Monday, 7 March 2011

Saturday 5 March 2011

On Saturday Babs and Carl were hosting games at their place partly in celebration of their birthdays and also as one of their new regular fortnightly Saturday games nights. We arrived as Craig and Sean and their kids were leaving. T and K had been given a couple of Chinese terracotta soldiers. But to make them more interesting they were each encased in a clay brick. Each brick came with little bamboo scraper and small brush to give the feel of archaeology. Judging how far the boys got in the first hour these bricks could keep them busy for days (if they don’t get bored and frustrated first). Overall a cute idea that I’d expect to see in gift shops at heritage sites around the world.

Expedition
We kicked the evening off with Expedition. The red route curled in tight loops around North America until we got bored with it. The blue route petered out very quickly in North Africa while the yellow route went around the world. I made a mistake of not going to a destination one link away from the one just got to, but luckily recovered to win.

Ian 18
Carl 17
Anne 10

Wyatt Earp
Carl then taught us Wyatt Earp, a Rummy game which in terms of its mechanics is part of the Mystery Rummy family of card games. Anne hadn't played Rummy before so the basic concept of pickup, optionally meld (create or add to a set of cards on the table) and then discard was new to her. In Mystery Rummy games the deck is divided into "normal" and "special" cards, with the special cards making up a quarter to a third of the deck. Each turn a player may meld or play one special card (in addition to melding normal cards). In Wyatt Earp most of the special cards relate to the scoring of sets, though the commonest special cards (the multi-use Wyatt Earp cards) can be, and often are, used to allow the player to draw more cards.

The theme of the game is hunting outlaws in the wild west. Each outlaw has a bounty which starts at $1,000. There are 7 suits (one per outlaw) with 7 identical cards in each suit. Melding 2+ cards in a suit increases the bounty on that outlaw by $1000 times the number of cards melded minus one. Some special cards can be added to melds of a particular outlaw that also increase the bounty. The cards played also indicate how much "knowledge" a player has of that outlaw (normal cards are worth 2 points). At the end of the hand the bounties may be paid out, but only if the total "knowledge" of all players is at least 8. If a player has at least 5 "knowledge" more than any other player they get the whole bounty otherwise it is share among the players. Unpaid bounties accumulate from hand to hand. I have been interested in this game for awhile as it has a sort of stock market idea.

At the end of the second hand I got to $24,000 but in next hand Carl prevented me from getting any more cash with a well timed Hideout card. Anne and I are keen to play Wyatt Earp again.

Carl $27,000
Ian $24,000
Anne $24,000

Tichu
By this time the boys were in bed and Carl was keen for Babs to learn Tichu. As it was after 10pm I suggested that we just play a couple of hands, but it turned out that we played a whole game. I felt that I had consistently poor hands (I must learn how to make the best of such hands).

There were very few Tichu calls though plenty of 1-2s, and on two hands the points were shared 50-50. Babs and Carl were ahead through the mid-game but in the final two hands we scored 105 and 95 points.
Hnd IA+AM C+BdV
1. 200 0 1-2
2. 200 200 1-2
3. 215 385 Carl's Tichu
4. 265 435 50 points each
5. 315 485 ditto
6. 315 685 1-2
7. 515 585 our 1-2 & Carl fails Tichu
8. 560 640
9. 860 640 Anne's Tichu 1-2
10. 965 635
11. 1060 640

Friday 4 March 2011

Tichu
On Wednesday night, Jarratt was keen on playing Tichu again, so I taught Andrew. We played with Anne and I versus Jarratt and Andrew. They got off to a good start with a Tichu 1-2. This was a portent of how the game was to go as we spent much of the time with a negative score. Finally we had a success but it was too little, too late. All very embarrassing.
Hnd IA+AM AP+JG
1. 0 300 Jarratt's Tichu 1-2
2. -90 390 Anne fails Tichu
3. -55 455
4. 15 485
5. -60 560 Anne fails Tichu
6. 50 650 Ian's low scoring Tichu
7. 55 745
8. 55 945 Andrew & Jarratt 1-2 again
9. 180 1020 Anne's Tichu

Tichu
On Friday night, Jarratt and Andrew were both keen on playing Tichu again. Anne and I agreed (we had to avenge defeat on Wednesday) on the understanding that we would stop if Nigel (or someone else) showed up.

