also called a quarter board.

The handicaps for that board are listed here .

a 9x9 is a board that is set for a battle not a war.

and that is ok.

There is a lot less centre area in a 9x9, which is good because there is no territory in the centre.

I find a 9x9 takes 15 minutes to pay,where as a 19x19 will take an hour or more.

A 13x13 is a interesting compromise.

A small war.

Actually setting up the 'quarter board' is hard to do on a 19x19 board.

Most people use a small board specifically made for the size, or make their own.

It is possible to crop an area from the large board, but this can be inconvenient.

As for learning on one, I feel Pieter Geerkens comment is quite correct.

13x13 gives a more balanced vision of the game than 9x9.

19x19 is too large, 9x9 is too small, but good to introduce the rules with.

Once the player has the basic rules down 100% on 13x13 then 19x19 becomes more interesting.

After some years playing primarily 19x19, I've gone back to 9x9 and 13x13 to improve my life and death techniques and starting moves.

The basic board sizes are 9 x 9, 81 points or a "one-quarter" board, 13 X 13, or a "half" size board of 169 points, and 19 x 19, for a "full" board of 361 points.

Many full sized boards will have a 9 x 9, or 13

X 13, board printed on the back.

Otherwise, you could take paper and "block off the extra ten rows or columns of points above 9 x 9 on a full board.

I learned to play Go on a full-sized board and never looked back.

You might want to use a smaller board for the first five or ten games, just to learn the mechanics, but you'll want to transition to a full sized board as soon as possible so that you don't learn strategies that work on the smaller board but may be inappropriate for the full version.

Question: As a beginner, I was handed a full go board. And, somehow figured it out.  A beginner friend wants to start "small" on something like 1/4 of the board.  Personally, I think that we should start with the entire board.

How does one set up a 1/4 board for Go – and is it a good way to start?

It is possible to crop an area but it would be inconvenient. 9x9 is a board set for battle not war.

A 1/4 board (11x11), is not a  standard size , so I do not believe that any official setup for black handicap stones exists.  19x19 is too large, 9x9 is too small, but good to introduce the rules with. A 9x9 is a board that is set for a battle not a war.   S2: There is a lot less centre area in a 9x9, which is good because there is no territory in the centre.
It is also possible to crop an area from the large board, but this can be inconvenient.


I'm assuming you mean the "big three" Legendary Eldrazi -- Emrakul, the Aeons Torn , Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre , and Kozilek, Butcher of Truth .

If you want any Eldrazi, like a Pathrazer of Ulamog , you can always use reanimation spells.

These three, however, have the persnickety clause:

When {card name} is put into a graveyard from anywhere, its owner shuffles his or her graveyard into his or her library.

Thus, you have to use instant-speed reanimation, cheat on costs, or hardcast them normally using obscene mana acceleration (which is basically "cheating them out" for most intents and purposes).

The proven competitive decks that do this are: Legacy " Sneak and Show ," using Show and Tell and Sneak Attack .

Modern " Tron " decks, using the power of the UrzaTron (Urza's Mine, Urza's Tower, and Urza's Power-Plant, which produce 7 mana from three lands) to hardcast Eldrazi.

Basically you use lots of cards like Sylvan Scrying , Expedition Map , or Gifts Ungiven to set up the Tron, and then go crazy with Eldrazi, Karn Liberated , and Wurmcoil Engine .

Some of these decks also run Through the Breach as a backup plan.

Before banning, Modern had " Twelvepost ," which used Cloudpost , Glimmerpost , Vesuva , like a faster and more consistent Tron.

Before banning, Modern also had " Hypergenesis ," using cascade tricks to set up a super-fast Hypergenesis .

Legacy " Elves " is an occasionally-successful but easy-to-hate deck that chains a ton of mana dorks, usually with Glimpse of Nature , to hardcast Emrakul.

Vintage has " Oath ," which uses Oath of Druids (banned in Legacy) to cheat out Eldrazi.

You can take inspiration from a variety of other decks that access huge amounts of mana, such as " High Tide ," " Amulet of Vigor ," " Enchantress " (via Serra's Sanctum , mainly), and " MUD " (via Metalworker and Cloudpost ).

Many of these don't actually need a card like Emrakul to win but sometimes play it anyway because it goes "over the top" of many other strategies.

Other approaches I've seen used (ranked in approximate order of jankiness):

Windbrisk Heights and a lot of weenies.

Summoning Trap (works well as Plan B in the Windbrisk Heights deck). Polymorph and a bunch of token-generating cards like Lingering Souls (which make creatures on the battlefield but aren't creature cards themselves).

Instant-speed reanimation with Goryo's Vengeance or Shallow Grave .

The classic reanimator spells like Exhume or Unburial Rites don't work because the big three shuffle themselves back into your library, but you can still use Goryo's Vengeance in response to the trigger.

Fist of Suns in a five-color deck, to make them all cost WUBRG.

Elvish Piper or Quicksilver Amulet .

If you're looking for a top-tier tournament deck, I recommend: Sneak and Show for Legacy: it was totally the top deck for a while.

Main down side is that it was totally the top deck for a while, of course, so many players know how to play against it.

G/R Tron for Modern.

Faster and more consistent than the other Tron decks, and pretty cheap to put together, especially if you already own the Eldrazi.

