Some thoughts and opinions about some more games I played for the first time in November.
Gravediggers
(Played: 14 & 17 November at home and at Peter's place)
When Anne bought this game I had never heard of it and so I surprised when I looked it up on BGG to see it on my wishlist! It turns out to be a renaming and re-theming of Banküberfall from bank fraud to grave robbing. I had read about the earlier version a few years ago and thought that sounds like fun.
This is a very simple game of memory, bidding, guessing, bluff and greed. Even simpler than High Society. There is a deck of cards, which is mostly money but also characters and multipliers. Everyone starts with a hand of 5 cards and there are 5 graveyards to rob, each starts with a face down card. People add cards to the graveyards during the game and at various points in the game the graveyards are robbed.
Robbing a graveyard consists of everyone secretly bidding an amout of money. The cards are turned up and if any of the cards are people, they take effect in a predetermined order. This sometimes means the grave robbers go home empty handed. But if they are lucky there is some money. Then starting with the players who bid the least, the players are payed out on an all or nothing basis. Be too greedy and you might end up with nothing.
It takes about 2 minutes to learn and about 20 minutes to play. This is fortunate because your action each turn is dictated by turning over the top tile of a small stack of tiles, which removes a lot of decision making. And sometimes when you do have a decision it is not a particularly meaningful one. It pays to regard this as a filler. And maybe replace the Graverdigger card with a pawn or meeple.
Jaipur
(Played: 20 November at home)
Jaipur was my impulse buy, designed by Sébastien Pauchon (who also designed Metropolys, Yspahan and Jamaica). It is a two player card game.
Jaipur, like Yspahan, uses camels as a form of currency. It is a competition between two traders to be the best. The players don't trade directly with each other, but with the same market, which provides most of the tension in the game. Each turn a player either sells cards for points or buys cards. Players "buy" cards in one of three ways. Either they take all the camel cards that are face up in the market and add them to their pile of camel cards (the empty spaces in the market are refilled from the draw deck). Or they take one goods card into their hand from the market and it is replaced from the draw deck. Or they swap 2 or more cards with the market (the cards they take must be goods cards, they cards they put back can be a mixture of goods cards and camel cards). Because both players are buying from the same market any buy action provides opportunities for the opponent. Selling provides tension between speed and quantity. The victory point tokens for sales descend in value so early sales give you more points, but there are also bonus points for selling 3, 4 or 5 goods of a type at once encouraging players to put off selling.
The game is played for the best of three hands (an idea that could be used in Lost Cities as well). Anne won the first game two-nil, winning 78-72 and 65-50. By the time she won the first hand of our second game 78-69, I was considering how much I could make by selling this stupid game on TradeMe. But then I won the next hand 84-74 and it was all on for the final hand.
From a strategy point of view one has to decide which types of goods to concentrate on, whether to go for quick points or to save up and collect sets of 3 or more. These decisions will probably be influenced by what you see your opponents doing. Tactically it is important to watch the hand limit - six is so much more flexible than seven.
Age of Steam: Beer and Pretzels
(Play tested: 21 November at home)
When I read about Ted Alspach's "Beer and Pretzels" variant for Age of Steam I was intrigued. Most game variants change or add rules to games. This one mostly takes rules away. By taking away the share track, income track, expenses and income reduction and by giving money directly for moving goods do you still have a viable game?
Anne and I ran 4 player play-test playing 2 players each, rather than use Ted's official board we used the standard "Rust Belt" Age of Steam board.
On the "Rust Belt" board it becomes too easy to make money and there is not enough money in Age of Steam to pay everyone. Ted's official Beer & Pretzels board includes several mountain ranges and a number of rivers. Many of the cities are quite a long way apart. Overall it looks like a more expensive map to build on than "Rust Belt". Anne also mentioned that perhaps we didn't compete enough with each other in the auctions.
My conclusion is: yes this is a viable (and simpler) game. Though you need a more expensive board to consume excess cash. Playing this on the “Rust Belt” board at $5 per cube per link is too easy. It may be worth considering shortening the game by a turn or two.
Endeavor (European Powers)
(Play tested: 24 November at Peter's)
Jarratt brought along an Endeavor play test board which I have called "European Powers" for want of a better name.
It is a substantial redesign of the board plus some extra rules, but the cards, tokens, buildings and other pieces are the same as the original game.
Europe is represented by five main colonizing powers (Portugal, Spain, France, England and the Netherlands). Each Power has a couple of city spaces. Before the game starts each player places a piece in one of these Power cities that no-one else has chosen. Each Power has special advantages. France has defensive advantages (attacking French tokens in Europe costs an extra piece). The Netherlands gets access to special shipping spots that function more like cities. There are no normal shipping routes for the Americas. Each of the 3 America card decks are open to specific European Powers.
The shipping routes to Africa, India etc cross region boundaries with pieces counting for influence depending on which side of the boundary they are (which makes the building that allows a joint shipping and colonizing action to be more useful). Some places have multiple routes and some routes only become available once other regions have opened up. The Slave deck has been moved to Africa.
The changes add a bit more complexity to Endeavor, and make it seem less abstract and more historic.
I tried to get as many cities as possible. Though Jarratt managed to almost eliminate me from Europe. I enjoyed it more than previous plays of the standard game.
Showing posts with label Peter's Wednesday Games. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peter's Wednesday Games. Show all posts
Tuesday, 30 November 2010
Monday, 22 November 2010
First Impressions of Wizard's Quest, Glory to Rome and The Speicherstadt (November 2010)
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.
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.
Saturday, 9 October 2010
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, 10 July 2010
Chicago Express in Woodridge
David recently bought Chicago Express and invited me, Matt and Roland around for a game or two.
David had found a couple of places in the rule book where it reads like the dividend payout occurs between the player choosing their action and executing their action. I hadn't come across this issue before and even though I was sure it was the wrong interpretation I could find nothing to back my interpretation (except that it seems simpler and more sensible, which isn't always a good guide in game rules). It was David's game and house, so we played it his way. Later on BGG I found that other players had come to the same conclusion that David had but luckily there were confirmations from people owning Wabash Cannonball (and from Harry Wu via John Bohrer) that dividends are paid out between players turns.
We played with poker chips and open cash. Apart from some confusion about which chips were $1 and which were $5, this was very good. In my previous games we have played with paper money and Power-grid style (stack your money on the table, but you don't need to reveal exactly how much cash you have) -- which works fine too.
This was the first game for Matt and Roland and I was very rusty and over bid for my first shares. Red was divided three ways which put an end to it. Several railways reached Chicago.
The pace of the second game was quicker. Unfortunately David and I let Matt get 2 red shares and Roland get 1. And they made us suffer!