We got off to a good start with a Tichu 1-2 but then things went into a holding patten on our side of the score sheet while Jarratt practiced his Tichu 1-2s. Then Andrew got in on the act. It was an evening of freaky hands. Including a hand where I had 6 consecutive pairs (which Jarratt bombed).

Hnd IA+AM AP+JG

1. 300 0 Anne's Tichu 1-2
2. 375 25
3. 375 325 Jarratt's Tichu 1-2
4. 375 625 ditto
5. 285 715 Ian fails Tichu
6. 365 635 Andrew fails Tichu
7. 365 935 Andrew's Tichu 1-2
8. 460 940
9. 460 1140 Andrew & Jarratt 1-2

Louis XIV
There are far more 4 player games in my collection than games for any other number and that number is swelled by the 5 and 6 player games that are better for 4 than for 5 or 6. After a lot of suggestions we settled on Louis XIV.

Anne tried my usual pro-shield strategy while I tried the more orthodox get-lots-of-missions strategy. Anne did better than I did, while Jarratt did better than anyone. Anne and I got 6 missions, Andrew got 7 and Jarratt got 8. There were an unusual number of draws for most shields of a type.

Jarratt 54
Anne 49
Andrew 45
Ian 42

10 Days in Europe
Looking for something quick to finish the evening we encouraged Jarratt to play this frustrating game. I won the first 2 games (though Andrew was very close in game 2) and Anne won the third game.

Saturday, 5 March 2011

Detroit-Cleveland Grand Prix

Recently I got a copy of Detroit-Cleveland Grand Prix in the NZ Only Math Trade. Published by Mayfair Games in 1996 it is the newest in a family of very similar car racing games by Wolfgang Kramer, which started with Niki Lauda's Formel 1 from 1980. The design seems to have changed very little over the 16 years.

Detroit-Cleveland Grand Prix comes with a double sided board (unsupprisingly Detroit race track is on one side and Cleveland on the other). Six car race regardless of the number of players. Players are dealt a hand of cards which have movement numbers for one or more of the cars. When a card is played, the cars are advanced the number of spaces indicated in order from top to bottom. However, if the track is blocked, then that movement is lost. After the deal the cars are auctioned off to the players and there is prize money for each race ($200,000 for 1st place down to $10,000 for 6th place but nothing for cars that don't finish). Each race is one lap. The winner of the game is the richest player after 3 races.

The deck is 49 cards. 39 of the cards move 1 to 6 cars, 1 to 6 spaces. The other 10 cards include a 10 movement card for each car that is auctioned off with the car, 10 movement wild card which is not part of the standard deck (and seems overly powerful) and 3 switch cards (that seem very weak). According to the rules all the cards apart from the 10 point cards are dealt out and it doesn't matter if some players get more cards than others. That felt wrong to me and I suspect it would feel wrong to many of the people I play with. So I unilaterally decided to deal out as evenly as possible and then give any remaining cards face down to the owners of the cars at the back of the starting grid. (I also decided to leave out the weak sounding switch cards and overpowered wild 10).

The first game I played was a 2 player game with Anne. We played the Detroit race track. This meant we were playing 3 cars each. We ended each race with at least 6 cards in hand (no risk of any cars not finishing). There was one odd card with 2 players. This game took a very long time to play, in particular Anne took a long time to play each card. Possibly having 3 cars each and 22 or 23 cards each made it too complex for what it is.

A few days later we introduced Jarratt and Peter to the Cleveland circuit. There were 3 odd card and in each race half the players had 2 cars while the other half had one. This meant that hand sizes varied between 10 and potentially 13 cards. Sometimes people didn't have enough cards to finish, which made the game more interesting.

The following week we switched back to the Detroit track and this time had 5 players (Andrew and Lance being the newbies). Only one person got a second car each race and there were 4 odd cards so hand sizes varied between 8 and 11 cards. Anne won first race, I won the second race, possibly Peter won the last race. Everyone agreed that we should swap seats after the auction so that players sit in the order of their cars on the starting grid (which is suggested as a tornament variant in the rule book).

