This is something slightly different to my normal session reports. It is more of summary of thoughts and opinions about some of the games I've played for the first time in November.
Wizard's Quest
(Played: Wednesday 3 November at Peter's place)
Wizard's Quest is a 1979 Avalon Hill game that has been sitting on Peter's shelf for years. He has mentioned it once or twice as a simple dice-battler, but hasn't made any serious effort to get it played. Lately I have been thinking about "dice-battlers" and I found a re-write of the Avalon Hill rules into plain English. So I got it on the table and got Peter and Nigel to play it with me.
Wizard's Quest turns out to be a step sideways from the usual Risk inspired conquer-the-world dice battler games. Firstly each player is aiming to be the first to recover their three treasures which the opposing players have put in awkward places on the board. Secondly there are orcs and a dragon which are hostile to everyone (and orcs seem to breed faster than humans!). Thirdly even though armies vary in size and battles can last several rounds of dice throwing, in each round each player only throws one die. Each time they throw the die they calculate what "die-range" to use. If you throw a number in the range (1..N) you kill that many enemy units. Throw a number that is too big and you kill no-one - unless both players throw too high and then they both loose one unit (this final part was a rule we overlooked). Basically N is the number of soldiers or orcs in the army if there less than 4 otherwise N is 4 (though there are modifiers for terrain etc). What may not be immediately obvious is that an army of 2 is about three times as powerful as an army of 1, and an army of 3 is about six times as powerful as an army of 1.
Each round of the game starts with the non-player forces (the orcs, the dragon and the wizard). These act randomly. This is assisted by having the board divided into 6 numbered regions and each region divided into 6 numbered spaces. So two die rolls will identify any space on the board (well not quite as there are 8 castles in addition to the 36 numbered spaces). Orcs fill up empty spaces and castles and breed and then go on the rampage once they reach their maximum army size of 4. The dragon flies around the board eating orcs and humans though once he has eaten humans he stops. The wizard causes peace (which is a mixed blessing) in the region he visits and has a deck of card which are mostly helpful.
The orcs tended to frenzy in my direction, while Peter and Nigel got their first two treasures quite easily (Peter carved his way through my main force to get to one of them). Somehow I managed to get to my second treasure before Nigel got to his third to win the game in about 90 minutes if I remember right. As I eluded to earlier we overlooked one rule.
There are huge amounts of luck due to the non-player forces and the cards. The orcs and dragon can set you back so much that it can take 2 or 3 turns to recover. Hence the game could drag on for a long time if everyone suffered this fate. The quantity of luck can reduce the feeling of skill and reduce the opportunity for long term strategic planning. On the plus side despite the long sequence of actions in a round, the game flows quite smoothly and each battle is quick and simple.
Overall I'd class this as a refreshing, though more random and slightly silly alternative to Nexus Ops as a quick "dice-battler" when you don't have hours to spare on one of the longer games of this type.
Glory to Rome
(Played: Friday 5 November at home)
Anna and Andrew brought back a new card game from Brisbane, which Anna tried to entice me to play by telling me that I "might not like it"! After a couple of weeks of this I called her bluff and we played it with Nigel one Friday night (while Sharon, Anne and John B played On the Underground at the other end of the table).
The theme of the game is that the players are dodgy property developers rebuilding Rome after the fire in 64AD. Points are gained by completing buildings and by hording building materials.
Like Race for the Galaxy and Puerto Rico where someone chooses an action and everyone gets to do it, the current start player decides the action that everyone will do. Unlike Race and Puerto Rico this is not done by choosing from a special set of cards or tiles but by playing a card from one's hand. The cards are multi purposed (they are building materials, buildings made of those materials and specific actions). The other players can either play a card with same action (colour) or pick up. Those that play can also do the action. This can be mitigated by getting clientele cards in your display. These can get you actions when they match the card the start player played regardless of whether you played a card or picked up. Completed buildings also give you extra powers.
Why play Glory to Rome when you can play Race for the Galaxy? Because it is more interactive than Race for the Galaxy, which has a multi-player solitaire feel to it. Not only can the start player (or "Leader" in Glory to Rome terminology) can choose actions that are more beneficial to themselves than their opponents. Some action affect other people directly and some actions affect the pool of cards to draw from. So if you like that style of game where you choose action for yourself and other players but you want more interaction than you get with Race for the Galaxy then try Glory to Rome.
The Speicherstadt
(Played: Wednesday 10 November at Peter's place)
In The Speicherstadt by Stefan Feld, you are an importer in the Speicherstadt (warehouse district) in Hamburg, buying ship-lots of goods to try and fulfill specific contracts for victory points. You can also sell, trade, save goods and also firemen to protect your warehouses. Most of this is done by acquiring cards. Each round a number of cards are available and the players bid for the cards. Nothing unusual as Euro games go.
But the point of difference with The Speicherstadt (apart from its name) is the bidding mechanism. This is an interesting (and often frustrating) hybrid of "worker placement" and auction. Each player has 3 meeples and over 3 rounds place these above the cards they wish to bid on. The first meeple placed above a card gives its owner first "dibs" on the card, the second and subsequent meeples give their owners second and third "dibs" etc. After all the meeples are placed then the cards are evaluated left to right. The player owning the first meeple above a card decides whether to buy the card at a price equal to the total number of meeples above it or remove his/her meeple (hence dropping the price) and letting the owner of the next meeple decide whether to buy or not.
People use the cards they buy to fullfill contracts etc. If someone ends up not buying a card they get a consolation coin. There isn't much money in the game. Knowledge of the distribution of cards is very important. There are only limited numbers of each type of card and the deck is built up of 4 sub-decks (called seasons) each with their own characteristic (e.g. ships are rare at the beginning of the game and common at the end)
There are elements here of "worker placement" as players claim dibs on cards, bidding the price up as players stack their meeples above a popular card and dutch auction as players remove their meeples dropping the price for remaining players. This bidding mechanic is both clever and frustrating. Being first player gives you full choice of "first dibs" spots but little control over prices. Being last give you the opposite situation.
This game seems to be a straight forward and slightly boring do stuff to get points game driven by a very clever bidding mechanic. I would like to see this bidding mechanism used in an otherwise more interesting game. If you like trading games there are the nastier games like Before The Wind and Die Händler, or more negotiation oriented games like Settlers of Catan and Bohnanza.
Monday, 22 November 2010
Sunday, 24 October 2010
Labour Weekend Gaming
Friday Night - Around the World
Anne challenged me to a game of Expedition which I won 25-16. She then demanded a rematch which was a closer event. This time I finished all my cards scoring 22, but I had started the game so Anne got the final turn, finishing her last card and an extra card to beat me 23-22. In our final game I got my lowest score of the evening -- winning 19-15.
Saturday - Indian Summer
Jarratt and Lance organised a game of 1853 at Lance's house. It was the first time for all of us, so none of us were familiar with the map, companies and the opening bidding procedure. 1853 is an older design than 1830 and owes its design more to railway pioneering 1829 than the Robber Baron 1830. The stock market works in a simple way and is not susceptible to manipulation. In other 18XX games there are private companies which need to be bought before the players can buy shares in the main companies. These private companies are usually on sold to the majors mid-game for a profit. This serves a dual purpose, reducing the players' initial capital by varying amounts and providing a reward for company directors. In 1853 there are no private companies, instead the players' initial capital is reduced by a simultaneous bid which determines the initial seating order and first player. The bid amount is held in escrow until the towns you nominate in second part of the process are linked up. The amount you bid limits which towns you undertake to link up. These towns limit which shares you can initially buy. As in the other 18XX games, the amount you have left over determines which of the major companies you can capitalize in the first turn. Once the towns you nominated are linked to each other by railway then you get your escrowed money back.
At beginning at least three of us had the same idea about with towns to nominate and which initial shares to buy. We also all bid pretty low (Anne bid £85, I bid £82 and Lance and Jarratt bid £80). None us took into account that bidding less than £90 means you can't nominate a £50 city. Anne took a share of the North Western Railway and it was clear that she had the same idea that Jarratt and I had, so we had to rethink our ideas. I took Bombay, Baroda and Central India (BBCI) share and Jarratt took an East Coast Railway (ECR) share. Lance hadn't formulated a plan when bidding and after a bit of thinking bought a Bengal Nagpur Railway share.
Another point of difference with 1853 is that there are two types of track (and engines): broad gauge and narrow gauge. This adds an extra level of decision making. Jarratt built his ECR as a narrow gauge railway, which is cheaper to build but the trains have a shorter "reach". Anne's initial planning and highest bid paid off as she got an early lead in making income. I found myself stymied initially by the tile options. There are no yellow city tiles with a straight piece of track (cities are all on curves) and later on by the territorial limitations. Each company has a territory and it can't upgrade track outside its area, hence I couldn't link up to the BNR network and join Delhi to Calcutta.