David had found a couple of places in the rule book where it reads like the dividend payout occurs between the player choosing their action and executing their action. I hadn't come across this issue before and even though I was sure it was the wrong interpretation I could find nothing to back my interpretation (except that it seems simpler and more sensible, which isn't always a good guide in game rules). It was David's game and house, so we played it his way. Later on BGG I found that other players had come to the same conclusion that David had but luckily there were confirmations from people owning Wabash Cannonball (and from Harry Wu via John Bohrer) that dividends are paid out between players turns.
We played with poker chips and open cash. Apart from some confusion about which chips were $1 and which were $5, this was very good. In my previous games we have played with paper money and Power-grid style (stack your money on the table, but you don't need to reveal exactly how much cash you have) -- which works fine too.
This was the first game for Matt and Roland and I was very rusty and over bid for my first shares. Red was divided three ways which put an end to it. Several railways reached Chicago.
Roland 141
Matt 90 odd
Ian 86
David 53
The pace of the second game was quicker. Unfortunately David and I let Matt get 2 red shares and Roland get 1. And they made us suffer!
Roland 67
Matt 67
Ian 54
David 55
Thursday, 17 June 2010
Change of Location (16 June 2010)
Peter was at a meeting so Wednesday games were at our house. Though with the games played and the people attending it felt more like Friday night games.
Frank's Zoo
Starting the evening with Frank's Zoo has almost become a habit. A six player game certainly means big swings in the scores. But Anna was in the lead until the last hand when John (and I) jumped ahead.
Havoc: The Hundred Year War
I bought this card game in a bunch of six games via TradeMe a few months ago. It turns out to be game of building up your hand of cards, choosing your battles (showdowns) and bluff. (Here and here is the story of the games design) We got two rules wrong: there should have been an extra recruiting round before the first battle and you can use any dogs from the battle (not just those outside the battle). It turned out to be a hit.
Frank's Zoo
Starting the evening with Frank's Zoo has almost become a habit. A six player game certainly means big swings in the scores. But Anna was in the lead until the last hand when John (and I) jumped ahead.
Anna 6 11 15 16 18
Andrew 3 7 12 15 16
Ian 5 6 12 14 21
John B 3 9 11 16 23
Anne -1 3 2 9 13
John R 5 3 8 12 11
Havoc: The Hundred Year War
I bought this card game in a bunch of six games via TradeMe a few months ago. It turns out to be game of building up your hand of cards, choosing your battles (showdowns) and bluff. (Here and here is the story of the games design) We got two rules wrong: there should have been an extra recruiting round before the first battle and you can use any dogs from the battle (not just those outside the battle). It turned out to be a hit.
Anna 26 (winner on the second tie break)
John B 26
Andrew 19
Anne 18
Ian 16
John R 13
Thursday, 20 May 2010
Race Day (19 May 2010)
Anne had other plans on Wednesday so we could play games she doesn't like. It turned out we played race games all evening, starting with two that Anne doesn't like and finishing with one that I am usually less than keen on. Race games feel like straight forward theme for a board game but in fact it seems that it is tricky to get one that is: fun to play, invokes the feel of a race and requires skill to win. Perhaps race games should be real time (like the build, i.e. non-race, part of Galaxy Trucker).
Winner's Circle
Winner's Circle is a game of 3 races in each race 7 horses are competing and we, the players, get to both bet on 3 of the horses and jointly race all 7 of them. Each horse has a card with 4 symbols, with a number by symbol. Betting is putting your betting markers on 3 of the horses, while racing is throwing a die a die with symbols on it and choosing one the horses that haven't yet moved this round and moving it the number of squares corresponding to the symbol on the horse's description card. At the end of the race there is a payout for the people who bet on the horses who finished 1st, 2nd and 3rd, with slightly more for horses that weren't popular.
I learnt the hard way the disadvantages in backing a horse by yourself. Everyone else has an interest in making sure your horse fails to finish in the first 3. You need other people to help your horse win but you also need to do better than other people! Which was beyond me.
Around the World in 80 Days
This race is not about how many turns it takes you to get around the world but how many days it takes, i.e. how efficiently you do it. The most controversial aspect to this game is the blue (bad) special cards. John R suggested that if you draw a blue card the effect is carried out but then you draw another card (this extra draw only happens once per turn). We agreed to this variant, but in retrospect I am not so sure because if you don't already have special card then there is almost no risk in drawing/buying one.
I stayed behind initially to pick up the rewards for arriving last and to try and improve my hand but I didn't get around to making the necessary acceleration to finish before the game. At one point I had 4 special cards in my hand but not a particularly useful combination. Lance also didn't finish, whereas Peter played the opposite strategy and raced to the finish, taking all the finish first rewards, grabbing the watch (start player) several times. Once Peter had finished Nigel panicked and rushed to London, followed more efficiently by John R, but most efficiently by John B.
Ave Caesar
Race I
Ave Caesar is a cute idea, chariot racing where everyone has their own deck of movement cards, a small hand to choose from each turn and tracks with choke points. But I think the luck of the start and the luck of the draw outweighs the skill in choosing your card and route. Though to be fair Lance does win more often than luck would account for. We usually play with 6 players, but Nigel and John B had gone home. Though even with only 4 there was plenty of blocking. I should have recorded the starting positions because it is interesting to see how much places you made or lost from the start positions, but unfortunately I didn't.
Race II
We flipped to the lesser played side (without the loop), and Lance won again. Actually this side is quite hard with a shorter finishing straight and more choke points.
Lance says that he is good at majority (or area) control games but it looks like he is good at race games too.
Winner's Circle
Winner's Circle is a game of 3 races in each race 7 horses are competing and we, the players, get to both bet on 3 of the horses and jointly race all 7 of them. Each horse has a card with 4 symbols, with a number by symbol. Betting is putting your betting markers on 3 of the horses, while racing is throwing a die a die with symbols on it and choosing one the horses that haven't yet moved this round and moving it the number of squares corresponding to the symbol on the horse's description card. At the end of the race there is a payout for the people who bet on the horses who finished 1st, 2nd and 3rd, with slightly more for horses that weren't popular.
I learnt the hard way the disadvantages in backing a horse by yourself. Everyone else has an interest in making sure your horse fails to finish in the first 3. You need other people to help your horse win but you also need to do better than other people! Which was beyond me.
Lance 1450
Nigel 1350
John R 1250
Peter 950
John B 900
Ian 600
Around the World in 80 Days
This race is not about how many turns it takes you to get around the world but how many days it takes, i.e. how efficiently you do it. The most controversial aspect to this game is the blue (bad) special cards. John R suggested that if you draw a blue card the effect is carried out but then you draw another card (this extra draw only happens once per turn). We agreed to this variant, but in retrospect I am not so sure because if you don't already have special card then there is almost no risk in drawing/buying one.