The next game was a 6 player game on the Detroit track again. Following our discussion on Wednesday we did swap seats after the auction. But the auction wasn't really that interesting - a couple of cars were fought over but otherwise people only paid $10,000. Surprisingly the cars all finished. There were 3 extra cards and with one car each so each player had 7 or 8 cards. It seemed that the cars at the back of the grid had a better chance of winning (possibly due to the extra card). The races were won by Nigel, Andrew P and Anna. Anne came last in every race.

Our latest game was with 3 players. The 39 cards deal out nicely. Andrew paid lots for his cars in the first race but came in 1st. In the second race he came in 1st and 2nd and had a substantial lead in cash.

Having played 5 games in about 3 weeks with 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 players I am left with the strong impression that this is a game for 3 or 4 players. With 2 players it seems that there are too many cards, giving too many choices (potentially causing analysis paralysis) and hence that it is too easy to get all 6 cars home. With 3 players there are 2 cars each (2 cars give more opportunities for clever play than 1 car) and the 39 “basic” cards deal out evenly – things are nicely balanced. With 4 players half will get 2 cars and half will not and the 3 odd cards seem to benefit the players with cars at the back of the grid, on the positive side the game is competitive, it is a pity that there aren’t 40 basic cards. With 5 players most players will get only 1 car (which is a little boring) and the 4 odd cards counts against the players at the front of the grid. With 6 players the auction becomes a lot less relevant with most people getting a car for the minimum $10,000. With only 1 car and less interesting auctions the game is not as interesting for 5 or 6 players as it is for 3 or 4.

It does seem odd that even though this game has gone through 5 incarnations over 16 years the basic rules seem to be the same and even the basic card deck hasn't changed much including the over powered 10 point wild card, the wierd switch cards and the lack of a satisfactory way of dealing out cards with variable numbers of players. The changes seem mostly to be in the different race tracks and extra rules (slipstreaming and banked curves in Daytona 500, betting and pitstops in Top Race etc).

There are a number of variants discussed on BGG and other websites -- many of them to do with alternative uses for the switch cards. Though I didn't see any to do with uneven deal. So perhaps I am making too much out of this perceived problem.

I had thought that the extra cards could be auctioned off either before or after the cars were auctioned. But would anyone pay $10,000 for a card if they had paid $10,000 for a car? My idea of adding the cards to the cars at the back of the grid is not perfect (it seems to advantage those cars too much), so I’d be keen on trying a different solution, perhaps even the original uneven deal idea.

I am also keen on trying my hand at designing my own track, and the basic structure of the game seems sound enough to allow us to bolt on extra rules like the slipstreaming rule for Daytona 500 or Andrew’s suggestion that instead of auctioning the total ownership of the cars, that share are sold instead (a bit like Manila or Cable Car).

Ultimately this game has more than justified the trade I made for it.

Tuesday, 22 February 2011

Saturday 19 February 2011

We started the afternoon with Andrew R, Andrew H, Anna, Carl, Jarratt, Anne and I. On one table Andrew R, Anna and Anne make some films in Traumfabrik. Anna won with over 100 points and Andrew lost. He says that there are several rule difference between Traumfabrik and Hollywood Blockbuster. In particular he says the rule in Hollywood Blockbuster for choosing tiles at the party involves counting the number of stars on actor and guest start tiles, also he says that Hollywood Blockbuster has different end game awards. This interested me but I couldn't find any references to this on BGG.

Meanwhile on the other table Carl and I took on Jarratt and Andrew H at Tichu. As is often the case we started cautiously without a Tichu call on the first hand (and A&J slapped us 80-20). After that Carl got his confidence back and called Tichu the next two hands, with a 50% success rate that put us back in front. The lead swapped back and forth and either side could have won. The game climaxed with a pair of Tichu 1-2s in the last two hands.

Hnd C & I A & J

1. 20 80
2. 235 65 Carl's Tichu
3. 185 115 Carl failed to make Tichu
4. 220 180
5. 220 480 Andrew's Tichu and 1-2
6. 280 520
7. 425 575 Carl's Tichu
8. 425 475 Carl and Jarratt failed Tichu but we scores all the points
9. 565 435 Carl's Tichu and Andrew failed
10. 570 530
11. 760 540 Carl's Tichu
12. 760 840 Jarratt's Tichu and 1-2
13. 1060 840 Carl's Tichu and 1-2
Overall Carl called Tichu 7 times in 13 hands and only failed twice. On the other hand I was way too cautious to call Tichu; while Andrew and Jarratt were more balanced calling twice each. The joke of the game was that whenever Carl called Tichu it meant that I had the stronger hand, this turned out to save our bacon at least once!