Like the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad which failed to build to Santa Fe, the Bombay, Baroda and Central India Railway never built to Bombay, preferring to stay near Delhi. There was a bit of selling off of stock (especially in Anne's NWR) as players started second rail companies (but unlike 1830 and 1856 selling stock doesn't necessarily lead to a share price drop). Near the end of the game I switched three shares to a better performing stock but otherwise people kept the shares they bought.
Lance's shareholdings in the best performing companies and Jarratt's southern narrow gauge loop propelled them past Anne. In the end we called the game early and faked two operating rounds to give the final result.
1853 is a game which had a large number of suggested rule changes over the years to fix its original faults. Lance owns the latest version which has quite a number of changes to the original rules, map etc.
Saturday night - Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes
After a quick stop in J'ville to pick up some KFC and in Thorndon to drop of Anne, I was off to Nigel's place to play Mare Nostrum.
I was keen to try Greece, so while John was getting his fish and chips, Travis chose Rome, Andrew took Babylon and Nigel grabbed Egypt, leaving John with Carthage. I made more mistakes than last week. Initially by letting Rome convert one of my provinces. Later when I was military leader I intended to move last so I could leave my North African safely empty while I raided some Carthaginian caravans. But I forgot to give Egypt his turn and he took back the province.
Egypt got the first hero, then Rome and Carthage got a couple of heroes/wonders each threatening to win, prompting Babylon and Greece into a military strategy which merely prolonged the game. Greece in particular was too busy attacking to build up its own resources. Babylon played a more balanced strategy of attacking sometimes and developing other times.
Egypt finally got a third and fourth hero/wonder to win.
We made one mistake with the rules. When someone conquers a province they can only sack one caravan, city, temple or market.
I would be interested to see how the game would play with the "Advanced Setup" where players get to choose what they start with. They get 36 "build points" to spend on initial stuff. Three points for each: influence marker, city, caravan or military unit and 6 points for each temple or market. Buying a country's own hero is optional and costs 9 points. It is unclear from the rules whether players choose their setup in some turn order or if it is simultaneous.
Reading the expansion rules and the various variants it seems that Mare Nostrum is a flexible game that handles modifications well. Most of the modifications involve strengthening Greece. For instance the expansion gives Greece a temple, a trireme and an extra caravan (but also gives other countries extra stuff). A few strengthen Carthage and weaken Rome (my suggestion for that is to swap their heroes). The expansion gives reduces Julius Caesar to cheap legions only. Some people play without Helen.
Anne challenged me to a game of Expedition which I won 25-16. She then demanded a rematch which was a closer event. This time I finished all my cards scoring 22, but I had started the game so Anne got the final turn, finishing her last card and an extra card to beat me 23-22. In our final game I got my lowest score of the evening -- winning 19-15.
Saturday - Indian Summer
Jarratt and Lance organised a game of 1853 at Lance's house. It was the first time for all of us, so none of us were familiar with the map, companies and the opening bidding procedure. 1853 is an older design than 1830 and owes its design more to railway pioneering 1829 than the Robber Baron 1830. The stock market works in a simple way and is not susceptible to manipulation. In other 18XX games there are private companies which need to be bought before the players can buy shares in the main companies. These private companies are usually on sold to the majors mid-game for a profit. This serves a dual purpose, reducing the players' initial capital by varying amounts and providing a reward for company directors. In 1853 there are no private companies, instead the players' initial capital is reduced by a simultaneous bid which determines the initial seating order and first player. The bid amount is held in escrow until the towns you nominate in second part of the process are linked up. The amount you bid limits which towns you undertake to link up. These towns limit which shares you can initially buy. As in the other 18XX games, the amount you have left over determines which of the major companies you can capitalize in the first turn. Once the towns you nominated are linked to each other by railway then you get your escrowed money back.
At beginning at least three of us had the same idea about with towns to nominate and which initial shares to buy. We also all bid pretty low (Anne bid £85, I bid £82 and Lance and Jarratt bid £80). None us took into account that bidding less than £90 means you can't nominate a £50 city. Anne took a share of the North Western Railway and it was clear that she had the same idea that Jarratt and I had, so we had to rethink our ideas. I took Bombay, Baroda and Central India (BBCI) share and Jarratt took an East Coast Railway (ECR) share. Lance hadn't formulated a plan when bidding and after a bit of thinking bought a Bengal Nagpur Railway share.
Another point of difference with 1853 is that there are two types of track (and engines): broad gauge and narrow gauge. This adds an extra level of decision making. Jarratt built his ECR as a narrow gauge railway, which is cheaper to build but the trains have a shorter "reach". Anne's initial planning and highest bid paid off as she got an early lead in making income. I found myself stymied initially by the tile options. There are no yellow city tiles with a straight piece of track (cities are all on curves) and later on by the territorial limitations. Each company has a territory and it can't upgrade track outside its area, hence I couldn't link up to the BNR network and join Delhi to Calcutta.
Like the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad which failed to build to Santa Fe, the Bombay, Baroda and Central India Railway never built to Bombay, preferring to stay near Delhi. There was a bit of selling off of stock (especially in Anne's NWR) as players started second rail companies (but unlike 1830 and 1856 selling stock doesn't necessarily lead to a share price drop). Near the end of the game I switched three shares to a better performing stock but otherwise people kept the shares they bought.
Lance's shareholdings in the best performing companies and Jarratt's southern narrow gauge loop propelled them past Anne. In the end we called the game early and faked two operating rounds to give the final result.
Lance £8424
Jarratt £7744
Anne £7004
Ian £6785
1853 is a game which had a large number of suggested rule changes over the years to fix its original faults. Lance owns the latest version which has quite a number of changes to the original rules, map etc.
Saturday night - Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes
After a quick stop in J'ville to pick up some KFC and in Thorndon to drop of Anne, I was off to Nigel's place to play Mare Nostrum.
I was keen to try Greece, so while John was getting his fish and chips, Travis chose Rome, Andrew took Babylon and Nigel grabbed Egypt, leaving John with Carthage. I made more mistakes than last week. Initially by letting Rome convert one of my provinces. Later when I was military leader I intended to move last so I could leave my North African safely empty while I raided some Carthaginian caravans. But I forgot to give Egypt his turn and he took back the province.
Egypt got the first hero, then Rome and Carthage got a couple of heroes/wonders each threatening to win, prompting Babylon and Greece into a military strategy which merely prolonged the game. Greece in particular was too busy attacking to build up its own resources. Babylon played a more balanced strategy of attacking sometimes and developing other times.
Egypt finally got a third and fourth hero/wonder to win.
We made one mistake with the rules. When someone conquers a province they can only sack one caravan, city, temple or market.
I would be interested to see how the game would play with the "Advanced Setup" where players get to choose what they start with. They get 36 "build points" to spend on initial stuff. Three points for each: influence marker, city, caravan or military unit and 6 points for each temple or market. Buying a country's own hero is optional and costs 9 points. It is unclear from the rules whether players choose their setup in some turn order or if it is simultaneous.
Reading the expansion rules and the various variants it seems that Mare Nostrum is a flexible game that handles modifications well. Most of the modifications involve strengthening Greece. For instance the expansion gives Greece a temple, a trireme and an extra caravan (but also gives other countries extra stuff). A few strengthen Carthage and weaken Rome (my suggestion for that is to swap their heroes). The expansion gives reduces Julius Caesar to cheap legions only. Some people play without Helen.
Sunday, 17 October 2010
Mare Nostrum (16 October 2010)
With Anne away and wanting to play something a bit longer than is usually practical on Wednesday or Friday nights I organised a group of fellow travelers to start early on Saturday evening. By the time we sat down (just after 6pm) we hadn't made our mind up about what to play. Princes of the Renaissance was the top of my list (we had a good game of this four months ago). Travis brought Warrior Knights and Fury of Dracula while John brought A Game of Thrones and Mare Nostrum. It almost came down to a coin toss between Princes of the Renaissance and Mare Nostrum, but the argument in favour of Mare Nostrum swung the decision.
Mare Nostrum is Serge Laget's attempt to design a lighter version of Francis Tresham's Civilization.
It had been so long since any of us had played the game that we had to learn it again. John taught. Nigel was Rome, John was Greece, Travis was Babylon, Andrew was Egypt and I was Carthage. Initial everyone grabbed cities and resources within reach. Because Rome and Greece's special powers are that they get to build unit for two cards rather than three, whenever they had a couple of spare resources they build legions and triremes. Once the city and caravan tokens were used up, the first phase of the game was over and we were faced with the strategic decision of what next?