The main down side is that it is pretty weak against some of the other combo decks (like Storm) and hyper-aggressive decks.

If you're looking for a deck to play at "casual" tables, my recommendation is a Windbrisk Heights + Summoning Trap deck.

It's still very powerful but not as obviously "unfair" as the tournament combo decks — some players vehemently dislike seeing

turn-3 Karn every other game — and the aggressive/midrange creatures give you a decent fallback plan even if the whole table is dedicated to hating out your combo.

Here's a non-comprehensive list of additional ideas: Braids, Conjurer Adept Call of the Wild Defense of the Heart Dream Halls (with Painter's Servant )

* Djinn of Wishes * Elvish Piper Eureka Hypergenesis Impromptu Raid Jhoira of the Ghitu * Killer Instinct Lurking Predators Myojin of Life's Web Oath of Druids Pattern of Rebirth Primal Surge Proteus Staff Show and Tell Sneak Attack

Tooth and Nail Triassic Egg

* — The creature card is cast, so you get a free turn from Emrakul, the Aeons Torn .

1) Quicksilver Amulet .

Get Skittering Invasion on the board to spawn off 5 tokens and then play.

Cryptic Gateway to tap 2 of the tokens to play any Eldrazi from your hand.

The harder way:

Urza lands like Urza Incubator , as well as the Urza land combo.

4) 12 post the crap out of it!

All of these ways are how my deck works, and I have been able to Emrakul, the Aeons Torn on turn 4 multiple times; as well as being able to play Eldrazi left and right by turn 6 and quickly take control of the game.

I have a deck that uses Deathrender , which says: Whenever equipped creature dies, you may put a creature card from your hand onto the battlefield and attach Deathrender to it.

Hows a 17/17 with annihilator 6 sound?

xD

I might suggest trying Possibility Storm .

Use it to find Emrakul and play him for free on turn 5.

Or use Quicksilver Amulet to play him on turn 4-5.

Decks like Eldrazi Spawn rely on swarming the field with Eldrazi Spawn tokens that you can sacrifice for colorless mana.

If you manage to get Growth Spasm in play, it becomes really easy to spam the field with tokens and play the big three.

You can make an Eldrazi + Cloudpost because Cloudpost will only double every time you lay one down.

With all 8 locus lands on the field equals to 36 colorless land total.

I would recommend Belbe's Portal .

5 mana to play it, pick a creature type, then 3 and tap to put a creature of that type from your hand onto the battlefield.

Question: I'm constructing an Eldrazi based deck and I'm thinking about possible ways of getting one onto the table. What I already considered:   Summoning Trap  Polymorph   Do you know any other cards like these?  Edit: I'm talking about the "big three" Legendary Eldrazi --  Emrakul, the Aeons Torn ,  Ulamog, the Infinite Gyre , and  Kozilek, Butcher of Truth .

What cards can be used to cheat Eldrazi creatures onto the table?

The decks that do this are Legacy, Sneak and Show. You can also add Deathrender.

If you want  any  Eldrazi, like a  Pathrazer of Ulamog , you can use reanimation spells. Proven competitive decks  that do this are:   Legacy " Sneak and Show ," using  Show and Tell  and  Sneak Attack .  Modern " Tron " decks, using the power of the  UrzaTron  (Urza's Mine, Urza's Tower, and Urza's Power-Plant, which produce 7 mana from three lands) to hardcast Eldrazi. Proven competitive decks  that do this are:   Legacy " Sneak and Show ," using  Show and Tell  and  Sneak Attack .  Modern " Tron " decks, using the power of the  UrzaTron  (Urza's Mine, Urza's Tower, and Urza's Power-Plant, which produce 7 mana from three lands) to hardcast Eldrazi. The classic reanimator spells like  Exhume  or  Unburial Rites  don't work because the big three shuffle themselves back into your library, but you can still use Goryo's Vengeance  in response  to the trigger.  Deathrender card states:   Whenever equipped creature dies, you may put a creature card from your hand onto the battlefield and attach Deathrender to it.

Deathrender card states:   Whenever equipped creature dies, you may put a creature card from your hand onto the battlefield and attach Deathrender to it.    You can  also take inspiration from a variety of other decks that access huge amounts of mana, such as " High Tide ," " Amulet of Vigor ," " Enchantress " (via  Serra's Sanctum , mainly), and " MUD " (via  Metalworker  and  Cloudpost ).


Yes, you can buy blank hex pieces.

Print&Play

Productions offers cardboard hex tiles in several different sizes through Boards & Bits .

Chipboard Shapes - Hex 1.19"

[35 pcs]

$2.00Chipboard Shapes - Hex 1.5" [20 pcs]

$2.00Chipboard Shapes - Hex 2.2" [11 pcs]

$2.00Chipboard Shapes - Hex 2.6" [22 pcs]

$3.00Chipboard Shapes - Hex 3.9" [8 pcs] $3.00

You could also get wooden hexes from WoodNShop for $0.15-$0.42 each, or at a discount by the 100s.

I am unsure if these would fit your purposes for tile laying, as I have heard complaints that the tile dimensions are not uniform enough for such a purpose.