While we continued to play Tichu the others played a hand of Coloretto which Andrew Rae won before he hurried back to his family. Andrew P took his place and won a couple of games of Attika against Anna and Anne, with shrine to shrine victories.

Anna and Anne who had been jealous of our game of Tichu challenged Andrew and Jarratt to a game. The boys started off with a rush with 3 successful Tichus. After a couple of quite hands both Anna and Andrew called Tichu and both failed. Finally Anna and Anne started their come back.

Hnd A & J A & A

1. 165 35 Jarratt's Tichu
2. 360 40 Jarratt's Tichu
3. 505 95 Andrew's Tichu
4. 575 125
5. 655 145
6. 600 100 Andrew & Anna both failed Tichu
7. 600 400 Anna's Tichu and 1-2
The game was abandoned because Jarratt had to go and cook dinner, amid protests from the others!

On the dining table I tried to teach Havoc to Jim, Margot and Carl. Unfortunately this turned out to be one of my less successful teaching efforts and Carl in particular ended up with the wrong idea of how to play a battle. I obviously need to brush up on my teaching technique. Andrew P beat me on the tie-break.

Andrew P 30
Ian 30
Margot 26
Jim 22
Carl 9

After Jarratt left, Anna and Andrew H taught Anne Glory to Rome. Anne played a military strategy but was weak in other areas.

During the dinner break Jim, Andrew H, Carl and I learnt my new game of The Bottle Imp and played one hand. I'd now like to try a full game of this odd trick taking game.

After dinner Andrew and Anna taught Carl Glory to Rome. But I was busy teaching Jim and Margo On the Underground. Which was draw between Jim and Anne.

Jim 48
Anne 48
Ian 41
Margot 38

By 10 pm everyone had gone home and after we tidied up Anne and I played a final game. Jaipur is our current two player game of choice. I won 2 out of 3 rounds.

Ian 54 57 86
Anne 89 49 72

Overall it was a pretty successful day even though I only played in 4 of the 11 games.

Thursday, 13 January 2011

First Impressions of London (8 January 2011)

Recently I spent a day gaming at Peter N’s place. While we were deciding what to play I noticed Eric’s copy of London. Being a fan of Martin Wallace I was keen to play, but for most of the day there were 6 of us. In the evening two more players arrived and Eric, Peter, Andrew and I got to play London.

London is a development/economic game covering the development of London from the Great Fire of 1666 to the 20th Century. The board shows a map of London divided into boroughs. The players build buildings and businesses in London but unlike his earlier games these do not get built on the map. The map is used to indicate the "ownership" of boroughs and the development of the Underground. Most of the game play centres around the cards rather than the board. The deck of 110 cards is divided into three parts A, B, C which represent the division of 400 years of history into 3 chucks. Each part of the deck is shuffled separately and stacked. Like Brass, the deck controls the length of the game. The end game phase starts once the draw deck is empty.

When drawing cards one can take cards from both the draw deck and from a number of face up cards (which are arranged in two rows). Most games that use this mechanism (e.g. Liberté, Ticket to Ride or Union Pacific) have a fixed number of face up cards which are refilled from the face down deck. London takes a fresh approach. The face up cards come from player’s hands. These are cards that are spent to play or activate other cards or cards discarded when over the hand limit of 9. Cards added to the display are added to the top row if possible. If there are no spare spaces in either row the top row is discarded and the bottom row becomes the new top row.

The cards are complicated, most of them are unique and they all have pictures. They are best compared with those in card driven games like Twilight Struggle. They come in 4 colours (brown - economic, blue - science and culture, pink - political and grey - paupers). Most of them represent buildings or businesses. The implicit base cost to play a card is to "spend" another card of the same colour (the spent card ends up in the face up display for players to pickup if they wish). Some cards have additional costs (usually cash). Most of the cards are played in front of the player. Most cards are worth a number of points at the end of the game but some have additional advantages that are available as long as the card is face up and not over-built. At the bottom of these cards is a section that relates to "activating" the card. Activating a card often has a cost (a card or money). It gives a benefit (and possibly a penalty) and in most cases means the card is turned face down. Though some cards remain face up for multiple activations. The two part process of building a building and later activating it seems to be a development of the building and flipping of buildings in Brass.