I stayed behind initially to pick up the rewards for arriving last and to try and improve my hand but I didn't get around to making the necessary acceleration to finish before the game. At one point I had 4 special cards in my hand but not a particularly useful combination. Lance also didn't finish, whereas Peter played the opposite strategy and raced to the finish, taking all the finish first rewards, grabbing the watch (start player) several times. Once Peter had finished Nigel panicked and rushed to London, followed more efficiently by John R, but most efficiently by John B.
John B 66
Peter 72
John R 79
Nigel 84
Lance Did not finish
Ian Did not finish
Ave Caesar
Race I
Ave Caesar is a cute idea, chariot racing where everyone has their own deck of movement cards, a small hand to choose from each turn and tracks with choke points. But I think the luck of the start and the luck of the draw outweighs the skill in choosing your card and route. Though to be fair Lance does win more often than luck would account for. We usually play with 6 players, but Nigel and John B had gone home. Though even with only 4 there was plenty of blocking. I should have recorded the starting positions because it is interesting to see how much places you made or lost from the start positions, but unfortunately I didn't.
Lance
Ian
Peter
John R
Race II
We flipped to the lesser played side (without the loop), and Lance won again. Actually this side is quite hard with a shorter finishing straight and more choke points.
Lance
John R
Ian
Peter
Lance says that he is good at majority (or area) control games but it looks like he is good at race games too.
Friday, 14 May 2010
Frank's Zoo (12 May 2010)
We played Frank's Zoo at Peter's place for the first time. It was John's first time. I started at the back and stayed there. Nigel leaped in the lead on the 3rd hand and stayed there until the last hand when Anne and John jumped past. Anne won.
Anne 3 8 9 13 13 20
John R 4 4 7 11 15 19
Nigel 3 7 15 14 16 15
Ian 1 4 3 6 10 12
Thursday, 24 December 2009
Shipyard (23 December 2009)
Lance's new game, called Shipyard, has lots of bits and the setup instructions didn't seem clear. It is an extension of the rondel system four different rondels each with a single pawn give access to different resources or bonuses on future actions and there is a strange rondel inspired race track for the actions. The actions are tiles which sit on the race track and move to the front of the race each time they are executed. The player's pawns move backwards and forwards from action to action. Only one pawn is allowed per action, though you can execute actions other pawns are on for $6 (equal to your starting capital). Once you have moved your pawn to an action you collect a dollar for each other person's pawn who is ahead of you on the track and then execute your action.
You are building ships from hull bits (bows, sterns and middle bits), adding engines, sails, crew etc. A finished ship scores points and then goes for a shakedown cruise which can gain you more points. There are bonus points cards which give you more points at the end of the game.
It is a game about managing your resources efficiently. As we were learning we didn't concentrate on frustrating each other too much. We did find that with four players there were rhythms set up which meant that two players tended to get locked out of gaining income each turn if the other two players continually chose actions at the back to maximised their incomes.
Choosing the right bonus cards and working towards them can double your basic points as Jarratt demonstrated.
You are building ships from hull bits (bows, sterns and middle bits), adding engines, sails, crew etc. A finished ship scores points and then goes for a shakedown cruise which can gain you more points. There are bonus points cards which give you more points at the end of the game.
It is a game about managing your resources efficiently. As we were learning we didn't concentrate on frustrating each other too much. We did find that with four players there were rhythms set up which meant that two players tended to get locked out of gaining income each turn if the other two players continually chose actions at the back to maximised their incomes.
Choosing the right bonus cards and working towards them can double your basic points as Jarratt demonstrated.
Jarratt 115
Lance 84
John B 79
Ian 64
Thursday, 10 December 2009
Wednesday 9 December 2009
Peter couldn't host his usual Wednesday night games and Anne was out at a peer review meeting. So on Wednesday night five of us sat down around my dining table to choose a game. We had almost decided when John R turned up to make the dreaded six and we split into two threes to play Samurai and Endeavor.
John and I gave Nigel a brief refresher on the rules of Samurai and we got started. Last time I played Samurai I chose to start with the 3 Rice Paddy, 3 High Hat, 3 Buddha, a Ship and either a Samurai or Horseman tile. This gave me flexibility but it also meant I couldn't easily specialise, which is problematic in a game where winning depends on getting majorities. This time I started with the intention of winning a bunch of Rice Paddies so I chose two Rice Paddy tiles (including my 4) and no High Hat or Buddha tiles. Unfortunately it looked like John had a similar idea and he started winning more Rice Paddies than me, Nigel wasn't winning much early on but he had his claws into Buddhas so I switched to High Hats. This paid off and I ended up not only with the most stuff but also the only majority. Nigel and I played regionally, he concentrated at the northern end of Honshu while I was lord of Kyushu (Shikoku was pretty much ignored).
At the other end of the table Endeavor was being played. Samurai is an intense game so I wasn't concentrating on what was going on at that end of the table, but I could see Andrew P had started with two workshops to rush up the top level buildings, he also picked up quite a lot of cards. I noticed that Andrew H was doing quite a bit of shipping. The final scores were reasonably close.
After our three player games the consensus was to play a six player game. We seem to have hit six players at our place disturbingly often lately. I know some people say you shouldn't play six player games but there are times when people want to play together for social reasons. We've tried: Expedition, Elfenland, Pizarro & Co, TransAmerica, Hornochsen, Stichlen, Mamma Mia!, Mogul, Chicago Express, Alhambra, Acquire, Bohnanza and Frank's Zoo (and that doesn't include Lance's Birthday). I think Expedition was the most successful of the easy to learn games, while Pizarro & Co., Mogul and Chicago Express would work better with more experienced players. I think Acquire was the least successful 6 player game.
Andrew and Anna vetoed Elfenland as they thought it was too long for not much game. By some process or other we ended up choosing Medici (yet another auction game). Most of us needed to be taught or re-taught Medici (and I didn't do a very good job). In the first round people were keen on auctioning off 2 or 3 cards at a time, but in later rounds the tactics around auctioning single cards became apparent. After the first round I was in the low 50s and well ahead of everyone else. After the second round I was in the mid 50s and most people were clustered just behind me. In the third round Nigel nearly bankrupted himself but he and John who had been lurking at the back of the pack, launched themselves into the lead, while I finished in the mid 50s again! I think people enjoyed themselves despite being confused at the start.
The Rio Grande edition of Medici is a masterpiece in bad graphics design. Badly organised rules where you can't quickly look things up. Player boards where you can't see the 5 card spaces. Cards where you can't read the numbers at a distance (and 3s and 5s look similar). It is difficult to match the commodity cards to the commodity tracks on the board and the score/money track is also hard to read and use (it only has odd numbers printed on it). I promised myself I would wait for a better edition but I finally caved in when Wargames Supply had it on special. From BGG it looks like some of the other editions are not perfect either. (I also noticed that some editions have bonus values of 5, 10, 20 on the commodity tracks and other's only have 10, 20. While the French version has multiple rounds of bidding and other rule changes).