Rome took two legions along the Balkan coast towards Greece. Greece responded by building legions to protect his north western border. Meanwhile I took a risk and ignored the military build up in the north of the Mediterranean and build the first hero (Helen - whose defensive abilities somewhat made up for my lack of military units). After a stand-off Rome withdrew and Greece took his now unemployed legions to Asia Minor to tax the Babylonian province there - much to Travis's annoyance. Worried that my non-military strategy and two heroes would make me a target I built fortresses rather than get another hero/wonder. The Commerce Leadership swapped back and forth between Carthage and Rome.
By this time Egypt's tax revenue was beginning to kick in and Andrew build two wonders/heroes in a row. He also moved two legions towards my undefended eastern province and I responded by building four legions and invaded. Worried that Egypt was close to winning, Greece followed with a seaborne invasion of Egypt's heartland, leaving Egypt very weak and making Greece the Political Leader and Rome the Military Leader. By forcing Greece to trade 6 cards he had to offer 3 of his 12 Tax. The rest of us cooperated to ensure he didn't get enough Tax or Resources to build the Pyramids.
I got another hero (Ulysses) while Babylon took the Commerce Leadership from Carthage. On the final turn Babylon had a big hand of cards. Carthage only had 6 different goods and if he had chosen to trade 0-2 Carthage couldn't have gotten their fourth hero. But he chose to trade 4 cards, while I kept all my Gold cards in hand (I thought I had the monopoly on Gold and Fruit) to prevent anyone getting enough resource for the Pyramids. I managed to get Olive Oil, Livestock and Wine to build the fourth hero for Carthage.
Thanks to Carl for lending us his game.
Now we need to organise a rematch (and another game of Princes of the Renaissance).
Mare Nostrum is Serge Laget's attempt to design a lighter version of Francis Tresham's Civilization.
It had been so long since any of us had played the game that we had to learn it again. John taught. Nigel was Rome, John was Greece, Travis was Babylon, Andrew was Egypt and I was Carthage. Initial everyone grabbed cities and resources within reach. Because Rome and Greece's special powers are that they get to build unit for two cards rather than three, whenever they had a couple of spare resources they build legions and triremes. Once the city and caravan tokens were used up, the first phase of the game was over and we were faced with the strategic decision of what next?
Rome took two legions along the Balkan coast towards Greece. Greece responded by building legions to protect his north western border. Meanwhile I took a risk and ignored the military build up in the north of the Mediterranean and build the first hero (Helen - whose defensive abilities somewhat made up for my lack of military units). After a stand-off Rome withdrew and Greece took his now unemployed legions to Asia Minor to tax the Babylonian province there - much to Travis's annoyance. Worried that my non-military strategy and two heroes would make me a target I built fortresses rather than get another hero/wonder. The Commerce Leadership swapped back and forth between Carthage and Rome.
By this time Egypt's tax revenue was beginning to kick in and Andrew build two wonders/heroes in a row. He also moved two legions towards my undefended eastern province and I responded by building four legions and invaded. Worried that Egypt was close to winning, Greece followed with a seaborne invasion of Egypt's heartland, leaving Egypt very weak and making Greece the Political Leader and Rome the Military Leader. By forcing Greece to trade 6 cards he had to offer 3 of his 12 Tax. The rest of us cooperated to ensure he didn't get enough Tax or Resources to build the Pyramids.
I got another hero (Ulysses) while Babylon took the Commerce Leadership from Carthage. On the final turn Babylon had a big hand of cards. Carthage only had 6 different goods and if he had chosen to trade 0-2 Carthage couldn't have gotten their fourth hero. But he chose to trade 4 cards, while I kept all my Gold cards in hand (I thought I had the monopoly on Gold and Fruit) to prevent anyone getting enough resource for the Pyramids. I managed to get Olive Oil, Livestock and Wine to build the fourth hero for Carthage.
Thanks to Carl for lending us his game.
Now we need to organise a rematch (and another game of Princes of the Renaissance).
Saturday, 9 October 2010
Friday 8 October
Drakon
While we waited to see if anyone else would show up John pulled out Drakon as a filler. This is a game we went mad on in March 2008 (11 plays in one month). There were two good areas but Anne made the best of it and I ended up trapped in an empty maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
On the Underground
We were all pretty close for most of the game with Anne jumping ahead a couple of times (including with her 6 point loop). Then I pulled ahead when I managed to get my grey line to join two pairs of symbols and then started to score a bunch of red end points.
Patrician
We play this simple game so infrequently that I had to teach it again. This is a short Michael Schacht board game about building the majority of floors in towers. You start with a pile of stackable tower pieces and a hand of three cards. Each turn you play a card, place a tower piece (or two) and pick up a card. The card indicates which city you are to build in, whether you are building one tower piece or two, a special action or a portrait. Each city has two building spaces and two victory point tokens and a face up card which will be the one you refill your hand with. Once a the number of tower pieces in a city equals the number on the larger victory point token that city scores and the tokens are given to the players with the majority control of each tower. The game ends when the last city is scored (which is also when the cards run out). There are also 6 VP for each set of 3 matching portraits on the cards you've played.
Thinking about the game afterwards I was struck by some similarities and contrasts with China (or Web of Power / Kardinal und König). Both games are primarily about scoring majorities. Patrician is a bit shorter. In both games you have a hand of three cards. Each turn you play a card (or cards), put one or two pieces on the board in a place indicated by the card(s) and then pickup card(s). When an area is filled it is scored. There is also end game scoring in both games. In China everyone in a region scores. In Patrician only the person with the majority control of a tower scores - which probably leads to bigger swings in the scores. In China there are two types of pieces (houses and emissaries) and three types of scoring and all the cards of a particular colour are the same which means the cards are means to an end. Whereas in Patrician the cards tell you how many pieces you play, may give you a special action or a portrait to score with, so the cards are more important. Also each card you play in Patrician determines which card you pick up, so you are often thinking through a chain of possible moves. In China the first player to play in a region can only play one house, which often discourages players from starting new regions. Whereas in Patrician ties are broken by player nearest the top of the tower so player often want to hold back so that they can play the final pieces in a city.
Hornochsen!
With three players only 45 out of 98 cards are in play which makes for big surprises. Unusually this is a game where more players makes the game less random. The first game was low scoring.
In game two there were plenty of nice piles and a few stinkers. I ended up with fewer cards than the others which is usually bad news as it gives you fewer choices, but it wasn't as bad as it could have been.
While we waited to see if anyone else would show up John pulled out Drakon as a filler. This is a game we went mad on in March 2008 (11 plays in one month). There were two good areas but Anne made the best of it and I ended up trapped in an empty maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
Anne 10
John B 6
Ian 2
On the Underground
We were all pretty close for most of the game with Anne jumping ahead a couple of times (including with her 6 point loop). Then I pulled ahead when I managed to get my grey line to join two pairs of symbols and then started to score a bunch of red end points.
Ian 59
John B 49
Anne 47
Patrician
We play this simple game so infrequently that I had to teach it again. This is a short Michael Schacht board game about building the majority of floors in towers. You start with a pile of stackable tower pieces and a hand of three cards. Each turn you play a card, place a tower piece (or two) and pick up a card. The card indicates which city you are to build in, whether you are building one tower piece or two, a special action or a portrait. Each city has two building spaces and two victory point tokens and a face up card which will be the one you refill your hand with. Once a the number of tower pieces in a city equals the number on the larger victory point token that city scores and the tokens are given to the players with the majority control of each tower. The game ends when the last city is scored (which is also when the cards run out). There are also 6 VP for each set of 3 matching portraits on the cards you've played.
Ian 62
John B 48
Anne 31
Thinking about the game afterwards I was struck by some similarities and contrasts with China (or Web of Power / Kardinal und König). Both games are primarily about scoring majorities. Patrician is a bit shorter. In both games you have a hand of three cards. Each turn you play a card (or cards), put one or two pieces on the board in a place indicated by the card(s) and then pickup card(s). When an area is filled it is scored. There is also end game scoring in both games. In China everyone in a region scores. In Patrician only the person with the majority control of a tower scores - which probably leads to bigger swings in the scores. In China there are two types of pieces (houses and emissaries) and three types of scoring and all the cards of a particular colour are the same which means the cards are means to an end. Whereas in Patrician the cards tell you how many pieces you play, may give you a special action or a portrait to score with, so the cards are more important. Also each card you play in Patrician determines which card you pick up, so you are often thinking through a chain of possible moves. In China the first player to play in a region can only play one house, which often discourages players from starting new regions. Whereas in Patrician ties are broken by player nearest the top of the tower so player often want to hold back so that they can play the final pieces in a city.
Hornochsen!
With three players only 45 out of 98 cards are in play which makes for big surprises. Unusually this is a game where more players makes the game less random. The first game was low scoring.
Ian 6
Anne 2
John -8
In game two there were plenty of nice piles and a few stinkers. I ended up with fewer cards than the others which is usually bad news as it gives you fewer choices, but it wasn't as bad as it could have been.