A turn consists of drawing a card (from display or draw deck), then do an action and finally discard down to 9 cards (discards go to display). The action is one of four choices:
  • Play cards
  • Run city
  • Buy land
  • Draw 3 more cards
Note that it is not possible to pass and this restriction can become important at the end of the game as players are penalised for having cards in their hand.

As in other Card Driven Games, cards in hand represent the opportunities that you have. Playing/building a card cost you another card/opportunity of the same type/colour. Interestingly you are penalised at various points in the game for having cards in hand (hogging your opportunities?).

The Play Cards action is mostly about building one or more cards/things. Though there are a few cards (Wren and the 3 Refugee cards which are discarded rather than built).

The Run City action is when you get to activate one or more of your face-up cards. In most cases this will result in the card being turned down. It is just about the only way to get more money and possibly reduce poverty. Poverty Points are a similar concept to the Loss Points in Automobile. Everyone starts the game with 5 and at the end of the game they gain one for each card left in their hand. Every time a player chooses the Run City action they count the number of cards in hand, add the number of stacks of cards they have built and subtract the number of boroughs they have bought. If this is a negative number (highly unlikely) they reduce the number of Poverty Points (black cubes) they have otherwise they increase it by this number. A number of the buildings have penalties or benefits which also change the number of Poverty Points you have. In the final scoring the player with the fewest Poverty Points discards them all, the other players discard the same number and then use a chart on the board to determine what the remaining Poverty Points will cost them in VP.

The Poverty Point system provides an incentive to over build buildings rather than create more stacks. It also provides an incentive against choosing the "Run City" action too often.

The Buy Land action allows the player to buy a borough. This cost money, but you immediately draw a number of cards and will score victory points at the end of the game. It will also reduce the Poverty gained by one each time you "Run City". There are also extra points available when the Underground cards come into play.

Of course there are loans in the game. They can be taken at any time but only paid back at the end of the game. The interest rate is 50% and there is a steep VP penalty if you can't pay.

As is common in Martin Wallace games it wasn't clear what the strategy should be at the beginning of the game. Buying land could give you some useful cards but that advantage is minimized as you near/reach the hand limit. Run City didn't seem useful until you had a number of buildings built. But how many buildings should you built side by side (rather than on top of each other) given the Poverty Point penalty of having lots of building stacks?

Hand management plays a big part in London. A big hand of cards gives you plenty of choices but comes at a cost. It is also important to develop your "engine" so that you have a source of cash, points, cards and a way of avoiding too many poverty points. Though as building turn over or get built over your "engine" is very dynamic.

There is the possibility from time to time of choosing when to cause the top line of the display to be discarded, reducing the number of face up cards for players to your left to choose from. Similarly when you add cards to the display you might consider how useful they might be to your fellow players (though this may have little impact if that card is the only spare one of its colour in your hand).

You might consider the other players when choosing which borough to buy, and there are also a few cards that allow targeted actions against other players. But overall I suspect the two main influences on the other players are keeping your Poverty Points much lower than them and choosing when to end the game by using up the draw deck.

Like many cards games with lots of different cards, knowledge of the deck will give a seasoned player an advantage over a newbie.

It was the first time for all of us and due to over hasty rule reading we played a few things wrong. Most importantly we misunderstood the Wren and Refugee cards. We understood that they weren't buildings so we didn’t play them in front of us like the other building cards, we "played" them to the display (where Wren in particular got eagerly picked up by the next player) rather than "playing" them to the discard pile. So Wren got played about 8 times in the game rather than just once! There as a tendency for eager players to want to play/build a card and then immediately activate it in the same turn!

Overall I think London was an interesting Martin Wallace economic/development game with a novel card drafting mechanic, and elements of Brass like two phase builds and the loss/poverty points from Automobile. I'm a little worried by the lack of interaction between players (though some people may see that as an advantage!). I'd play it again but I am not yet convinced that I need to buy it.