Here is a variant that reduces the luck in 3 and 4 player Medici.
Anne came home and Anna and both Andrews left and Nigel suggested we finish with R-Eco (probably his favourite filler game). As usual I did badly, while Anne thrashed us.
John and I gave Nigel a brief refresher on the rules of Samurai and we got started. Last time I played Samurai I chose to start with the 3 Rice Paddy, 3 High Hat, 3 Buddha, a Ship and either a Samurai or Horseman tile. This gave me flexibility but it also meant I couldn't easily specialise, which is problematic in a game where winning depends on getting majorities. This time I started with the intention of winning a bunch of Rice Paddies so I chose two Rice Paddy tiles (including my 4) and no High Hat or Buddha tiles. Unfortunately it looked like John had a similar idea and he started winning more Rice Paddies than me, Nigel wasn't winning much early on but he had his claws into Buddhas so I switched to High Hats. This paid off and I ended up not only with the most stuff but also the only majority. Nigel and I played regionally, he concentrated at the northern end of Honshu while I was lord of Kyushu (Shikoku was pretty much ignored).
At the other end of the table Endeavor was being played. Samurai is an intense game so I wasn't concentrating on what was going on at that end of the table, but I could see Andrew P had started with two workshops to rush up the top level buildings, he also picked up quite a lot of cards. I noticed that Andrew H was doing quite a bit of shipping. The final scores were reasonably close.
Andrew H 70
Andrew P 67
Anna 63
After our three player games the consensus was to play a six player game. We seem to have hit six players at our place disturbingly often lately. I know some people say you shouldn't play six player games but there are times when people want to play together for social reasons. We've tried: Expedition, Elfenland, Pizarro & Co, TransAmerica, Hornochsen, Stichlen, Mamma Mia!, Mogul, Chicago Express, Alhambra, Acquire, Bohnanza and Frank's Zoo (and that doesn't include Lance's Birthday). I think Expedition was the most successful of the easy to learn games, while Pizarro & Co., Mogul and Chicago Express would work better with more experienced players. I think Acquire was the least successful 6 player game.
Andrew and Anna vetoed Elfenland as they thought it was too long for not much game. By some process or other we ended up choosing Medici (yet another auction game). Most of us needed to be taught or re-taught Medici (and I didn't do a very good job). In the first round people were keen on auctioning off 2 or 3 cards at a time, but in later rounds the tactics around auctioning single cards became apparent. After the first round I was in the low 50s and well ahead of everyone else. After the second round I was in the mid 50s and most people were clustered just behind me. In the third round Nigel nearly bankrupted himself but he and John who had been lurking at the back of the pack, launched themselves into the lead, while I finished in the mid 50s again! I think people enjoyed themselves despite being confused at the start.
John R 75
Nigel 71
Andrew P 59
Ian 56
Anna 55
Andrew H 50
The Rio Grande edition of Medici is a masterpiece in bad graphics design. Badly organised rules where you can't quickly look things up. Player boards where you can't see the 5 card spaces. Cards where you can't read the numbers at a distance (and 3s and 5s look similar). It is difficult to match the commodity cards to the commodity tracks on the board and the score/money track is also hard to read and use (it only has odd numbers printed on it). I promised myself I would wait for a better edition but I finally caved in when Wargames Supply had it on special. From BGG it looks like some of the other editions are not perfect either. (I also noticed that some editions have bonus values of 5, 10, 20 on the commodity tracks and other's only have 10, 20. While the French version has multiple rounds of bidding and other rule changes).
Here is a variant that reduces the luck in 3 and 4 player Medici.
Anne came home and Anna and both Andrews left and Nigel suggested we finish with R-Eco (probably his favourite filler game). As usual I did badly, while Anne thrashed us.
Anne 16
Nigel 5
John R 3
Ian -2
Thursday, 19 November 2009
At Peter's (Wednesday 18 November)
While we waited to see if Nigel would turn up we played the "On the Brink" expansion to Pandemic. This was the first game of Pandemic for John B. We started with a lot of red infections and some of us hurried off to Asia to deal with that. Things started to mutate soon after that and then red went virulent. We got cures for 3 diseases but couldn't get on top of things before the deck ran out, hence we lost. The final infection phase looked like the beginning of the end with out breaks spreading in a chain reaction from city to city across the world.
Our second game of the evening was Beowulf. Peter had amazing luck, taking risk after risk and he spent almost the whole game scratch and wound free. For some reason I found money hard to come by in this game. I found myself inadvertently playing a "Jarratt strategy" as gradually my scratches and wounds started to add up and a general lack of cards at some critical points meant that I was forced to take a couple of "-2"s plus wounds, including the infamous double wound. I managed to get rid of one wound at the cost of 2 points but was left with 4 at the end.
We finished with a couple of rounds of Coloretto. I played a greedy strategy while John R tried very hard to avoid collecting more than three suits. Despite the consensus of the table that I was doing it all wrong, I won.
Our second game of the evening was Beowulf. Peter had amazing luck, taking risk after risk and he spent almost the whole game scratch and wound free. For some reason I found money hard to come by in this game. I found myself inadvertently playing a "Jarratt strategy" as gradually my scratches and wounds started to add up and a general lack of cards at some critical points meant that I was forced to take a couple of "-2"s plus wounds, including the infamous double wound. I managed to get rid of one wound at the cost of 2 points but was left with 4 at the end.
Peter 32
John B 28
John R 23
Lance 21
Ian 1
We finished with a couple of rounds of Coloretto. I played a greedy strategy while John R tried very hard to avoid collecting more than three suits. Despite the consensus of the table that I was doing it all wrong, I won.
Ian John R Lance Peter
30 33 31 27
35 26 28 33
======================
65 59 59 60
Thursday, 12 November 2009
Tichu (11 November 2009)
This was the first game of Tichu for either John and game #3 for Carl and I. John R and I played against John B and Carl. John B and Carl started strong, while John R and I experimented with going backwards. Around hand 8 John and I got the hand of things. It felt like an epic game and included a bunch of interesting scenarios such as making enough points to offset a Tichu penalty, and 4 bombs played consecutively - but no-one brave enough to bid Grand Tichu.
(Scores below are given John R and I first, followed by John B and Carl)
Hand 1: -70, 70 (John R declared Tichu unsuccessfully)
Hand 2: -110, 10 (both John R and Carl unsuccessfully declared Tichu -- I can't remember how that happened!)