John 26
Anne 14
Ian 10
Change of Location (6 October 2010)
Peter and family were spending the week in Auckland so I hosted his Wednesday games. Anne was out at a dinner/seminar, while Andrew and Anna wanted one last games fix with us before heading off to Brisbane.
Tichu
John agreed to play a couple of hands as a filler while we waited for others to show up. As seems usual nobody called Tichu on the first hand (I had passed Anna the Dragon while she passed me an Ace, Andrew and John swapped Kings). But it seems that Anna and I had better hands than our opponents and she went out first and I followed for a 1-2. In the second hand Anna called Tichu but the our opponents managed to prevent me going out second. So the final score was 360 to 40.
Metropolys
With a big pile of games on the table it took the six of us a while to make up our minds. Andrew, John and Nigel decided on Metropolys while the rest of us were still dithering.
Andrew played very well, at one point I looked over and he had 5 Ladies (15 points) and was winning in two regions.
Nexus Ops
I wasn't sure that Nexus Ops was Anna's cup of tea but she was enthusiastic to learn. Jarratt found lots of Rock Strider including two adjacent to the Monolith so he jumped up and started collecting Energize cards. I got a 3 point Special Mission to win a battle on the Monolith with a Dragon and then an Energize card to jump a Dragon to anywhere. So I bought a Dragon and jumped up with some Rock Strider support but threw badly and ended up leaving my Dragon to be finished off by Jarratt on his turn.
Anna's verdict was that Nexus Ops is a crazy game.
No Thanks!
While they waited us to finish off Nexus Ops the others played No Thanks!. Andrew won again, while Nigel made a record bad score.
Vegas Showdown
Jarratt went mad on Slots and probably bought at least half of them. Nigel had the early lead on the score track, but he and I were stuck on incomes of 6 and 5 for a long time. I was tempted first by the Night Club and then by the Theater before I had a Fancy Lounge or Lounge (so I had them sitting off board for a long time). If I had managed to get everything down I would have been very competitive score wise. It ended badly as Jarratt made sure I didn't get a Fancy Lounge.
Tichu
John agreed to play a couple of hands as a filler while we waited for others to show up. As seems usual nobody called Tichu on the first hand (I had passed Anna the Dragon while she passed me an Ace, Andrew and John swapped Kings). But it seems that Anna and I had better hands than our opponents and she went out first and I followed for a 1-2. In the second hand Anna called Tichu but the our opponents managed to prevent me going out second. So the final score was 360 to 40.
Metropolys
With a big pile of games on the table it took the six of us a while to make up our minds. Andrew, John and Nigel decided on Metropolys while the rest of us were still dithering.
Andrew played very well, at one point I looked over and he had 5 Ladies (15 points) and was winning in two regions.
Andrew H 39
Nigel 27
John B 21
Nexus Ops
I wasn't sure that Nexus Ops was Anna's cup of tea but she was enthusiastic to learn. Jarratt found lots of Rock Strider including two adjacent to the Monolith so he jumped up and started collecting Energize cards. I got a 3 point Special Mission to win a battle on the Monolith with a Dragon and then an Energize card to jump a Dragon to anywhere. So I bought a Dragon and jumped up with some Rock Strider support but threw badly and ended up leaving my Dragon to be finished off by Jarratt on his turn.
Anna's verdict was that Nexus Ops is a crazy game.
Jarratt 12
Anna 6
Ian 4
No Thanks!
While they waited us to finish off Nexus Ops the others played No Thanks!. Andrew won again, while Nigel made a record bad score.
Andrew H 35
John B 77
Nigel 129
Vegas Showdown
Jarratt went mad on Slots and probably bought at least half of them. Nigel had the early lead on the score track, but he and I were stuck on incomes of 6 and 5 for a long time. I was tempted first by the Night Club and then by the Theater before I had a Fancy Lounge or Lounge (so I had them sitting off board for a long time). If I had managed to get everything down I would have been very competitive score wise. It ended badly as Jarratt made sure I didn't get a Fancy Lounge.
John B 52
Jarratt 51
Ian 39
Nigel 25
Saturday, 25 September 2010
Friday 24 September 2010
TransAmerica
The way to make people show up is to start a game. With this aim in mind I put TransAmerica on the table, and before I could start explaining the rules John and Nigel arrived. TransAmerica is a quick, light game with a good dose of luck, but also a game of judgement where you want to cooperate with others in ways that benefit you slightly more than them.
The game ended when I made a very bad choice of start position assuming wrongly that other people would be as interested in the north east as I was and ignoring the cardinal rule of starting near the centre of the board. The newbies came first and second.
Power Grid
After TransAmerica we were looking for a 6 player game that would take no more than two and half hours. For some reason we not only thought that 6-player Power Grid would be quicker than Age of Steam, but we also thought it would take two and half hours! (Our last game of Power Grid took 3 hours with 5 players)
We played the German board, but we forgot to use only 5 regions, so there was plenty of room especially for Margo and myself. She had the cheap north while I had the more expensive south. Jim, Nigel and John shared the centre with Nigel in the cheapest area (which acted like a magnet for the others).
I got a lucky break and got the #35 power station (1 oil powers 5 cities) as my second station, which allowed me to ignore the power station market for the next few turns. Nigel kept the pressure on the price of coal by stock piling it every turn. Jim started off green but didn't keep up his green credentials. Anne started in the east and John did the big leap over Nigel to get to the North.
In the final turn we were all trying to calculate if we could get to 16 cities and power them, but only Margo had the necessary funds.
The way to make people show up is to start a game. With this aim in mind I put TransAmerica on the table, and before I could start explaining the rules John and Nigel arrived. TransAmerica is a quick, light game with a good dose of luck, but also a game of judgement where you want to cooperate with others in ways that benefit you slightly more than them.
The game ended when I made a very bad choice of start position assuming wrongly that other people would be as interested in the north east as I was and ignoring the cardinal rule of starting near the centre of the board. The newbies came first and second.
Jim 10
Margo 9
Nigel 7
Anne 4
John B 4
Ian 0
Power Grid
After TransAmerica we were looking for a 6 player game that would take no more than two and half hours. For some reason we not only thought that 6-player Power Grid would be quicker than Age of Steam, but we also thought it would take two and half hours! (Our last game of Power Grid took 3 hours with 5 players)
We played the German board, but we forgot to use only 5 regions, so there was plenty of room especially for Margo and myself. She had the cheap north while I had the more expensive south. Jim, Nigel and John shared the centre with Nigel in the cheapest area (which acted like a magnet for the others).
I got a lucky break and got the #35 power station (1 oil powers 5 cities) as my second station, which allowed me to ignore the power station market for the next few turns. Nigel kept the pressure on the price of coal by stock piling it every turn. Jim started off green but didn't keep up his green credentials. Anne started in the east and John did the big leap over Nigel to get to the North.
In the final turn we were all trying to calculate if we could get to 16 cities and power them, but only Margo had the necessary funds.
Margo 16
John 15 + $158
Nigel 15 + $145
Ian 15 + $145
Jim 14 + $167
Anne 14 + $151
Thursday, 23 September 2010
Tichu (18 September 2010)
More Tichu with Anna and Andrew. Anna was disappointed with her Tichu calling on Friday night and was eager to redeem herself. After a promising start, we failed twice in a row, while Anna and Andrew surged ahead. When I called Grand Tichu I felt confident with the Dragon and four Aces, but not so confident by the time the third bomb was played against me! Anna and Andrew cruised to victory only going backwards once, and making three 1-2s.
In game 2 we were almost even after the fourth hand, but we stagnated soon after that and were well beaten. I think Andrew and Anna are well practiced for their Brisbane trip.
Anne and I had discussed passing strategies earlier but such things are tricky to put into practice. We probably didn't swap Aces as often as Carl and I had the night before but apart from that I don't think the agreement helped us very much.
Hnd IA+AM AJ+AH
1. 160 40 Ian's Tichu
2. 200 200 Andrew's Tichu
3. 270 130 Anna fails Tichu
4. 170 330 Ian fails, Anna and Andrew 1-2
5. 120 380 Ian fails
6. 120 580 Anna and Andrew make 1-2 again
7. 385 615 Ian makes Grand Tichu against 3 bombs
8. 385 915 Andrew makes Tichu and 1-2
9. 545 955 Anne makes Tichu
10. 520 1080 our only points were the Pheonix!
In game 2 we were almost even after the fourth hand, but we stagnated soon after that and were well beaten. I think Andrew and Anna are well practiced for their Brisbane trip.