C/O HEXAGON 1/8

X 1 $0.15

C/O HEXAGON

X 2 $0.20

C/O HEXAGON

X 1 $0.32

C/O HEXAGON

X 1 $0.42

C/O HEXAGON 1/4

X 2 $0.20

There is also plastic tiles , if you are so inclined.

With a little bit of work to remove the mesh backing, you could use actual hexagonal tiles from your local hardware store .

I don't know of any board game manufacturer that creates hex tiles with custom graphics.

Board game maufacturers are capable of creating protype board games, but my guess is the cost is prohibitive.

If you want to cut your own uniform hex tiles, you are going to need a die cutter ($600), and a custom die .

You probably don't even need hex tiles for testing purposes.

If the hex tiles need not be rotated, then square tiles can be offset every other row for the same effect as a hex tile.

If orientation is important, wooden tiles/disks can be substituted for hex tiles.

Quilters and schools often use die-cutters to make shaped pieces.

Hexagons are one of the standard die types, and are available in a variety of sizes.

Many cut multiples at once, tho the standard sized template is a 5x8" block with 1 large, or 2, 4, or 6 hexagons of smaller sizes (3", 2", 1" face to face) Search for Hexagon die cut to find more variety than is worth listing here.

Craft stores and school supply stores often also have them.

To use them, however, you'll want a die-cutting press - itself a hundred dollar item.

at the Wikipedia entry for hexagons( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexagon )

there is a really neat gif on how to draw a normal hexagon with a compass and a straight edge.

Otherwise I've used TheGameCrafter.com in the past.

They have a Hex playing cards .

although that's probably larger then catan.

(3.75in X 3.25in).

and you can even get blanks there (if they have them in stock.)

Another source worth checking out, specifically for the games market, is Blue Panther LLC: they seem to make pieces specifically for gaming and can do custom cuts or engravings when you're ready to take that step.

Have a look at http://www.bluepantherllc.com/ for the details.

I've done my own prototyping with wood pattern blocks, an educational tool you can find at a lot of school-supply stores; I was lucky enough to find a bag of nothing but hexes, but the shop I got it from has no idea what the model/part number on that bag was (if any) and I can't seem to find specifically hex-shaped pieces online, just a set of hexes, triangles, squares, etc.

Disclaimer:

I own this business.

Prawn Designs , based in California, sells custom bits and bases , including hexes.

FYI:

It isn't going to look as pretty as real hex tiles

but if you are just prototyping a game then you can functionally simulate Hexes tiles with Square tiles since six squares can fit around each square if you stagger rows.

Drawing dots one quarter and three quarters down each edge and connect the nearest dots with lines makes the hex nature of squares more apparent.

Real life example of someone using just square tiles to create a hex board: https://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/786116/beehive

Question: Fellow board game player wants to test his game prototype, which uses a number of hex pieces (prefreably smaller than Catan or Eclipse ones). Is there a place to buy some blank ones? We could then use adhesive paper labels printed on inkjet printer. Or maybe there is a place to send full-hex graphic design and receive cutted pieces? Alternatively, do you have working DIY methods for cutting uniform hexes?

Where to buy or how to cut blank hexes for own game prototype?

You can buy wooden or cardboard hex tiles. You can also custom game pieces.

If you want to cut your own uniform hex tiles you will need a  die cutter and a  custom die .  Or wooden tiles or discs can be substituted for hex tiles. If you draw dots one quarter and three quarters down each edge and connect the dots with lines, this gives a hex appearance.  Blue Panther LLC make pieces specifically for gaming and can do custom cuts or engraving and Prawn Designs in California, sells  custom bits and bases , including hexes.

Boards & Bits have cardboard hex tiles in several different sizes by Production and WoodNShop also have wooden hexes at $0.15-$0.42 each, or at a discount price by the 100s.


Steamflogger Boss was printed in the set Future Sight , and the card alludes to the fact that riggers and contraptions may be part of the game in a coming set (the preceding 2 sets in the Time Spiral block were about the past and present).

However, seeing as there are still no mention of the assemble mechanic as of 2012, it is still primarily a joke card in the same vein as the Unhinged and Unglued sets.

While a 3/3 for 4 mana isn't terrible , it is definitely weak enough that it will only see actual play in limited decks that desperately need to fill up some mid-range creature slots.

Aaron Forsythe, the director of Research and Development for Magic: the Gathering, commented that the card was purely a joke and was probably a bad idea.

Update:

It is now the future.

We now know what this mechanic is thanks to Unstable!

Contraptions aren't put into your main deck.

To play with them, you must build a separate Contraption deck In Constructed formats, such as Standard-but-with-silver-borders, Commander-but-with-silver-borders, and all-Un-set-Constructed-but-with-Steamflogger-Boss-I-guess, your Contraption deck contains at least fifteen unique Contraptions.

The Contraption deck is "singleton," meaning you're limited to only one of each Contraption.

In a Limited format, such as Booster Draft or Sealed Deck, your Contraption deck can contain any or all the Contraptions in your card pool.

The fifteen-card minimum and the one-of rule don't apply.

You can play whatever Contraptions you draft or open.

Several cards in the set will instruct you or a creature you control to assemble a Contraption.

To do this, turn the top card of your Contraption deck face up.

Then, put it onto the battlefield under one of your Contraption deck's three sprockets, helpfully labeled Sprocket 1, Sprocket 2, and Sprocket 3.