Hand 3: -65, 165 (Carl successfully declared Tichu)
Hand 4: -120, 210 (I unsuccessfully declared Tichu)
Hand 5: 80, 210 (John R and I do a 1-2)
Hand 6: 80, 510 (not be outdone John B declares a Tichu and he and Carl pull off a 1-2)
Hand 7: 80, 810 (Carl declares Tichu and he and John pull off 1-2 again)
Hand 8: 380, 710 (John R declares Tichu and we make a come back with a 1-2)
Hand 9: 370, 820 (John B and I declared Tichu, he succeeds while I don't, on the other hand John and I make 90 points to offset the failure)
Hand 10: 475, 815 (no Tichus, but John and I make 105)
Hand 11: 585, 805 (no Tichu, even more points)
Hand 12: 785, 705 (Carl's unsuccessful Tichu and 1-2 to John and I)
Hand 13: 985, 705 (1-2 again)
Hand 14: 1085, 705 (John R and Carl both declared Tichu, John R succeeded but we made no points! Whereas Carl and John got 100 points to offset the 100 point penalty!)
Tichu declarations:
Ian: 2 failures
John R: 2 successes out of 4 declarations
Carl: 2 successes out of 6 declarations
John B: 2 successes out of 2 declarations
1-2s:
John and I made 4,
John and Carl made 2
(Scores below are given John R and I first, followed by John B and Carl)
Hand 1: -70, 70 (John R declared Tichu unsuccessfully)
Hand 2: -110, 10 (both John R and Carl unsuccessfully declared Tichu -- I can't remember how that happened!)
Hand 3: -65, 165 (Carl successfully declared Tichu)
Hand 4: -120, 210 (I unsuccessfully declared Tichu)
Hand 5: 80, 210 (John R and I do a 1-2)
Hand 6: 80, 510 (not be outdone John B declares a Tichu and he and Carl pull off a 1-2)
Hand 7: 80, 810 (Carl declares Tichu and he and John pull off 1-2 again)
Hand 8: 380, 710 (John R declares Tichu and we make a come back with a 1-2)
Hand 9: 370, 820 (John B and I declared Tichu, he succeeds while I don't, on the other hand John and I make 90 points to offset the failure)
Hand 10: 475, 815 (no Tichus, but John and I make 105)
Hand 11: 585, 805 (no Tichu, even more points)
Hand 12: 785, 705 (Carl's unsuccessful Tichu and 1-2 to John and I)
Hand 13: 985, 705 (1-2 again)
Hand 14: 1085, 705 (John R and Carl both declared Tichu, John R succeeded but we made no points! Whereas Carl and John got 100 points to offset the 100 point penalty!)
Tichu declarations:
Ian: 2 failures
John R: 2 successes out of 4 declarations
Carl: 2 successes out of 6 declarations
John B: 2 successes out of 2 declarations
1-2s:
John and I made 4,
John and Carl made 2
Thursday, 3 August 2006
Three new games - 3 August
I played 3 new games at Peter's last night (though only one is a new release).
Stephenson's Rocket - which reminded me a lot of Through the Desert (though more complicated), rather than Acquire or Union Pacific. It has a scoring system which is probably the complex I have come across for a Knizia game. Understanding what actions will score the most £s now and later is far from easy. Lance and Peter came first and second with very different strategies. Jarratt would hate this game as the scoring system is most of the game. I want to play it again, but still have no idea of a strategy.
Jericho - a quick card game with a "take that" element. I don't generally like "take that" elements but I'll make an exception for this one as it takes out the highest cards of a suit on the table regardless of whose they are (at one point I killed one of my cards and 2 of Peter's to my advantage). You are not directly choosing your victim - you choose the suit you are attacking instead. It is also only 10-15 minutes long, so if you get shafted it is over quickly (actually the scores were 18, 16, 16 in our game)
Big City - a city building game with numbered cards for the building spots (as in Chinatown) and prerequisites for each building. You score for what you build but also may create opportunities for others as you fulfil their prereqs. I didn't like this as much as the others, perhaps with 5 players it is rather chaotic. The bits are nice though.
On the other table Amun Re finished with scores of 45, 44, 44, 43!
Stephenson's Rocket - which reminded me a lot of Through the Desert (though more complicated), rather than Acquire or Union Pacific. It has a scoring system which is probably the complex I have come across for a Knizia game. Understanding what actions will score the most £s now and later is far from easy. Lance and Peter came first and second with very different strategies. Jarratt would hate this game as the scoring system is most of the game. I want to play it again, but still have no idea of a strategy.
Jericho - a quick card game with a "take that" element. I don't generally like "take that" elements but I'll make an exception for this one as it takes out the highest cards of a suit on the table regardless of whose they are (at one point I killed one of my cards and 2 of Peter's to my advantage). You are not directly choosing your victim - you choose the suit you are attacking instead. It is also only 10-15 minutes long, so if you get shafted it is over quickly (actually the scores were 18, 16, 16 in our game)
Big City - a city building game with numbered cards for the building spots (as in Chinatown) and prerequisites for each building. You score for what you build but also may create opportunities for others as you fulfil their prereqs. I didn't like this as much as the others, perhaps with 5 players it is rather chaotic. The bits are nice though.
On the other table Amun Re finished with scores of 45, 44, 44, 43!
Saturday, 27 May 2006
Two new games - 24 May
Beowulf
This game may look like a multi-player cooperative adventure game but in fact it is a push your luck game with a variety of auctions gentler than Taj Mahal to a script that is reminicent of Merchants of Amsterdam. Peter didn't give us a great rules explanation and we started with only 2 cards rather than 7, we didn't understand until near the end that we could use Risks during a round the table card auction. We were playing the simple rules but tried to play the gold auctions. Despite all these rule issues we still all had fun and while it looked like Lance and Andrew were going to win, they both faded at the end and my late run pushed me to the lead.
There is a lot of criticism of this game on the geek, especially over the Risk element. But I am keen to play the game again. This time with the correct and advanced rules. I would put it into the same category as Manila - a game where playing the game is exciting rather than serious and competition is secondary.
1503
Is another Settlers of Catan type of game. Peter had at least played this game several times before and not only could teach the rules but also had some idea of strategy. The turn is divided into 3 parts. Throw the dice and everyone collects resources (or deals with pirates or fire). Buy and sell reasources and build stuff. Explore islands with any ships you have. Islands give you good stuff. There is a money based economy and various ways to win the 3 victory points necessary for a win. This gives rise to various lines of strategy but you have to limit yourself otherwise you end up like Lance and I who persude too many strategies and came last.
It was a close finish between Luke and Peter and it was the luck of the dice rolls by me and Luke which gave the game to Peter rather than Luke.
This game may look like a multi-player cooperative adventure game but in fact it is a push your luck game with a variety of auctions gentler than Taj Mahal to a script that is reminicent of Merchants of Amsterdam. Peter didn't give us a great rules explanation and we started with only 2 cards rather than 7, we didn't understand until near the end that we could use Risks during a round the table card auction. We were playing the simple rules but tried to play the gold auctions. Despite all these rule issues we still all had fun and while it looked like Lance and Andrew were going to win, they both faded at the end and my late run pushed me to the lead.