Hnd IA+AM AJ+AH
1. 30 170 Anna's Tichu
2. 130 170 Anne fails Tichu but we made 1-2
3. 325 175 Ian's Tichu and lots of points
4. 245 255 Anne fails Tichu
5. 245 455 Andrew and Anna 1-2
6. 315 385 Anna fails Tichu
7. 410 490 Anna's Tichu but not many points
8. 445 555
9. 445 855 Anna's Tichu and 1-2
10. 415 985 Ian fails Tichu, Andrew makes Tichu
11. 415 1285 Andrew's Tichu and 1-2
Anne and I had discussed passing strategies earlier but such things are tricky to put into practice. We probably didn't swap Aces as often as Carl and I had the night before but apart from that I don't think the agreement helped us very much.
Sunday, 19 September 2010
Friday 17 September 2010
Carl showed up first, followed by Anna and Andrew. We had decided to play Frank's Zoo when Jarratt rang the door bell, so we dealt him in while he came upstairs. We gave him the fastest rules explanation we could and got underway. But we only managed one round before John and Nigel showed up.
Frank's Zoo
Nigel joined Anna, Anne and Jarratt to restart Frank's Zoo. Jarratt wanted to stop playing after the first round, and perhaps he should have. Nasia joined in at the third hand and challenged Jarratt for third place. No surprises about who won.
Clans
I've been keen to play this game again since I noticed the similarity between this and Metropolys. Both being essentially abstract games with secret missions. It's been a couple of years since I last played this, and longer since Carl, John or I last played it regularly. It was Andrew's first time. Unfortunately for Andrew and I, in the last third of the game we got into the rhythm of he and I being forced to set up situations where John and Carl could make villages (which they did). This was partially due to the seating order, which was: John, me, Carl, Andrew.
The early part of both games is the least important and the initial moves are not obvious. The mid-game starts as board position becomes interesting, and the end game is where choices become more limited and more critical. The obvious difference between the two is that in Metropolys the end game is about keeping the initiative whereas in Clans it is about giving away as few opportunities to your opponents (in particular the player following you) as possible.
Andrew Rae arrived in time for the next set of game choosing. We had ten people and lots of indecision. We probably should have split into two five player groups as there are plenty of good five player games available. But we didn't.
Tichu
Carl hasn't played for awhile and was initially worried that we weren't strong enough for Anna and Andrew and the first two hands suggested he was right. But then Carl and Anna went head to head for the first of three times. The seventh hand turned up an interesting situation I called Tichu but Carl also had a good hand and ended up in a position to go out before me, controversially he choose to go out, leaving me to finish second for 200 minus 100 points. If he had not gone out, his final card would have been something like a 3 ruling out a 1-2. A Tichu would have given us more points but also have given Anna and Andrew points.
Grand Tichu calls are rare in our games, but on turn 9 Andrew called Grand Tichu and made it! But while Anna and Andrew were making a come back it was too late.
Nuns on the Run
Engrossed in Tichu I didn't pay much attention to what was happening at the other end of the room.
Nasia taught this deduction game that she had brought with her. It is like Scotland Yard in reverse, instead of one player being hunted by everyone else, one player hunts everyone else. She said it went OK, but none of the novices managed to get their secret wish and return to their cells. So Abbess Nasia won.
Pompeii
Rumors from Pompeii talk of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Amid destruction and disaster Nasia had fun, Andrew went crazy and found time went quickly.
Andrew only had cards for unplayed areas and John just kept on playing the same card after him for more relatives. John had 22 on the board to Andrew's 14. Driving Andrew crazy. Still it was to his advantage because he didn't have to worry about so many guys and got them all but three out. Andrew won, Nasia lost, with John in the middle.
Nexus Ops
Jarratt loves Nexus Ops but Nigel hasn't had enjoyed his previous experiences, while Anne hasn't played often. Jarratt did the rules refresher but forgot the easily forgotten rule that you can sell unwanted cards. Jarratt followed the standard strategy getting early control of the Monolith and fighting many battles. Nexus Ops is a game of winning battles but not wasting too many troops defending territory.
The experience didn't improve Nigel's attitude towards the game, but Anne wants to play again.
California
John suggested we try this two player but neither of us checked the rules differences for two players until I had filled my house. Then Jarratt read that we should have finished much earlier, so we stopped at that point when I was one point ahead. If we had played by the real two player rules we wouldn't have scored as many present points (which would have hurt me more than John) and the game would have ended earlier with John probably winning.
Frank's Zoo
Nigel joined Anna, Anne and Jarratt to restart Frank's Zoo. Jarratt wanted to stop playing after the first round, and perhaps he should have. Nasia joined in at the third hand and challenged Jarratt for third place. No surprises about who won.
Anna 2 8 15 24
Anne 4 7 8 11
Jarratt 7 7 9 8
Nasia - - 5 7
Nigel 0 2 1 3
Clans
I've been keen to play this game again since I noticed the similarity between this and Metropolys. Both being essentially abstract games with secret missions. It's been a couple of years since I last played this, and longer since Carl, John or I last played it regularly. It was Andrew's first time. Unfortunately for Andrew and I, in the last third of the game we got into the rhythm of he and I being forced to set up situations where John and Carl could make villages (which they did). This was partially due to the seating order, which was: John, me, Carl, Andrew.
The early part of both games is the least important and the initial moves are not obvious. The mid-game starts as board position becomes interesting, and the end game is where choices become more limited and more critical. The obvious difference between the two is that in Metropolys the end game is about keeping the initiative whereas in Clans it is about giving away as few opportunities to your opponents (in particular the player following you) as possible.
John B 49
Carl 47
Andrew H 43
Ian 43
Andrew Rae arrived in time for the next set of game choosing. We had ten people and lots of indecision. We probably should have split into two five player groups as there are plenty of good five player games available. But we didn't.
Tichu
Carl hasn't played for awhile and was initially worried that we weren't strong enough for Anna and Andrew and the first two hands suggested he was right. But then Carl and Anna went head to head for the first of three times. The seventh hand turned up an interesting situation I called Tichu but Carl also had a good hand and ended up in a position to go out before me, controversially he choose to go out, leaving me to finish second for 200 minus 100 points. If he had not gone out, his final card would have been something like a 3 ruling out a 1-2. A Tichu would have given us more points but also have given Anna and Andrew points.
Grand Tichu calls are rare in our games, but on turn 9 Andrew called Grand Tichu and made it! But while Anna and Andrew were making a come back it was too late.
Hnd IA+Ql AJ+AH
1. 25 75
2. 85 215 Andrew's Tichu
3. 280 120 Carl makes Tichu, Anna fails
4. 345 55 Andrew fails
5. 450 150 Carl makes Tichu
6. 600 100 Carl makes Tichu, Anna fails
7. 700 100 I fail, but Carl and I make a 1-2
8. 875 25 I make Tichu, Anna fails
9. 800 300 I fail, while Andrew makes a Grand Tichu
10. 810 390
11. 830 570 Andrew makes Tichu
12. 1030 470 Carl makes Tichu, Anna fails
Nuns on the Run
Engrossed in Tichu I didn't pay much attention to what was happening at the other end of the room.
Nasia taught this deduction game that she had brought with her. It is like Scotland Yard in reverse, instead of one player being hunted by everyone else, one player hunts everyone else. She said it went OK, but none of the novices managed to get their secret wish and return to their cells. So Abbess Nasia won.
Pompeii
Rumors from Pompeii talk of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Amid destruction and disaster Nasia had fun, Andrew went crazy and found time went quickly.
Andrew only had cards for unplayed areas and John just kept on playing the same card after him for more relatives. John had 22 on the board to Andrew's 14. Driving Andrew crazy. Still it was to his advantage because he didn't have to worry about so many guys and got them all but three out. Andrew won, Nasia lost, with John in the middle.
Nexus Ops
Jarratt loves Nexus Ops but Nigel hasn't had enjoyed his previous experiences, while Anne hasn't played often. Jarratt did the rules refresher but forgot the easily forgotten rule that you can sell unwanted cards. Jarratt followed the standard strategy getting early control of the Monolith and fighting many battles. Nexus Ops is a game of winning battles but not wasting too many troops defending territory.
The experience didn't improve Nigel's attitude towards the game, but Anne wants to play again.
Jarratt 15
Anne 8
Nigel 6
California
John suggested we try this two player but neither of us checked the rules differences for two players until I had filled my house. Then Jarratt read that we should have finished much earlier, so we stopped at that point when I was one point ahead. If we had played by the real two player rules we wouldn't have scored as many present points (which would have hurt me more than John) and the game would have ended earlier with John probably winning.
Ian 36
John B 35
Sunday, 12 September 2010
Friday 10 September 2010
Traders of Genoa
Andrew and Anna mentioned on Wednesday that Andrew's father has bought Genoa on an impulse and wants them to teach it. Problem is that neither Andrew nor Anna have played it before. So to give them an idea of the game I offered to teach them, and borrowed Peter's copy. From what Anna said about Settlers of Catan, I had an idea she would like (and be good at) trading games.