At the beginning of your upkeep, if you control at least one Contraption, you move the CRANK!

counter forward one sprocket (so, from 1 to 2, from 2 to 3, or from 3 to 1).

Then you can crank any of the Contraptions under that sprocket.

This causes their abilities to trigger.

You can put these abilities on the stack in any order.

Also, you don't have to crank a Contraption if you don't want to.

How you assemble your Contraptions determines what kind of infernal machine you're building.

Load up one sprocket to produce a devastating turn every three turns, or spread them out to make sure you get something every turn? Taken as a copy paste of the major points for the article detailing them here .

To all you still back in 2012, I hope this was helpful, you just have to wait 5 years or so to play with them.

Actually, there are other Riggers besides the Steamflogger Boss.

Moriok Rigger from Fifth Dawn had

the Rigger Sub-Type retroactively added to it after the Grand Creature Type Update.

Any Changling is also a Rigger, as well as the Mistform Ultimus

Read the ruling at the page you linked: Contraption is a new artifact type.

There are currently no artifacts with this type.

And there's no current game meaning of "assemble."

Wizards had a bit of "fun" with Future Sight, creating weird card such as this one, Dryad Arbor , Ghostfire , etc.

Yes, Contraptions are (at time of writing) a joke, but let's not forget that a Steamflogger Boss does buff other Steamflogger Bosses (without even mentioning the many, many other Riggers that exist in the game of Magic, most of which are admittedly Changelings).

Your first Steamflogger Boss may just be a Hill Giant, but your second is a 4/3 haste, and by the time the third hits the table, you have three hasty 5/3 bad boys on your team.

Okay, maybe this scenario isn't exactly the pinnacle of brokenness, but it it goes to show that Steamflogger Boss's (first) ability isn't quite useless.

You could do worse for a cost of 3R...

Future Sight was a set full of "what ifs" - glimpses into possible futures for the game, and this was one of them.

Some of them were simply gags, and this was one of them.

(Although it's worth mentioning that new sets are starting to use terminology in the manner of assemble - detain, for instance)

Question: I just saw this card called  Steamflogger Boss  today, but I've never heard of a Rigger, a Contraption, or an ability called 'assemble' in Magic. Am I missing something? Does this card refer to a very rare card type  like locus  of which there are only a few examples? It seems like the card would make perfect sense if I could only find something that could assemble a darn contraption...

What are Riggers and Contraptions in MTG and how do I assmble them? (Steamflogger boss question)

Steamflogger Boss was printed in the Future Sight set and alludes to riggers and contraptions in a future set. They aren't put in your main deck.

Future Sight was a set full of glimpses into possible futures for the game, and the card alludes to the fact that riggers and contraptions may be part of the game in a coming set. With the Contraption deck you're limited to only one of each Contraption.  Contraptions aren't put into your main deck: To play with them, you need to build a separate Contraption deck  In Constructed formats and your Contraption deck contains at least fifteen unique Contraptions.

S0: Actually, there are other Riggers besides the Steamflogger Boss.


I searched Changes to the Box Top Rules, 1949 - 1999 and found the following clarification was made in 1953: 1953: If a word is formed that covers two premium WORD squares, the score is doubled and then re-doubled (4 times letter count), or tripled and then re-tripled (9 times letter count) as the case may be.

Nowhere in the rules was there any mention of being able to use the same premium square twice.

The Diamond Anniversary Edition rules includes some interesting variations, but does not mention your scoring rules.

Personally, I would find your scoring variation confusing and prone to error, since Scrabble tiles are not transparent, and therefore a novice may have trouble realizing that they are reusing a premium word square.

I have certainly played Scrabble games with people that thought you could re-use bonus squares, though I haven't heard of the distinction you make between word and letter bonus squares.

I think this is not so much a common variation as it is a common misconception (like Free Parking in Monopoly).

I have had reasonably-good success weaning people of their attachment to this non-rule by purposely making solid blocks of tiles that have to be carefully lifted and replaced for every word I play :-)

Your question isn't completely clear.

Once a word has been played.

the bonus can't be used again in a later turn, for whatever reason.

If, however, you play a letter that makes one word across and another word down (usually filling in a block of four), then you score both words; if the letter is on a bonus square, presumably you count the bonus twice.

To answer your question directly - yes, I have come across many people, many times, who were unsure or even adamant that bonus squares should be considered following their intial play.

Does that make it alright?

Sure, if every player participating preemptively agrees upon it, much like they must agree to limitations of time, specify what book will settle their disputes should they arise and so forth.

Does that make it wrong?

Technically, yes it is incorrect but who cares?

Anyone considering playing this way is obviously no Joe Edley

so naturally they wouldn't!

The beauty of Scrabble lay in its malleable nature!

In no two parts of the world are there identical rules and conventions set in place that agree with the next game's set of rules; Everybody uses a different dictionary.

Everybody subscribes to their own personal rendition of the game.

I have encountered many people over my lifetime of scrabble who have been confused and or were insistent on this variation you bring to light being The Rule.

Though I do not agree that this is a proper rule of the game as its creators and overseers have seen fit to include - I do not see any just cause for stifling your own enjoyment of the game!!!

I say play it however the hell you please and let no other signal guide than those variantions that move you :*)

I'm playing right now.