There is a lot of criticism of this game on the geek, especially over the Risk element. But I am keen to play the game again. This time with the correct and advanced rules. I would put it into the same category as Manila - a game where playing the game is exciting rather than serious and competition is secondary.
1503
Is another Settlers of Catan type of game. Peter had at least played this game several times before and not only could teach the rules but also had some idea of strategy. The turn is divided into 3 parts. Throw the dice and everyone collects resources (or deals with pirates or fire). Buy and sell reasources and build stuff. Explore islands with any ships you have. Islands give you good stuff. There is a money based economy and various ways to win the 3 victory points necessary for a win. This gives rise to various lines of strategy but you have to limit yourself otherwise you end up like Lance and I who persude too many strategies and came last.
It was a close finish between Luke and Peter and it was the luck of the dice rolls by me and Luke which gave the game to Peter rather than Luke.
Sunday, 21 May 2006
Trains, Boats and Ox horns - 17 May
We arrived early and Peter was doing phone support. So Anne, Luke, Nigel and I played Hornochsen while we waited. This game was new to Nigel and probably Luke. My experience gave me the game. By the time we finished there were eight people ready to play. Luke, Peter, Jarratt and Andrew started a game of Jenseits von Theben while the rest of us were trying to pick a game. Peter was anoyed that we picked Manila!
The bids for the job of Manila's harbour master started high and went up from round to round. More often than not 20 pesos were paid for the privelege! John was the most agressive persuer of the office and the extra shares, so much so that he spent most of the game in debt. The pirate option was also popular and sometimes successful. Nigel had buckets of money for most of the game and not supprisingly won. I lost.
While we waited for the archiologists on the other table to finish we had a second game of Hornochsen (with John instead of Luke). I won again.
The final game of the evening was a 6 player game of Union Pacific. Peter suggested the unlimited Union Pacific shares varient, only Luke objected. The varient is designed to reduce the rush for Union Pacific shares in the standard game, which it did. The first score card must have been about card 24 in the deck because it took a supprisingly long time to come out. I grabbed an early lead with a good mix of firsts and seconds and a strong push to make the green company the biggest on the board. There was a battle over the ownership of the yellow company and some minor tussles over the other companies. Three people had 4 UP shares but they were later trumped by people when someone went to 5. Two of the scoring cards came out close together leaving me no opportunity to change my shareholding between them. Andrew won with 105 to my 100.
The bids for the job of Manila's harbour master started high and went up from round to round. More often than not 20 pesos were paid for the privelege! John was the most agressive persuer of the office and the extra shares, so much so that he spent most of the game in debt. The pirate option was also popular and sometimes successful. Nigel had buckets of money for most of the game and not supprisingly won. I lost.
While we waited for the archiologists on the other table to finish we had a second game of Hornochsen (with John instead of Luke). I won again.
The final game of the evening was a 6 player game of Union Pacific. Peter suggested the unlimited Union Pacific shares varient, only Luke objected. The varient is designed to reduce the rush for Union Pacific shares in the standard game, which it did. The first score card must have been about card 24 in the deck because it took a supprisingly long time to come out. I grabbed an early lead with a good mix of firsts and seconds and a strong push to make the green company the biggest on the board. There was a battle over the ownership of the yellow company and some minor tussles over the other companies. Three people had 4 UP shares but they were later trumped by people when someone went to 5. Two of the scoring cards came out close together leaving me no opportunity to change my shareholding between them. Andrew won with 105 to my 100.
Thursday, 11 May 2006
Peter and Michelle's place - 10 May
Chinatown
Peter, Carl, Lance, Andrew and I played Chinatown and I think I must have played the worse game ever by coming fifth. I let things go too easily and also traded too early. Peter won dispite his game long protestations of loosing.
Variant
I did think up a variant on the way to work the next day which changes the luck of the bonus card to one of choice of bonus card (for those that think that there is not enought to negotiate).
My idea is that after getting tiles but before negotiations start, deal two bonus cards face up. After the negotiations finish and before placing businesses on the board the start player chooses which of the two bonus cards will apply this round. The other bonus card is shuffled back into the deck. The trick to make this work is that the start token becomes another item up for negotiation.
(My original idea was that there was an auction for the privilege of choosing which of the two bonus cards apply but I think that making the start token negotiable is more thematic than an auction).
Note: the start token passes to the left as normal between rounds.
Il Principe
The other game of the evening was Il Principe. I have never really got the hang of this game. I certainly didn't get much control of the roles (which is a very important way to score points from other peoples city building and also a way to improve your position). Lance, Carl and I were short of green cards for much of the game which seem to be vital for building most of the cities. In the last two rounds I got no yellow cards which were required for all the cities available at that time. I got another fifth place.
Peter, Carl, Lance, Andrew and I played Chinatown and I think I must have played the worse game ever by coming fifth. I let things go too easily and also traded too early. Peter won dispite his game long protestations of loosing.
Variant
I did think up a variant on the way to work the next day which changes the luck of the bonus card to one of choice of bonus card (for those that think that there is not enought to negotiate).
My idea is that after getting tiles but before negotiations start, deal two bonus cards face up. After the negotiations finish and before placing businesses on the board the start player chooses which of the two bonus cards will apply this round. The other bonus card is shuffled back into the deck. The trick to make this work is that the start token becomes another item up for negotiation.
(My original idea was that there was an auction for the privilege of choosing which of the two bonus cards apply but I think that making the start token negotiable is more thematic than an auction).
Note: the start token passes to the left as normal between rounds.
Il Principe
The other game of the evening was Il Principe. I have never really got the hang of this game. I certainly didn't get much control of the roles (which is a very important way to score points from other peoples city building and also a way to improve your position). Lance, Carl and I were short of green cards for much of the game which seem to be vital for building most of the cities. In the last two rounds I got no yellow cards which were required for all the cities available at that time. I got another fifth place.
Thursday, 4 May 2006
4 games at Peter's place - 3 May
Hey! That's My Fish!
While people were arriving we played this cute filler of moving penguins and eating fish. The penguins were Peter, Nigel, Andrew and myself. This is one of those games where it is easy to see what you should have done once the next player or two have played!
I won despite letting one of my penguins get unnecessarily isolated.
Great Wall of China
Peter, Eugene, Andrew and Nigel went off to play at being archiologists. So the rest of us tried to find a five-player game that we all wanted to play. Some people were feeling a bit picky so it too awhile! Card games don't often get played at Peter's place but with John, Luke and I in favour of this game it got played.
Luke started with a power play that won him 3 tiles early on but left him short of cards in hand for the rest of the game. I wasted a lot of cards early on in battles where I came second or third and tried in the second half to use my cards more wisely. I was not alone in wasting cards, there were a couple of expensive battles. At the end I was left in a guessing game with Jarratt and Luke was left in a king maker position.