I've never taught the game or read the rules, so I wasn't entirely sure how to begin. The rules start with the movement rules, move onto the trading, then the buildings, cards and special actions, finishing with ownership markers. I think it is important to tie the rules explanation to the aim, in this case to make the most money. So I felt it was important early on to show how money enters the game (orders, messages and other people's use of buildings you own) and how it moves between players (negotiating for actions). From there I had to jump around to explain everything else: movement, buildings, ownership, cards etc. John added a useful set of hints on approximate values, given that the values of things are not obvious the first time you play Traders.
From early on it was clear that John and Andrew were after Privileges. Anna was after Large Orders while I concentrated on Small Orders. John and Anna got ownership markers down very early and I felt duty bound to restore the natural order of things by getting the Cathedral back into male ownership. I traded away my Privilege early on.
At one point John and I were involved in a deal, which on reflection was probably illegal. I had negotiated a string of deals, but half way through executing them I realised that I had planned on using a goods cube the action before I got from John. John gave it to me, one building/action before he should have.
About three rounds from the end I thought I was doing quite well though Anna was also in a good position. But I was about to run out of both goods and orders and the last two rounds didn't give me as much income as Anna was getting. I did much better (in absolute terms) than I usually do but still a long way from winning. John got a significant portion of his final score from his hand of Privilege cards to come second. Anna won and declared that she really enjoyed the game.
Hornochsen!
After finishing Traders we wanted a light filler. John turned his nose up at No Thanks! So we played Hornochsen! I played my cards out too early and was forced to take a bad pile with a x2. Andrew kept his cards and ended up making the best of the ending.
Hornochsen tends to favor either the first players to finish or the last -- this time it was the last players.
Andrew and Anna mentioned on Wednesday that Andrew's father has bought Genoa on an impulse and wants them to teach it. Problem is that neither Andrew nor Anna have played it before. So to give them an idea of the game I offered to teach them, and borrowed Peter's copy. From what Anna said about Settlers of Catan, I had an idea she would like (and be good at) trading games.
I've never taught the game or read the rules, so I wasn't entirely sure how to begin. The rules start with the movement rules, move onto the trading, then the buildings, cards and special actions, finishing with ownership markers. I think it is important to tie the rules explanation to the aim, in this case to make the most money. So I felt it was important early on to show how money enters the game (orders, messages and other people's use of buildings you own) and how it moves between players (negotiating for actions). From there I had to jump around to explain everything else: movement, buildings, ownership, cards etc. John added a useful set of hints on approximate values, given that the values of things are not obvious the first time you play Traders.
From early on it was clear that John and Andrew were after Privileges. Anna was after Large Orders while I concentrated on Small Orders. John and Anna got ownership markers down very early and I felt duty bound to restore the natural order of things by getting the Cathedral back into male ownership. I traded away my Privilege early on.
At one point John and I were involved in a deal, which on reflection was probably illegal. I had negotiated a string of deals, but half way through executing them I realised that I had planned on using a goods cube the action before I got from John. John gave it to me, one building/action before he should have.
About three rounds from the end I thought I was doing quite well though Anna was also in a good position. But I was about to run out of both goods and orders and the last two rounds didn't give me as much income as Anna was getting. I did much better (in absolute terms) than I usually do but still a long way from winning. John got a significant portion of his final score from his hand of Privilege cards to come second. Anna won and declared that she really enjoyed the game.
Anna 1035
John B 950
Andrew 830
Ian 820
Anne 595
Hornochsen!
After finishing Traders we wanted a light filler. John turned his nose up at No Thanks! So we played Hornochsen! I played my cards out too early and was forced to take a bad pile with a x2. Andrew kept his cards and ended up making the best of the ending.
Hornochsen tends to favor either the first players to finish or the last -- this time it was the last players.
Andrew 16
John B 14
Anne 6
Anna 2
Ian -10
Sunday, 5 September 2010
Tichu (4 September 2010)
Another evening of Tichu with Andrew and Anna. Game one got off to a quiet start until I started to call Tichu. By the sixth hand Anna and Andrew were on 10 points, but then they pulled finger and made 995 while we lost 195.
Game two got off to a faster start, by hand 4 we were even but after that Anna and Andrew accelerated away from us.
Hnd IA+AM AJ+AH
1. 55 45
2. 100 100 (a quiet start)
3. 275 125 Ian's Tichu
4. 425 175 Ian's Tichu
5. 495 105 Anna failed Tichu
6. 690 10 Ian's Tichu while Andrew failed
7. 590 310 Andrew's Tichu and 1-2 while Ian failed Tichu
8. 510 490 Andrew's Tichu, while Anne failed
9. 495 705 Anna's Tichu
10. 495 1005 Anna's Tichu and 1-2
Game two got off to a faster start, by hand 4 we were even but after that Anna and Andrew accelerated away from us.
Hnd IA+AM AJ+AH
1. 20 180 Anna's Tichu
2. 320 180 Ian's Tichu and 1-2
3. 335 165 Anna failed Tichu
4. 250 250 Anne failed Tichu
5. 250 550 Andrew's Tichu and 1-2
6. 305 695 Anna's Tichu
7. 455 745 Ian's Tichu
8. 480 920 Andrew's Tichu
9. 535 1065 Anna's Tichu
Friday 3 September
Anna and Andrew showed up first and we started with
Frank's Zoo
Nigel showed up in time for the second hand and John in time to join in the third. Previously we played until two players reached 18 but this time we played by the rules which are that the game ends when two players reach 19. Only Nigel avoided going backwards at least once.
Attika
Anne says she romped away to beat Nigel and Anna. She says it was because she got half a dozen carrots.
Great Wall of China
I haven't played for years and I taught from memory, as I have mis-placed my English translation. My memory was vague on the end game rules. John and I wasted about 30% of our cards on one battle! No wonder Andrew won.
We played a second time. This time I tried to grab things cheaply and became the target of both John and Andrew's attempts to block me.
Tigris and Euphrates
Anna and Nigel had both played once before but needed a rules refresher. Nigel was working up to building a blue momument when Anne started a conflict with him which saw his blue tiles evaporate. Anna created a big civilisation in the centre of the board and Nigel tried to encroach on it. Anne created a black temple while Anna created more temples elsewhere. Anna did the final civilization join that ended the game.
Everyone agreed that they needed to play again soon while the rules were fresh in their minds.
Beowulf: The Legend
While mesopotamian civilizations were battling it out at the other end of the table, John suggested playing Beowulf. Gvien how popular Beowulf is around here, strangely Andrew hasn't played before, on the other hand it was my third game this week. I did my normal cowardly strategy, but I also ran pretty short of cards and victory points. Andrew and I didn't do well. John says he like this game because it prompts more talking between players than most other games.
Frank's Zoo
Nigel showed up in time for the second hand and John in time to join in the third. Previously we played until two players reached 18 but this time we played by the rules which are that the game ends when two players reach 19. Only Nigel avoided going backwards at least once.
Anna 3 7 10 19 18 20
Andrew 3 5 7 11 15 12
Anne -1 3 1 5 10 15
Ian 4 3 12 14 15 19
Nigel - 6 10 12 21 26
John B - - 2 1 3 7
Attika
Anne says she romped away to beat Nigel and Anna. She says it was because she got half a dozen carrots.
Great Wall of China
I haven't played for years and I taught from memory, as I have mis-placed my English translation. My memory was vague on the end game rules. John and I wasted about 30% of our cards on one battle! No wonder Andrew won.
Andrew 40
Ian 26
John B 20
We played a second time. This time I tried to grab things cheaply and became the target of both John and Andrew's attempts to block me.
Ian 36
John B 31
Andrew 25
Tigris and Euphrates
Anna and Nigel had both played once before but needed a rules refresher. Nigel was working up to building a blue momument when Anne started a conflict with him which saw his blue tiles evaporate. Anna created a big civilisation in the centre of the board and Nigel tried to encroach on it. Anne created a black temple while Anna created more temples elsewhere. Anna did the final civilization join that ended the game.
Everyone agreed that they needed to play again soon while the rules were fresh in their minds.
Anna 9
Anne 8
Nigel 3
Beowulf: The Legend
While mesopotamian civilizations were battling it out at the other end of the table, John suggested playing Beowulf. Gvien how popular Beowulf is around here, strangely Andrew hasn't played before, on the other hand it was my third game this week. I did my normal cowardly strategy, but I also ran pretty short of cards and victory points. Andrew and I didn't do well. John says he like this game because it prompts more talking between players than most other games.
John B 43
Ian 17
Andrew 16
Saturday, 21 August 2010
Friday 20 August 2010
There were six of us, and faced with the awkward choice between splitting into two groups of three or playing a six player game we opted for six player games.