And the rules state it CAN be done.

Rule 7.

When two or more words are formed in the same play, each is scored.

The common letter is counted (with FULL premium value, if any) for EACH word.

Question: Is there a popular Scrabble variation that:    lets you play double/triple word scores twice, once vertically and once horizontally?   does NOT let you play double/triple letter scores twice?    This is how I've always played, so it surprised me to learn that official Scrabble rules do NOT permit using double/triple word scores twice.   Perhaps this was true in an older version of Scrabble (I started playing in the 70s).

Scrabble variation: use double and triple word scores (but not double/triple letter scores) twice?

This is possible in the rules, but a clarification was made in the 1950s. A lot people play this way.

Some see this as a common misconception. Yet, the rules state it CAN be done.  When two or more words are formed in the same play, each is scored.  In Changes to the Box Top Rules, 1949 - 1999  the following clarification was made in 1953:  If a word is formed that covers two premium WORD squares, the score is doubled and then re-doubled, or tripled and then re-tripled as the case may be.

The rules state it CAN be done.  When two or more words are formed in the same play, each is scored.  In Changes to the Box Top Rules, 1949 - 1999  the following clarification was made in 1953:  If a word is formed that covers two premium WORD squares, the score is doubled and then re-doubled, or tripled and then re-tripled as the case may be.

Some see this as a common misconception, but many people do this.


Puerto Rico is an economic game but it's hardly purely capitalistic.

While you can trade goods for money, you get at least half if not more of your victory points by shipping goods, and each type of good is worth one victory point regardless of value.

However, I'm not sure what you mean when you say Catan is capitalist.

It's a pre-capitalist barter economy with no money.

You use raw materials to build settlements and roads, and there is no mention of leveraging worker's labor to maximize your personal wealth.

Perhaps you are conflating capitlism with societal /economic competition, which is not remotely the same thing.

You may want to look at Indonesia.

It's still outwardly capitalistic, but the concept of cooperation, mergers, and acquisitions gives you an alternative route to achieving your objectives.

It's a shipping game, and you can play as a production company, a shipping company, or a combination of both.

Production companies must to rely on shipping companies to deliver their goods to cities, and must pay fees for using their network.

This means you might have to rely on other players depending on your strategy, and other players will have to depend on you for their shipping companies to work.

This setup makes for a very dynamic distribution of wealth within the game.

Mergers and acquisitions happen when companies start to combine on the board based on the division of land or shipping routes.

This allows you to create bigger and more efficient shipping lines.

There's a nice rundown of the game on YouTube .

Since games usually need a winner, crushing your opponent is often just part of the process.

This is why I sometimes like to play cooperative games.

My favorite is currently Pandemic , but it is not an economic game like Monopoly/Catan (Pandemic's economic component consists mostly of making efficient use of limited actions and limited turns ).

Like most other decisions in Chicken caesar , the tax rate is determined in a democratic way.

There is the " Anti-Monopoly " which gets the game origins of the Monopoly, i.e. the Landlord's game.

The fact that the economic part is important but not predominant make 7 Wonder kind a more Social-democratic game than capitalism, since money is not the main objective of the game.

Plus, giving the choice you tend to buy resources from a poorer civilization.

Another game, which doesn't have economic dynamic at all, but do have a gameplay dynamic involving democratic resolution which tend to lean forward social-democratic behaviour is Mafia, surprising as it is considering the name.

At the start of the game, the townpeoples do have their own destiny in hand, it's their choices, base on a ballot, that will eventually dictate the outcome of the game.

Question: As much as I enjoy games like Monopoly or Settelers of Catan, I'm very concerned about the way these games affect players' concept of economy, as they demonstrate extremly capitalistic economical rules where the goal of each individual is to financially crush his/her friends.  I know that since competition is an important factor in many games, the use of capitalism is natural, but I'd anyway like to find out about any economical board games that demonstrate a different approach.

Is there any economical game which demonstrates social-democratic economy rather than capitalism?

Try Pandemic that makes efficient use of limited actions. In Chicken Caeser, the tax rate is determined in a democratic way. You can also find "Anti-Monopoly".

Puerto Rico is an economic game but it's not purely capitalistic. In Chicken caesar, lke most other decisions , the tax rate is determined in a democratic way. There is of course the Anti-Monopoly game. In 7 Wonder, the fact that the economic part is important but not predominant make it a more Social-democratic game than capitalism, since money is not the main objective of the game. Another game, which doesn't have economic dynamic at all, but does involve a democratic resolution leaning towards social-democratic behaviour is Mafia.


VASSAL offers a way to create on online version of a game easily.

I was involved in play testing Crown of Roses using a VASSAL module.

The map for Clash of Monarchs has been critised as being difficult to use and the reason provided for this was that most of the play testing was done online which had a much clearer map.

Donald X. Vaccarino, the designer of Dominion, tested it with a program he wrote himself.

Later expansions were playtested in a private room of the Isotropic online Dominion server.

He discusses it briefly here :

I did not know Doug prior to him making isotropic; Wei-Hwa knew him.

Before isotropic, I used a DOS program I wrote in Pascal, cbtest.

It didn't do the internet part, we handled that via irc.

(Doug is dougz, the creator of the now-unavailable Isotropic Dominion .)