This is another game where you see the move you should have done once the next player or two have played! Jarratt is "off" Reiner Knizia at the moment and was feeling in the mood for something more baroque so didn't enjoy himself (not that there are any games that fit his requirements and his time limitations!).
Lance and I won with 30 each and the rest were close behind.
California
Jarratt left and with the other table still playing we brought out California to fill in time. Lance got off to a lead by getting the first present and the first bonus tile. The rest of us tried to play catch up. For the last three days Lance was looking for a green piece of furnature and John was looking for some green floor. Much to the amusement of the rest of us.
Lance won. Luke and I came second.
Hacienda
People left in droves and we were down to six people. Again Peter, Luke and Eugene grabed a game (The Ark) and headed for the other table. Lance, Nigel and I were left to choose a three player. We finally settled on Hacienda. This was my second playing of this game and Nigel's first. We played the 'random' side of the board in this game of claiming land and taking herds to market. It is a deceptive tile laying, hand management, money management type game with multiple ways of scoring points. I thought I played a lot better than previously but didn't reach enough markets.
Lance won by a substantial margin.
While people were arriving we played this cute filler of moving penguins and eating fish. The penguins were Peter, Nigel, Andrew and myself. This is one of those games where it is easy to see what you should have done once the next player or two have played!
I won despite letting one of my penguins get unnecessarily isolated.
Great Wall of China
Peter, Eugene, Andrew and Nigel went off to play at being archiologists. So the rest of us tried to find a five-player game that we all wanted to play. Some people were feeling a bit picky so it too awhile! Card games don't often get played at Peter's place but with John, Luke and I in favour of this game it got played.
Luke started with a power play that won him 3 tiles early on but left him short of cards in hand for the rest of the game. I wasted a lot of cards early on in battles where I came second or third and tried in the second half to use my cards more wisely. I was not alone in wasting cards, there were a couple of expensive battles. At the end I was left in a guessing game with Jarratt and Luke was left in a king maker position.
This is another game where you see the move you should have done once the next player or two have played! Jarratt is "off" Reiner Knizia at the moment and was feeling in the mood for something more baroque so didn't enjoy himself (not that there are any games that fit his requirements and his time limitations!).
Lance and I won with 30 each and the rest were close behind.
California
Jarratt left and with the other table still playing we brought out California to fill in time. Lance got off to a lead by getting the first present and the first bonus tile. The rest of us tried to play catch up. For the last three days Lance was looking for a green piece of furnature and John was looking for some green floor. Much to the amusement of the rest of us.
Lance won. Luke and I came second.
Hacienda
People left in droves and we were down to six people. Again Peter, Luke and Eugene grabed a game (The Ark) and headed for the other table. Lance, Nigel and I were left to choose a three player. We finally settled on Hacienda. This was my second playing of this game and Nigel's first. We played the 'random' side of the board in this game of claiming land and taking herds to market. It is a deceptive tile laying, hand management, money management type game with multiple ways of scoring points. I thought I played a lot better than previously but didn't reach enough markets.
Lance won by a substantial margin.
Saturday, 29 April 2006
The three game session week - 24, 26, 28 April
I haven't written up any game sessions for awhile. But I think it is good practice for writing skills and game analysis skills.
This week we had three game sessions. Because Peter was sick last Wednesday we had games at our place. Peter was probably feeling under-gamed because he invited us to games on Monday night, Tuesday being a public holiday was another useful excuse for more gaming.
Peter’s place - Monday 24 April
Ticket to Ride - Märklin Edition
The passenger rule makes this game more interesting than the original Ticket to Ride. There are passenger cards in the deck, a little pile of tokens on most of the stations and everyone has 3 plastic passengers. When you play a set cards and claim a section of track you can optionally put down one of your passengers on one of the two stations. On a future turn you can (instead of the normal actions) move your passenger along your track as far as you like picking up the station tokens as you go. You can also play passenger cards to allow you to use other peoples track sections. The tokens have decreasing values (like the bonus tiles in Thurn und Taxis). Most of the stations have tokens ranging between 1 and 4 points but Berlin starts at 7 points. Your passenger is discarded after it moved.
Even though Peter warned us of the importance of getting ones passengers down on the board and then moving them most of us didn’t make much effort to do so until the middle of the game. The passengers mean it is important to decide where to place your early track so that your first passengers get a good run through the best stations. This is often at conflict with securing the important choke points to score your tickets. I enjoyed this game a lot more than the original, though still think it take a bit long for a game of its weight.
There are other differences from the original game: 2 separate decks of tickets (long & short), 2 types of wild card, a ten point bonus for most tickets completed rather than longest route and bigger cards. But the passengers are the most important difference.
Note: Ticket to Ride - Europe also has big cards and separate long and short ticket decks (players start with 1 long and 3 short), players may need 0-3 extra cards to build a section with a tunnel., some sections need 1 or more wild cards to complete (ferry routes), each player has 3 stations which cost 1-3 cards to lay and cost 4 points if not laid, each station allows the use of another players section when scoring a ticket.
Thurm und Taxis
Lance and I introduced Jarratt to 'Thurm und Taxis'. I was half expecting Jarratt to win but he didn't. The scores make it look like Lance ran away with the game but the game didn't feel like that.
Lance 29
Jarratt 16
Ian 14
Peter’s place - Wednesday 26 April
Die Handler
Kate, Luke, Peter and I played this game while the other eight people played on the other two tables. For most of us this was our second playing of this game but it had been many months and many other new games in between playings and we all needed a rules refresh.
This is a game of buying, transporting and selling goods coupled with an increasingly expensive status ladder, which must be climbed to win. There is reasonable scope for shafting when it comes to loading the wagons, moving the wagons and manipulating the prices. There is also a shortage of cash caused by the increasing expenses on higher rungs of the status ladder we all must climb to win, and the increasing cost of moving up the ladder as the game progresses. Experience should speed this game up and should also make us ready for the advanced version of the game.
Everyone enjoyed the game and I beat Peter by 400 guilders on the tie break.
Medici
Peter, Kate, Luke, John B and I played this purest of auction games. It turned out to be one of the most brutal games of Medici we have played, including the most nasty accidental shaft we have seen when John after thinking carefully for awhile bid 16 without noticing that this was exactly the number of points that Luke had (Luke being the other person interested in the cards on offer).
Carl’s place - Friday 28 April
Aton
This was the first time anyone had played my new two player game about vying for power in the temples of Egypt. The components are straight forward: two identical decks of numbered cards, 2 sets of counters and a pretty board containing four 12 square temples, an eight square city of the dead, a score track and 4 cartouches each. But the rules are more complex. Basically each player draws four cards from their deck and places them face down against the 4 cartouches, then all cards are turned up. The cartouches determine how the number on each card is evaluated: turn order, how many counters you get to take off, how many you get to put on and which temples can you do this in. The game is about controlling the temples and scoring points in various ways. There are four different game-end/win conditions and seven ways to score points so there is plenty to keep track of.