Havoc: The Hundred Years War
We taught this poker derivative to Andrew P. John B and Andrew P stayed out of the first 6 battles! Which was scary as they built up huge hands of cards. Whereas I was down to about 7 and Anne even fewer. I scored 17 in the first 5 battles but nothing after that. The last two battles went John's way.
Atlantic Star
We retaught Andrew and Anna this game. No-one put anything in the 5 star column and blue ended up in the 1 star column. Anna was extremely stingy until near the end when she took a big loan that didn't cost her any points.
Havoc: The Hundred Years War
We taught this poker derivative to Andrew P. John B and Andrew P stayed out of the first 6 battles! Which was scary as they built up huge hands of cards. Whereas I was down to about 7 and Anne even fewer. I scored 17 in the first 5 battles but nothing after that. The last two battles went John's way.
John B 29
Andrew H 23
Andrew P 22
Ian 17
Anna 15
Anne 12
Atlantic Star
We retaught Andrew and Anna this game. No-one put anything in the 5 star column and blue ended up in the 1 star column. Anna was extremely stingy until near the end when she took a big loan that didn't cost her any points.
Anna 43
John B 41
Anne 39
Andrew H 35
Ian 34
Andrew P 28
Tuesday, 17 August 2010
Wellycon 2010 (14 & 15 August)
As a Wellycon organiser I expected to play very few games at Wellycon 2010. But looking in my trusty notebook I was surprised to see that I played ten games over the weekend. Though people who know me might be surprised it wasn’t double that!
On Friday night Peter, Andrew and I went to St Pats to start setting things up. The Call to Arms guys had kindly put out 15 tables for us, but there was still plenty to do.
Saturday
I spent most of the morning on the registration desk and regretfully turning down requests to come and play various games.
Endeavor
Gynn was due to play in Jarratt's Endeavor tournament but was stuck deep in Small World when the other players were ready to start, so I took his place. I have never devoted enough time to get my head around all the buildings, cards and various strategies and tactics of Endeavor. I tend to play instinctively (though it is probably more accurate to say "randomly"). I was the only player to not start with a Workshop and concentrated on action tokens instead of resource tokens. I also stayed non-military which meant I was at a severe disadvantage against Antony and Henry who had two military buildings each and ended up dominating the cities. While at the end I concentrated on mining for good cards.
Beowulf
Is my favourite push-your-luck game. A game which also includes a good dose of resource management. I taught it to Alan, Rodney and Rhiana. Rhiana had terrible luck with her risks.
Nexus Ops
After dinner Minty, his son Sam, John and I played Minty's copy with my reference cards. John had no mines on his side of the board, while Minty had heaps of mines. Conversely this meant John started with a lot of Rock Striders. Minty missed out on the win by a bad dice roll, leaving it to John to finish the game.
Extravagances
We ended the evening with Extravagances, Brian's free trading filler. This is a prototype of a Pit-like trading game. Themed around decadent Roman power brokers vying with each other to put on the most extravagant spectacles. There is a small deck of goal cards and a larger deck of resource cards. Everyone has a private goal and there are a couple of public goals. When you fulfil a goal you add it to your face down score pill and turn up or pickup another. Trading is free form and occurs in one minute blocks. Starting with very few cards and getting two more between each trading block. There is a penalty to being caught with too many cards.
There were 6-8 players, I don't remember who else played but I won by one point with 5 completed missions and 19 points.
Sunday
Zombie Dice
Wellycon tradition dictates that there is a fire alarm on the Sunday. Tradition also dictates that gaming continue outside. So half a dozen of us played the push-your-luck game of Zombie Dice in the drizzle while the alarm blared in the background. The aim of this dice game is to collect more brains than other players and stop before you get hit by three shotgun blasts. There are three colours of dice red, yellow and green, which have different ratios of brains, shotgun blasts and foot prints.
Given that it was a learning game, a push-your-luck game _and_ a zombie game we weren't taking it too seriously and I lost badly. The "all clear" came before we could start a second game.
Age of Steam
Once the early rush was over, Peter was keen on learning Age of Steam so we set up a game behind the registration table, so we could be handy to stop playing and sign people in. Andrew appointed John as his proxy from turn 2 but in the second half of the game Jarratt took over. I started with linking up and delivering a cube for 2, on the second turn I got Loco, linked up and delivered a cube for 4. After than I got to 5 and 6 fairly quickly and was delivering 5s and 6s for the rest of the game. Taking production to feed my habit as Peter was taking cubes from one end of my network and Jarratt the other. Jarratt made a big come back for the tie. Peter got to see what is possible with track building as we fought over the centre and south west. (Jarratt's game report.)
Metropolys
We pulled Skyler away from his War Game Supply table for a game. He was keen on learning Metropolys. I beat three newbies but only just.
No Thanks!
Towards the end of Wellycon we played fillers to finish off the day.
No Thanks!
John took Peter's seat, and I did badly.
En Garde
After Wellycon was officially over I reminded Eric that he had promised (in a rash moment) to teach me this game. It turns out Rachel is a fencer (as is Skyler) but my card counting (pretty easy in a 25 card deck) helped me out.
On Friday night Peter, Andrew and I went to St Pats to start setting things up. The Call to Arms guys had kindly put out 15 tables for us, but there was still plenty to do.
Saturday
I spent most of the morning on the registration desk and regretfully turning down requests to come and play various games.Endeavor
Gynn was due to play in Jarratt's Endeavor tournament but was stuck deep in Small World when the other players were ready to start, so I took his place. I have never devoted enough time to get my head around all the buildings, cards and various strategies and tactics of Endeavor. I tend to play instinctively (though it is probably more accurate to say "randomly"). I was the only player to not start with a Workshop and concentrated on action tokens instead of resource tokens. I also stayed non-military which meant I was at a severe disadvantage against Antony and Henry who had two military buildings each and ended up dominating the cities. While at the end I concentrated on mining for good cards.
Antony 59
Henry 53
Ian 50
Silja 30
BeowulfIs my favourite push-your-luck game. A game which also includes a good dose of resource management. I taught it to Alan, Rodney and Rhiana. Rhiana had terrible luck with her risks.
Rodney 30
John B 30
Ian 28
Alan 24
Rhianna 7
Nexus Ops
After dinner Minty, his son Sam, John and I played Minty's copy with my reference cards. John had no mines on his side of the board, while Minty had heaps of mines. Conversely this meant John started with a lot of Rock Striders. Minty missed out on the win by a bad dice roll, leaving it to John to finish the game.
John B 13
Minty 9
Sam 8
Ian 7
ExtravagancesWe ended the evening with Extravagances, Brian's free trading filler. This is a prototype of a Pit-like trading game. Themed around decadent Roman power brokers vying with each other to put on the most extravagant spectacles. There is a small deck of goal cards and a larger deck of resource cards. Everyone has a private goal and there are a couple of public goals. When you fulfil a goal you add it to your face down score pill and turn up or pickup another. Trading is free form and occurs in one minute blocks. Starting with very few cards and getting two more between each trading block. There is a penalty to being caught with too many cards.
There were 6-8 players, I don't remember who else played but I won by one point with 5 completed missions and 19 points.
Sunday
Zombie Dice
Wellycon tradition dictates that there is a fire alarm on the Sunday. Tradition also dictates that gaming continue outside. So half a dozen of us played the push-your-luck game of Zombie Dice in the drizzle while the alarm blared in the background. The aim of this dice game is to collect more brains than other players and stop before you get hit by three shotgun blasts. There are three colours of dice red, yellow and green, which have different ratios of brains, shotgun blasts and foot prints.
Given that it was a learning game, a push-your-luck game _and_ a zombie game we weren't taking it too seriously and I lost badly. The "all clear" came before we could start a second game.
Age of Steam
Once the early rush was over, Peter was keen on learning Age of Steam so we set up a game behind the registration table, so we could be handy to stop playing and sign people in. Andrew appointed John as his proxy from turn 2 but in the second half of the game Jarratt took over. I started with linking up and delivering a cube for 2, on the second turn I got Loco, linked up and delivered a cube for 4. After than I got to 5 and 6 fairly quickly and was delivering 5s and 6s for the rest of the game. Taking production to feed my habit as Peter was taking cubes from one end of my network and Jarratt the other. Jarratt made a big come back for the tie. Peter got to see what is possible with track building as we fought over the centre and south west. (Jarratt's game report.)
Andrew Rae, John B, Jarratt 130
Ian 130
Peter Freer 100
Metropolys
We pulled Skyler away from his War Game Supply table for a game. He was keen on learning Metropolys. I beat three newbies but only just.
Ian 34
Skyler 33
Art 31
Peter 21
No Thanks!
Towards the end of Wellycon we played fillers to finish off the day.