I'm pretty sure "Day and Night" was tested online before release.

But the online game was only limited to a small beta testing audience.

The website used to say that the online version would reappear at some point, but the website is now dead and the developers appear to have vanished.

Since Day and Night is an asymmetric game, getting the two sides balanced is important, and the developers claimed that they were very close to 50:50 based on online testing.

I was a beta tester for a few of David Sirlin 's card games.

Most of the beta testing was done online, in a combination of LackeyCCG and a very rough alpha web client for Yomi.

I actually put some footage up on YouTube .

Someone brought up the objection that writing an online client is much harder than just designing the game.

While it's true to an extent, you can cut a lot of corners if you're just testing.

You don't need a lot of flair, or rules enforcement, or even "something that isn't dog-ugly", and your early testers won't care because it's not a finished game anyway.

A significant proportion of wargames released these days (e.g., by GMT ) is playtested using VASSAL .

Question: I am wondering if any game designers have used an online implementation of a game to balance and tweak it before commercial release.

Has online play testing been an important part of any boardgame designs?

You can be a beta tester for a game before release. The designer of Dominion tested it online before release. The map for Clash of Monarchs has been criticised as it was tested online and had a much clearer map.

A significant proportion of wargames released these days are playtested using  VASSAL .Other games tested online include Day and Night and Crown of Roses. Donald X. Vaccarino, the designer of Dominion, tested it using a program he wrote himself. The map for Clash of Monarchs has actually been critised for being difficult to use and the reason given for this is that most of the play testing was carried out online which had a much clearer map.


Boardgamegeek ( http://boardgamegeek.com ) has a play reporting feature which can include who played, what position each played, their score, and additional notes.

Play notes can be publicly accessed.

(It can be a bit of a pain, tho, to find someone else's plays.)

It does exactly what you're asking for.

If the same person reports every time, it's readily viable to find it.

Further, one can create a private geeklist which lists the games, instead of using the play reports feature.

NemeStats ( http://nemestats.com ) is a new site that is purpose-built to be able to record the results of any game to get interesting statistics like win/loss percentage, list of players

you beat the most,

players you lose to the most,

games

you play the most, your average rank in games, etc.

It is mostly geared toward players that play in a stable gaming group but could also be used to record just your own plays against anonymous opponents if you wanted.

**Update as of 2016-02-26: We continue to enhance the site and also have the ability to import your geek list directly into NemeStats to lower the barrier to start creating games.

**Update as of 2016-07-20: We now have integration with the iOS app Board Game Stats -- providing the best web + phone app experience out there!

It seems that Rankade.com suits your needs.

My friends and I use it to keep score and rankings from over 100 games, and with over 600 matches.

You can see the public page of our group here .

It's free, with apps for mobile (both iOS and Android) and webapp (which I like more, as it has more charts and features than the app).

I also have different groups for sports or other games, not only boardgames.

For example, I think it's nearly perfect for table football and table tennis.

I realize I'm late to the party but check out shpeely.com .

It allows to track all your games and creates statistics for each game and player.

Also it has a scoring system that allows you to track your performance across games.

This is an iOS app (your question mentions not only a website, but a 'system') which is awesome for all boardgame tracking.

It has great interface, lots of stats, integration with Boardgamegeek and Nemestats, and much more: Board Game Stats .

(I'm just a fan of it)

Here is an App that keeps score for you!

Keep Score - Score Keeper

I use the score geek app

and it's pretty good.

It syncs your plays with board game geek to and has pretty much all of their library available to score.

It's not free though.

Scoregeek website

Question: My friends and I are pretty competitive.  We play a lot of various games with various scoring systems used by each (i.e. 7-wonders, Catan, Dominion, etc...).  Does anybody know of any website or system that can be used for keeping track of who won which game and by how much?  Doesn't need to be applicable to all games, but would be nice to keep a record.

Are there any websites for keeping score of various boardgames?

Boardgamegeek has a play reporting feature. Nemestats was purpose-built to record the results of games and get interesting statistics.

Boardgamegeek record what position each played, their score, and notes. NemeStats  is a new site that records the results of any game and offers interesting statistics like win/loss percentage, list of players. Then there is Rankade.com, shpeely.com and the score geek app.

Boardgamegeek has a play reporting feature which can include who played, what position each played, their score, and additional notes. NemeStats  is a new site that is purpose-built to be able to record the results of any game to get interesting statistics like win/loss percentage, list of players.


Scenario 1:

It is round 2 of a 6-player game, so 3 players are needed for the mission.

Alice (loyal) is the leader and strongly (but silently)

suspects Bob of being a traitor, perhaps due to a "tell".

Carol also suspects Bob and is strongly saying so, and Bob is playing offended.

Alice nominates all three of herself, Bob, and Carol for the mission.

She knows that Carol will vote no and will vote no herself, so if even one other member is skeptical the vote will fail.

Meanwhile, Alice carefully watches the votes from Donald, Elaine, and Frank.

A yes vote, especially a single yes vote, is a suggestion that one of those players is a co-spy; not an ironclad proof, but a possibly-important hint.

Scenario 2:

Same situation, but in this game Alice is a spy.

Carol's suspicions about Bob are baseless.

Alice still goes through the motions of this charade even though Bob and Carol are both loyal, to throw off suspicion that would arise because she is not going through her typical plan.