I ignored the first cartouche (which scores someone up to six points per turn) to my cost and concentrated on going for a green victory (placing counters in all the green squares). Carl played for points and won on about turn 7 or 8. We both enjoyed this game.
Oltre Mare
Sharon’s liked this game so much last week that I brought it again, this time Carl and Matt were also keen so Oltre Mare edged out California and Great Wall of China as the game to play. It was Carl’s first game but he caught on quickly. In the first half Matt, John and I dominated the trading but the half way scoring saw Carl, Matt and John clustered around the thirty mark while Sharon and I trailed ten points behind, but I had more pirate cards than all the others put together. In the second half Matt, Carl and Sharon dominated the trading. Matt and I did the most sailing while the other three spent much of the game sitting on pirate free ports. Sharon did her usual thing with sticking on "hand limit 6, play 1" cards and planning up to three moves in advance.
Carl won and I think this game will get played again.
Great Wall of China
This new game was also a big hit last week and this time we played five player, with Sharon being the new player. Last week we had decided that conflict would mainly benefit the non-competing players and we were very peaceable about dividing the spoils. This meant that no-one was in danger of playing all the cards much before the others and also that we all had plenty of good cards left at the end to squabble over the last few tokens. The 7 and 8 point tokens all came out in the first half of the game and those last tokens we fought over were mainly 1s, 2s and 3s! The scores were very close this week and I think we all have more to learn about this game.
Matt 31
Carl & Sharon 30
Ian 29
John 27
This week we had three game sessions. Because Peter was sick last Wednesday we had games at our place. Peter was probably feeling under-gamed because he invited us to games on Monday night, Tuesday being a public holiday was another useful excuse for more gaming.
Peter’s place - Monday 24 April
Ticket to Ride - Märklin Edition
The passenger rule makes this game more interesting than the original Ticket to Ride. There are passenger cards in the deck, a little pile of tokens on most of the stations and everyone has 3 plastic passengers. When you play a set cards and claim a section of track you can optionally put down one of your passengers on one of the two stations. On a future turn you can (instead of the normal actions) move your passenger along your track as far as you like picking up the station tokens as you go. You can also play passenger cards to allow you to use other peoples track sections. The tokens have decreasing values (like the bonus tiles in Thurn und Taxis). Most of the stations have tokens ranging between 1 and 4 points but Berlin starts at 7 points. Your passenger is discarded after it moved.
Even though Peter warned us of the importance of getting ones passengers down on the board and then moving them most of us didn’t make much effort to do so until the middle of the game. The passengers mean it is important to decide where to place your early track so that your first passengers get a good run through the best stations. This is often at conflict with securing the important choke points to score your tickets. I enjoyed this game a lot more than the original, though still think it take a bit long for a game of its weight.
There are other differences from the original game: 2 separate decks of tickets (long & short), 2 types of wild card, a ten point bonus for most tickets completed rather than longest route and bigger cards. But the passengers are the most important difference.
Note: Ticket to Ride - Europe also has big cards and separate long and short ticket decks (players start with 1 long and 3 short), players may need 0-3 extra cards to build a section with a tunnel., some sections need 1 or more wild cards to complete (ferry routes), each player has 3 stations which cost 1-3 cards to lay and cost 4 points if not laid, each station allows the use of another players section when scoring a ticket.
Thurm und Taxis
Lance and I introduced Jarratt to 'Thurm und Taxis'. I was half expecting Jarratt to win but he didn't. The scores make it look like Lance ran away with the game but the game didn't feel like that.
Lance 29
Jarratt 16
Ian 14
Peter’s place - Wednesday 26 April
Die Handler
Kate, Luke, Peter and I played this game while the other eight people played on the other two tables. For most of us this was our second playing of this game but it had been many months and many other new games in between playings and we all needed a rules refresh.
This is a game of buying, transporting and selling goods coupled with an increasingly expensive status ladder, which must be climbed to win. There is reasonable scope for shafting when it comes to loading the wagons, moving the wagons and manipulating the prices. There is also a shortage of cash caused by the increasing expenses on higher rungs of the status ladder we all must climb to win, and the increasing cost of moving up the ladder as the game progresses. Experience should speed this game up and should also make us ready for the advanced version of the game.
Everyone enjoyed the game and I beat Peter by 400 guilders on the tie break.
Medici
Peter, Kate, Luke, John B and I played this purest of auction games. It turned out to be one of the most brutal games of Medici we have played, including the most nasty accidental shaft we have seen when John after thinking carefully for awhile bid 16 without noticing that this was exactly the number of points that Luke had (Luke being the other person interested in the cards on offer).
Carl’s place - Friday 28 April
Aton
This was the first time anyone had played my new two player game about vying for power in the temples of Egypt. The components are straight forward: two identical decks of numbered cards, 2 sets of counters and a pretty board containing four 12 square temples, an eight square city of the dead, a score track and 4 cartouches each. But the rules are more complex. Basically each player draws four cards from their deck and places them face down against the 4 cartouches, then all cards are turned up. The cartouches determine how the number on each card is evaluated: turn order, how many counters you get to take off, how many you get to put on and which temples can you do this in. The game is about controlling the temples and scoring points in various ways. There are four different game-end/win conditions and seven ways to score points so there is plenty to keep track of.
I ignored the first cartouche (which scores someone up to six points per turn) to my cost and concentrated on going for a green victory (placing counters in all the green squares). Carl played for points and won on about turn 7 or 8. We both enjoyed this game.
Oltre Mare
Sharon’s liked this game so much last week that I brought it again, this time Carl and Matt were also keen so Oltre Mare edged out California and Great Wall of China as the game to play. It was Carl’s first game but he caught on quickly. In the first half Matt, John and I dominated the trading but the half way scoring saw Carl, Matt and John clustered around the thirty mark while Sharon and I trailed ten points behind, but I had more pirate cards than all the others put together. In the second half Matt, Carl and Sharon dominated the trading. Matt and I did the most sailing while the other three spent much of the game sitting on pirate free ports. Sharon did her usual thing with sticking on "hand limit 6, play 1" cards and planning up to three moves in advance.
Carl won and I think this game will get played again.
Great Wall of China
This new game was also a big hit last week and this time we played five player, with Sharon being the new player. Last week we had decided that conflict would mainly benefit the non-competing players and we were very peaceable about dividing the spoils. This meant that no-one was in danger of playing all the cards much before the others and also that we all had plenty of good cards left at the end to squabble over the last few tokens. The 7 and 8 point tokens all came out in the first half of the game and those last tokens we fought over were mainly 1s, 2s and 3s! The scores were very close this week and I think we all have more to learn about this game.
Matt 31
Carl & Sharon 30
Ian 29
John 27
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)