Peter 21
Ian 36
Rachel 39
Don 54
No Thanks!
John took Peter's seat, and I did badly.
John B 24
Don 26
Rachel 38
Ian 43
En Garde
After Wellycon was officially over I reminded Eric that he had promised (in a rash moment) to teach me this game. It turns out Rachel is a fencer (as is Skyler) but my card counting (pretty easy in a 25 card deck) helped me out.
Ian 5
Rachel 3
Sunday, 8 August 2010
Age of Steam India (7 August 2010)
Jarratt organized games are our place on Saturday.
Masters Gallery
Jarratt was expecting Nigel to show up, so we played this while we waited. The second and third rounds finished very quick, hence low score, Jarratt and Travis were going neck and neck. But Travis made out like a bandit in the last round.
Age of Steam Expansion: India
The points of difference for this expansion include a single black city, once you deliver black cubes you keep them. You can either expend two black cubes for an income point or keep to the end for 3 VP each. There are no new cities and $15 sea links that are one link but two income points for cubes delivered over them. This was the second time that Jarratt, Anne and I had played this board, while the first time for John and Travis.
I started in the north west between Srinagar and Delhi via Amritsar and delivered two cubes for four income, but things went down hill after that. Jarratt started between Jodhpur and Porbandar, next door to me. While John built between Bhopal and Varanasi, hemming me in to the south. Anne started in the north eastern corner of the board and Travis had the south to himself.
John got himself into trouble and I bailed him out because if I let him go under Jarratt would have benefited too much. That put Jarratt into the lead. I later made a deal with John that I regretted as he did better out of out of it than I did. I split my network and missed a good black cube move. On the other side of the board Anne's plan to deliver yellow cubes for six was falling apart as we were blocking her out of all the yellow cities. Travis lagging behind in income but also in shares.
In the north west we were running out of cubes. Travis built one of the $15 sea links and was delivering black cubes over one of Anne's links, he over took John and Jarratt (once you took his lack of shares into consideration). They had used all their shares by the end of the game.
It took a long time, but I enjoyed it more than the first time I played. I now have to learn to resist temptation and start in the south.
Overall it was Travis's evening.
Masters Gallery
Jarratt was expecting Nigel to show up, so we played this while we waited. The second and third rounds finished very quick, hence low score, Jarratt and Travis were going neck and neck. But Travis made out like a bandit in the last round.
Travis 7 18 39 84
Jarratt 12 19 40 70
Anne 7 18 32 68
John B 15 20 34 65
Ian 6 14 33 60
Age of Steam Expansion: India
The points of difference for this expansion include a single black city, once you deliver black cubes you keep them. You can either expend two black cubes for an income point or keep to the end for 3 VP each. There are no new cities and $15 sea links that are one link but two income points for cubes delivered over them. This was the second time that Jarratt, Anne and I had played this board, while the first time for John and Travis.
I started in the north west between Srinagar and Delhi via Amritsar and delivered two cubes for four income, but things went down hill after that. Jarratt started between Jodhpur and Porbandar, next door to me. While John built between Bhopal and Varanasi, hemming me in to the south. Anne started in the north eastern corner of the board and Travis had the south to himself.
John got himself into trouble and I bailed him out because if I let him go under Jarratt would have benefited too much. That put Jarratt into the lead. I later made a deal with John that I regretted as he did better out of out of it than I did. I split my network and missed a good black cube move. On the other side of the board Anne's plan to deliver yellow cubes for six was falling apart as we were blocking her out of all the yellow cities. Travis lagging behind in income but also in shares.
In the north west we were running out of cubes. Travis built one of the $15 sea links and was delivering black cubes over one of Anne's links, he over took John and Jarratt (once you took his lack of shares into consideration). They had used all their shares by the end of the game.
Travis 81
Jarratt 75
John B 74
Ian 71
Anne 55
It took a long time, but I enjoyed it more than the first time I played. I now have to learn to resist temptation and start in the south.
Overall it was Travis's evening.
Saturday, 7 August 2010
Friday 6 August 2010
It was good to see Jim and Margot again after such a long time.
On the Underground
Anne taught this game to Margot. I hear that there was a tendency to build lines parallel to each other, and also a reluctance to join across the centre of the board. In the end it was a draw between Margot and Andrew.
In the Year of the Dragon
It's been awhile since we played this game and we had to refer to the rules while explaining them to Jim. The events were in 2 groups of 5, with pairs of events well spaced.
We all took turns in leading on the people track. John, then Jim then me. John on the other hand led on the VP track from the beginning due to his strategy of starting at the front of the people track and buying a double favour on the first turn (hence temporarily bankrupting himself) and taking money on the second turn.
R-Eco
On the Underground finished well before In the Year of the Dragon and Nigel suggested playing R-Eco, and he ran away with the first game. Despite being simple, it is quite difficult to teach as it is not like other card games. The theme is recycling and waste management. You are trying to win tokens by supplying the recycling centres with the right goods, and avoid illegal dumping (i.e. keeping your hand to 5 cards or fewer). You can only play cards of one suit and every time you play cards you are forced to pick up cards.
In the second game Anne and Andrew did much better.
Masters Gallery
I gave Jim a quick introduction to Masters Gallery, which was probably too quick for him to pick up all the details. Probably the most important thing I failed to get across is the inflation in value of paintings throughout the game. Painting in the first round tend to be worth zero to three points each whereas by the last round they can easily be worth seven or eight points each.
Traders of Carthage
I hadn't noticed Susumu Kawasaki's name before, except to notice a Japanese name on two of my card games. But he designed both R-Eco and Traders of Carthage.
In this game the cards in your hand are either money to buy stuff or to protect your goods from pirates. The goods you buy are cards in the market, which you put in front of you. The cards in front of you are grouped by suit (each suit represents one of the four ships on the board). As you buy goods the ships move forward and when they reach Carthage there is a pay day (and pirates strike at any ships on the two spaces before Carthage). Again it is harder to explain than to play. Though it is even harder to get the strategy right.
At the end I only had red goods and the market never had red goods for me to buy, so I kept refusing to buy because the game would end without me scoring any points. But resistance is futile, as Andrew and Anne kept filling their ships in the mean time and once they arrived in Carthage it was all over and I was thrashed.
On the Underground
Anne taught this game to Margot. I hear that there was a tendency to build lines parallel to each other, and also a reluctance to join across the centre of the board. In the end it was a draw between Margot and Andrew.
Margot 45
Andrew P 45
Anne 43
Nigel 24
In the Year of the Dragon
It's been awhile since we played this game and we had to refer to the rules while explaining them to Jim. The events were in 2 groups of 5, with pairs of events well spaced.
We all took turns in leading on the people track. John, then Jim then me. John on the other hand led on the VP track from the beginning due to his strategy of starting at the front of the people track and buying a double favour on the first turn (hence temporarily bankrupting himself) and taking money on the second turn.
John B 101
Jim 90
Ian 85
R-Eco
On the Underground finished well before In the Year of the Dragon and Nigel suggested playing R-Eco, and he ran away with the first game. Despite being simple, it is quite difficult to teach as it is not like other card games. The theme is recycling and waste management. You are trying to win tokens by supplying the recycling centres with the right goods, and avoid illegal dumping (i.e. keeping your hand to 5 cards or fewer). You can only play cards of one suit and every time you play cards you are forced to pick up cards.
Nigel 10
Andrew 3
Anne 2
Margot 0
In the second game Anne and Andrew did much better.
Anne 10
Andrew 8
Nigel 6
Margot 2
Masters Gallery
I gave Jim a quick introduction to Masters Gallery, which was probably too quick for him to pick up all the details. Probably the most important thing I failed to get across is the inflation in value of paintings throughout the game. Painting in the first round tend to be worth zero to three points each whereas by the last round they can easily be worth seven or eight points each.
John B 14 34 67 106
Ian 6 35 68 98
Jim 19 45 74 89
Traders of Carthage
I hadn't noticed Susumu Kawasaki's name before, except to notice a Japanese name on two of my card games. But he designed both R-Eco and Traders of Carthage.
In this game the cards in your hand are either money to buy stuff or to protect your goods from pirates. The goods you buy are cards in the market, which you put in front of you. The cards in front of you are grouped by suit (each suit represents one of the four ships on the board). As you buy goods the ships move forward and when they reach Carthage there is a pay day (and pirates strike at any ships on the two spaces before Carthage). Again it is harder to explain than to play. Though it is even harder to get the strategy right.
At the end I only had red goods and the market never had red goods for me to buy, so I kept refusing to buy because the game would end without me scoring any points. But resistance is futile, as Andrew and Anne kept filling their ships in the mean time and once they arrived in Carthage it was all over and I was thrashed.
Andrew P 22
Anne 15
Ian 11
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)