Saturday, 1 January 2011

Games played in 2010

Total played 362 games (about 131 distinct games - all the prototypes count as one and expansions probably count separately). Just short of my aim of 365. Going to Peter's Wednesday night games and hosting my own games on Friday nights really drove the total up this year.

Most played game Frank's Zoo (18), which has become a favourite Friday night opener, beats Tichu (13) and my other dimes.

Five and Dimes Frank's Zoo (18), Tichu (13), Beowulf: The Legend (12), 10 Days in Europe (12), Metropolys (11), On the Underground (11), Masters Gallery (10).
Ave Caesar (8), Hornochsen (8), Vegas Showdown (8), Expedition (7), Jaipur (7), No Thanks! (6), Age of Industry (5), Aton (5), Buccaneer (5), In the Year of the Dragon (5), Rheinländer (5), Samarkand: Routes to Riches (5), Sylla (5), TransEuropa (5), Walk the Dogs (5), Diamant (5).

Favourite Game At the beginning of the year I really enjoyed Sylla which I liken to a more interactive In the Year of the Dragon. Overall Frank's Zoo was my favourite lighter game and Tichu as a more serious game.

Gaming Moment According to the Friendless Stats Server my Birthday Games was the best day of gaming in 2010. Wellycon and its mini-con were also good days. It was also good to play so many unpublished prototypes (8).

Gamer of the year Anna and Andrew for being the most consistent attendees on Friday nights and toughest Tichu opponents, and Anne as the winner of far too many 2 player games and my Tichu partner.

Looking forward to this year more games.... and may be 400 plays.

Sunday, 19 December 2010

Friday 18 December 2010

Frank's Zoo
As has become traditional we started a game of Frank's Zoo while we waited for Nigel.

We deliberately split Anna and Andrew and made them sit opposite each other. Anne was on form, jumping out to a lead of 8 by the second round. A lead which she never looked like loosing. While Nigel, as he often does when he arrives late and joins in, did very well scoring 8 a couple of times to come second. Playing to Anne's left didn't do me much good.

Andrew P 2 6 11 13 18 18
Anna 4 6 8 14 13 14
Anne 6 14 18 23 25 28
Ian -1 0 3 6 9 13
Andrew H 5 4 3 8 17 22
Nigel - 4 12 13 15 23

Balderdash
Anne convinced everyone else to learn and play Balderdash. Anna was initially keen to play, but on the first turn she discovered just how tricky it is to come up with a convincing definition and changed her mind! Andrew H was always first to finish his definition while Andrew P had a fixation for Morocco. For some reason Anna liked my definitions better than the correct ones. Nigel was the only person to write down the correct definition for a work. Anne led and I chased, but I burst passed her on the last turn.

This was the first time we played a party game on a Friday night. Experience counted as far as scoring was concerned.

Ian 30
Anne 27
Andrew H 15
Nigel 12
Anna 9
Andrew P 5

Ra
Anne had forgotten much of this game. But with plenty of advice from me and Andrew, she thrashed us. The tiles may not have been mixed well. The first epoch went on and on, while the third finished very quickly with a bunch of Sun tiles coming out together.

The uncertainty of tile drawing, the fixed bids and the penalties built into the scoring system and the disaster tiles make Ra one of the tensest auction games.

Anne 68
Ian 41
Andrew P 21

Master's Gallery
Andrew is quite keen on this auctionless version of Modern Art. It turned out to be quite a close game compared with previous ones.

Anne 16 34 73 139
Andrew P 18 39 80 133
Ian 14 31 73 130

Glory to Rome
At the other end of the table Nigel, Andrew H and Anna played Glory to Rome. I was too busy with Ra and Master's Gallery to take notice of what was happening, though I think I heard that Nigel didn't embezzle enough building materials. I suspect Andrew won.

This was the last Friday night games for 2010.

Saturday, 4 December 2010

Friday 3 December (House of Cards)

Frank's Zoo
While we waited for Nigel we started a game of Frank's Zoo. Anna sat on Andrew's left rather than on his right - a fact which the rest of us claimed contributed to her unusually poor score (and to Andrew's). Nigel arrived and joined in the the second hand. Everyone except Anna made 7 or 8 at some point in the game. But Nigel and I were the most consistent.