Sometimes it works as an information-gathering gambit.

You nominate a team, then vote it down hoping it fails, but taking note of who voted for it.

What to make of those votes of course depends a lot on playstyle and whether the vote passed or not.

If you are under heavy suspicion, you might either pull the above gambit or pretend to just so you don't take anyone down (or in the case of a spy, take the wrong people down) with you.

To manipulate the turn order.

If using The Plot Thickens, you might intentionally tank a vote just to manipulate who gets plot cards on a future turn.

In particular, it lets you skip over a suspected spy if the team can still afford to vote down two teams in a row.

Speaking of which, this can also be a prelude to a spy victory by five failed votes (No Confidence and Strong Leader can set this up)

At the start of the game, the resistance has the advantage of numbers and the spies have the advantage of knowledge.

The core tactic of the resistance is to reduce the spies' advantage by making as much knowledge public as is possible.

One of the biggest pieces of public knowledge is what teams are proposed, and how people vote for them.

As such, in the groups that I play with, it's extremely common in the first round for leaders to genuinely propose teams, and then vote against them.

In addition, if the game comes down to the last mission, then obviously resistance needs a perfect team to win.

Hence any resistance member not on the team must vote against it, as should any resistance member who is on the team but suspects that there are still spies on it.

If there are two resistance members coming up as consecutive leaders (and they're reasonably convinced of each other's alignment), then the first can propose a team that includes both of them on it, and vote against it.

If anyone not on the team votes for it, that's pretty good evidence they've just outed themselves as a spy, otherwise you can feel more confident about the team and the next leader can propose the exact same team.

I thought I'd add a scenario I thought of.

Alice is the leader.

Bob is accusing Charlie of being a spy.

Alice suspects that Charlie isn't a spy, but Bob is, and is trying to sow seeds of discord.

Alice, without making a deal of it (pretends to ignore/

not notice Bob's arguements)

assigns Alice, Bob and Charlie to the team.

If Bob really was Resistance, and was genuine about accusing Charlie, then Bob will vote against this assignment.

If he votes for it, he probably is a spy.

To counterpoint the other answers, which are all great.

The leader might be the sort of person that has a policy of voting down every 1st (and 2nd, and 3rd) proposal on a mission.

The leader might be using some random or algorithmic method to determine how to vote.

Yes - I've seen these and more...

Question: In a  previous question  a commenter mentioned that team leader might propose a team, that they don't intend to approve.  Presumably this has something to do with either seeing how other people vote to ascertain if they are spys or not, or sowing discord if the leader is a spy themself.  Can you provide some specific examples where a leader might do this?

Why might a leader propose a team they don't plan to approve?

Sometimes this is used to gather information or the leader might be using a random voting method.

This is sometimes used an information-gathering gambit. The leader might be the sort of person who likes to vote down every proposal on a mission ormight be using a random or algorithmic method to determine how to vote.


I can cover what is legal and what is common, and you can hopefully determine what is "convenient".

The MTG Tournament Rules dictate that you clearly represent your board state.

This means: You must be able to represent the tapped state of

your token You must be able to differentiate types of tokens Tokens must not be in the same sleeves as the deck you are playing

This is under Section 3.8 of the Tournament Policy [...]

Sleeves or card backs that appear similar to any player’s sleeves or card backs may not be used as markers.

[...] Notably, if you are playing without sleeves, you may not use an unsleeved Magic card as a token

I see no reason to ignore these rules for casual play.

They aren't very limiting.

The most common legal method of representing a token, for those lacking the actual token card, is a plain face down card.

Any card.

If you control multiple types of tokens, it must be clear to both players which cards represent which tokens.

Some players use dice to represent tokens.

Depending on what kind of dice you use, it can be difficult or impossible to tell whether a particular token is tapped or untapped.

It's also unclear whether a "2" means "two tokens" or "one 2/2 token".

You can overcome this by using dice that don't have rotational symmetry and by communicating clearly.

I still advise against it because there are easier, clearer options (my opinion).

Representing a large number of tokens individually may not be feasible.

In these cases, you can group tokens that have the same status using a single card with a numeric counter placed on top.

Every token in the group must be identical.

If some are tapped, or if some have summoning sickness, represent them as a separate group.

When ever I play magic with my brother or friends, we use sticky notes.

You can write any abilities they might have just as long as you bring a pen.

I use smaller sticky notes as +

+ tokens too.

This method is occasionally used for feature matches (i.e., matches that get video coverage) at large tournaments, but only when a better alternative is not available.

For example, there is no official marker for which mode is chosen for Outpost Siege (Dragons or Khans), so a sticky is used instead.

Most counters and methods use dice or cards to represent that there is a token, or that it has counters on it.

But there is only one product I've found that displays power/toughness and can double as a tappable creature token on its own.

It's from Jace's Toy Chest.

Only place i've found them is on Etsy and ebay.

My friends and I use cards that aren't in the current game, face-down.

We put coins (1, 2 or 5 cents) on them depending on the power/toughness of the creature tokens (since most of the time, they have equal power and toughness).

Our group uses index cards, which is pretty handy because you can just write the static stats (color, creature type, BASE P/T, etc) on the card.