Andrew H 2 3 4 12 11 14
Anna 1 0 5 3 8 9
Andrew P 0 7 10 14 17 16
Ian 8 12 15 17 22 27
Nigel - 3 7 9 12 20

Masters' Gallery
In my hasty recap of the rules (mostly for Nigel's benefit) I forgot the rule about adding cards from your hand during the scoring phase. Andrew P remembered the missing rule just after the first scoring, but this wasn't much of an issue as there is little benefit in taking advantage of that rule early in the game. On average we scored 6 in the first round, 21 in the second, 22 in the third and 18 in the final round.

Andrew H 5 30 50 63
Anna 7 34 56 66
Andrew P 3 20 42 59
Ian 7 19 53 74
Nigel 9 32 45 75

Coloretto
Next we played a blast from the past, where Nigel's greedy strategy paid off. While my "strategy" of collecting 6 or 7 colours and at least two in most of them did not.

Andrew H 19 42 69 91
Anna 28 46 67 85
Andrew P 23 47 70 93
Ian 23 48 57 81
Nigel 25 54 77 97

Hornochsen!
Anne came home so we looked for a six player game. This was Andrew Par's first game and I gave him the briefest of rules explanations, so don't take his score too seriously.

Andrew H 3
Anna 28
Anne 36
Andrew P -16
Ian 44
Nigel 5

We played again and there was more red on the table this time.

Andrew H 64
Anna -6
Anne 6
Andrew P 0
Ian -8
Nigel 10


Overall it was a good evening for Nigel with two wins and two seconds. It was entirely accidental that we only played card games.

Wednesday, 1 December 2010

Giganten revisited

(Played: 20 November at home)
Gigenten is a game with nice bits and a reputation (in Peter's group) of being too long. I suspect that the cuprit for this reputation is that most times we've played it we have misunderstood one of the rules. I was keen to play it with the correct rules and knowing that this was highly unlikely to happen at Peter's place due to its reputation I borrowed it from Peter.

The game is about drilling for oil in Texas and more importantly selling the oil for a decent profit. Most of the board is the oil field, a grid of mostly dull brown squares, with the occasional green hill or grey mountain. Scattered around the desert are some face down tiles with 1, 2 or 3 drilling rigs on the back. Along one side of the board are some parallel train tracks (one per player and one for the "black train"). At one end of the board there are oil tanks for three oil companies each with their own price chart. The oil prices vary randomly and by player actions.

Drilling for oil is a simple process of driving a cute little truck around the board and turning over tile, paying for a drilling rig and finding out from the number on the hidden side of the tile how much oil you will be getting. Transporting the oil to the tanks is also trivial, whereas selling the oil depends on winning auctions. Each turn only one player will get to sell oil to each oil company. The players bid against each other using oil certificates, the highest bidder gets to sell oil at that companies current oil price and if anyone else has more than a couple of barrels of oil they must sell the excess at the rock bottom price of $1000 per barrel.

There are elements of managing both your money and your oil production (there is no point in paying to drill for oil, possibly paying to transport it if you are then forced to sell it at below cost price).

Each turn there are a number of cards to choose from which determine your actions for the turn (except selling which is determined by the aforementioned auctions). There is one red card plus a number of brown cards equal to the number of players. The rule we have gotten wrong in the past is that the red card determines how far the black train moves regardless of whether someone chooses the red card or not. Previously we have only moved the black train if some chose the red card. Given that the game ends when the black train reaches the end of the track, not moving it on some turns stretches the game beyond its design length.

Perhaps with three players we were playing too conservatively but there was no competition for drill sites, no trouble shipping oil back on ones own train and little competition to sell oil (at least in the first half of the game). This made things seem too easy. Perhaps we were playing too nicely and were not ruthless enough to choose the action to send other peoples trains backwards as often as we should have. Compared with previous plays (which were with four players) the game was too tame with three players.

There are plenty of games around building efficient production mechanisms, but very few around the competition to sell things (Automobile and Planet Steam are the other games that springs to mind on this subject - and Gigenten is short and simpler than either).

Tuesday, 30 November 2010

First Impressions of Gravediggers, Jaipur, Age of Steam Expansion: Beer & Pretzels and Endeavor (European Powers)

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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