D6 on top of the card is usually enough for counters, and d10/20 to count a group of identical tokens if things start getting... silly...

I put all my ad cards in white, blue, green, red, or black sleeves and put those face down with a dice on them.

Mini Dice and flipped cards.

My friends typically up just use dice.

If you want you can easily get a lot of token cards since almost all of them are super cheap.

As far as dice go, use two dice for a 2/2 token.

When they are horizontal, the token is untapped.

Twist them both so they are vertical, and it's tapped.

I just use a face-down card and put a piece of paper on it with its stats

Question: Many spells or abilities cause one or more creatures to join the battlefield (i.e. 1/1 white Soldier creature tokens, 3/3 green Beast creature tokens, etc.). These token cards are not included with the cards that require them.  What do MtG players use instead to represent token creatures?  A quick search shows you can buy packs of such cards, but I'm wondering what convenient ways exist to represent these tokens without actually having to buy more cards?

What should be used to represent creature tokens when the printed token card isn't available?

The most common method of representing a token is to leave it face down. You can also use dice or index cards.

The most common legal method of representing a token is a plain face down card. You can put a piece of paper on it with its stats. Some players use dice to represent tokens. Index cards are useful because you can write the static stats on the card. Sticky notes are another useful tool.


The Pagat site is very useful:

http://www.pagat.com/boston/solowhist.html It explains the main game "Solo Whist", and also lists some minor variations, and other similar games in this "Boston group".

They say that it is mainly played in Britain.

Here in Australia we also play it.

Solo Whist was taught to us as children to introduce us to card games, and has held us in good stead for Bridge.

Regarding the "Prop and Cop": We believe that that is an important aspect of the main game.

We do have that bid, and we find it to be very enjoyable.

It is an opportunity to collaborate as two teams, rather than three people collaborating to defeat the solo declarer.

If a Prop-and-Cop does not eventuate, then we also sometimes do the "Goulash" deal.

See Wikipedia's page on trick-taking games for a lot of variations.

The version you mention could possibly be Spades .

We have a variation regarding the dealing:

We deal in clumps, i.e. one round of four, and three rounds of three.

We allow the dealer to do whatever order that they want.

Some try to get fancy regarding when they deal each four (e.g. different for each round), while most just start with a packet of 4 (i.e. 4,3,3,3) so as not to confuse themselves.

The Pagat and Wikipedia descriptions involve a single deck and use the final card of the dealer face-up to determine the trump suit.

We instead use a second deck.

This is then ready to go for the next game, being already shuffled and so just needing to be cut.

So the game should be faster.

This also means that the dealer does not need to expose one of their cards.

We have a variation which we call " Nash Whist ".

(Disclosure:

Our group of players has been refining "Solo Whist" for many years.

I have documented our version at the linked location.)

We have streamlined and simplified the shuffling and dealing (as described in the earlier answer).

In the original game the bids are limited.

Apart from the Misere bids, the solo bids are Solo (five tricks) and Abundance (nine tricks) etc.

This means that the main bid that occurs is Solo, and you also get paid for any "over-tricks" that you manage to make beyond the five.

For Nash Whist, we added other bids at every level from 6 to 13.

We also added rank of suits, as for Bridge (explained below) and No-trumps.

Apart from the normal Prop-and-Cop, the minimal bid is the normal "Five-in" solo, i.e. play alone against the other three with the initial turned-up suit as trumps.

So win five tricks in the indicated trump suit.

The trump suit can be changed by any bidder when it is their turn to bid.

Higher bids will beat the previous bid.

For example "Seven-Out" in any suit will beat "Six-In" (i.e. Six in trumps) and Seven-In will beat Seven-Out.

The rank of suits is as for Bridge (i.e. Spades is highest, then Hearts, Diamonds, Clubs).

For example, if Hearts was turned up trumps and the current bid is Six-In, then a bid of Seven-Out Clubs would beat that, and a bid of Seven-Out Diamonds would beat that.

Note that a bid of Six-Out Spades does not beat Six-In, because in this example Hearts are trumps and so automatically rank at the top.

The bidding can start at any level, and proceeds with higher bids until no-one wants to bid further.

The last bid is the "declarer".

Their suit is now Trumps.

There are no payments for over-tricks.

This encourages people to bid to the limit of their hand and not be safe.

We have a three-handed variant.

We simply remove the whole Clubs suit.

No Prop-and-Cop.

Misere is difficult and often does not occur, so we add a "Triste" bid below 8-out, allowing one trick to be won.

Everything else is the same, just need to modify some guidelines for hand-assessment and play.

Question: This was the second trick-taking game that I learned as a kid and it involved bidding and gambling (we played for tiddlywinks). Needs 4 players and you can play to lose. It was used as a  training-wheels simple introduction to the concepts of contract bridge (my dad was a bridge-player).   Since childhood, I've never heard of anyone else playing the game - is it known as something else? I've found it in the odd card game book, but the rules were slightly different to what I recall.

What variations are there on Solo whist?

There are many variants including Solo Whist, Nash Whist, using a second deck or a third hand.

The website http://www.pagat.com/boston/solowhist.html explains the main game and lists some variations. You can deal in clumps, i.e. one round of four, and three rounds of three or even use a second deck. You can play where the trump suit can be changed by any bidder when it is their turn to bid, or have a three-handed variant.