Ah Holloween...
So long as many brains consumed, we are happy.
With this in mind, we reached for two All Hollows Eve favorites (?)... Betrayal at House on the Hill and Zombies!!!
We started out with Betrayal. After lowering the lights, putting on scary music and surrounding ourselves with as many black and orange snacks as we could think of, we delved into the madness which was: Invasion of the Firebats!!!!
As the priest, I had a mostly uneventful run searching the house. I would gain a point in something, only to lose it immediately in the same room. I had no equipment, no omens, nothing. The house was developing in quite a wide open fashion, but there was this one... long... dark corridor. It was there that Luch, as big, bumb "Ox", stumbled across the omen which triggered the haunt. Only, it wasn't him who went insane, it was I. An evil portal to HELL was opened in Luch's room, and Firebats started pouring through. He ran, as did the others. Craftily, the forces of good headed to the rooms which would allow them to exorcise the demons and close the gates. It took too long for me to find an effective weapon to attack them with, and the firebats couldn't come fast enough to prevent them from acheiving their goal. It was a victory for the forces of good.
In our second game, I switched my character to the professor. There was a little boy, a fortune teller (Madame Zostra!) and a jock. We searched the mansion and were suddenly confronted by... OURSELVES!!! Our evil twins singlemindedly pursued us until we were able to finally take them down with our "very sharp axe" and "Pulsating Spear of Power". I'm happy to note that I killed no less than 3 of the devils.
Last year we played this and it didn't go over very well. I had since played a few games with another group, and had enjoyed it more. Figuring that just about anything is worth a second shot, Shemp Luch and Kozure agreed to pull it out again for the occasion. Luckily, it went over much better this time! It's still not a very good game, in the sense that it's poorly balanced, poorly documented and not nearly as scary as it wants to be. What it does do, however, is succesfully capture the goofy "b" horror movie experience. I still feel that the game doesn't really get going until "the Haunt", and the process of stopping, reading the book and finding the appropriate pieces for the scenario can really slow the momentum (in fact, I would attribute last year's poor reception largely to the delay caused by the scenario we played, "Bugs", which had a huge amount of counters to find and special rules to absorb). Still, I have to compliment the designers for finding so many different fresh experiences for each haunt. So far, no two I've played have been similar, and many have been quite original. This game isn't about thinking too much, it's just about having fun while you're on the ride.
Speaking about not thinking too much... thought requires a brain. Brains, well, they're meant for eating.
Next up was Zombies! I'm not sure if we've ever reviewed this here, but I won't bother. All you have to know is that you are in a city hopelessly surrounded by hordes of Zombies. Luckily, you have bullets. Unluckily, you have very few. Players are racing to rack up a number of kills (which vary by # of players), or find the helicopter pad and be the first to reach it. As everyone started on their killing spree, I headed for a corridor of zombies which I intended to take down for a quick body count. Unfortunately, the only body count to be had was mine... Others were more successful, with Luch emerging as the leader and Kozure not far behind. We all ganged up on Luch, which knocked him pretty hard and left him struggling to get to 20 (the goal for 4 players). Meanwhile, the Helipad was revealed and it became a two horse race (Me and Kozure) to get there before Luch got the last kills he needed. I held back my ace in the hole... a card which let me control another player's movement for a turn, until after Kozure cleared the path to the Helipad for me. I then played the card and dispatched 2 or 3 zombies to board the helicopter and win!
We played with some "quick play" rules we downloaded from Boardgamegeek. I'd say the game is significatly improved by them, as mauch of the useless and distracting dice rolling is eliminated in favour of fixed values (ex: at the end of your turn, choose 3 zombies to move 1 space). It was fun, many brains were eaten, and that's what matters.
See you next week.
Saturday, October 29, 2005
Thursday, October 20, 2005
We are the comic police, do not make us use farce
...or, more accurately, "We are the Karmic police, do not make use Force" (with a bad accent, the two sentences sound strangely similar)
The adventure continues for the most hapless trio to ever be in charge of saving the world... Stan McCormick (Psychic sensitive), Sam Buchanan (Nega-psychic) and Helmut von Stauffenberg auf Ulm (Genius)!
Our fearless gamemaster, Shemp, has given us the option of continuing the campaign we had just brought to a conclusion. We all thought that would be a great idea, but we wanted to change systems. He converted our characters from the mostly awful Paladium (Beyond the Supernatural, to be specific) to the Hero system, which he holds in much higher regard. To get our feet wet, we played a sample combat. The scenario was a brief flashback to an encounter which should have occurred in a plane of existence between the world we just saved (?) and the new world we "rifted" into.
As the scene opened, there was a large plain, the three of us, and (in the distance), three humanoids with really big helmets.
I can't remember their names, but they were funny enough that I hope Shemp chimes in with them for posterity. In addition to the funny names, they spoke in a funny accent, which had us misunderstanding many of their comments (se blog title). They were the Karmic Police, and they were here to have us settle our debt with "the force", or whatever. Armed with torn sleeves which gave us glimpses into a universe larger than ourselves (I am so insignificant!), "Cubes of Desolation" and invisible guns, they made for very interesting opponents.
Stanly rushed the leader, demanding to know where the temple they were just standing in had gone too. He was promptly attacked and responded with a quick (but effective) jab to the head. Sam started handling "Big Helmet #2" while Helmut fell prey to the cube of desolation. Soon after Stan knocked out his opponent and Sam crushed one of the cubes, the two remaining creatures regrouped with their fallen comrade and disappeared into nothingness. I have a feeling our debt isn't settled.
I'm happy to say that so far, the system looks promising. It's substantially heavier than what I would expect Shemp to choose, but I don't count that against it. The rules encourage "cinematic" combat, which means that it takes longer but is far more involving and satisfying than a random dicefest. Combat maneuvers are effective and affect future offensive and defensive positions, meaning that they actually get used as characters jockey to gain advantage in combat. It also means that there is more storytelling involved in the fighting, which is great. The fact that this system allows for meaningful character advancement is just icing on the cake...
My only (minor) complaint is with the initiative system. I don't find it very satisfying to act at the same time, every time. Not sure how to improve it without making things any more complicated than they are, but it would be nice.
With some time to spare, we pulled out "Tower of Babel", a recent Knizia release I just picked up. I wanted a few games which were relatively short, strategic and played well with 3-4 players (I also purchased China, and will pick up Ra when it's available). Other than some very positive comments by Chris Farrell at his blog, I didn't know much about it... I guess it was a bit of an impulse buy.
The idea is fairly straightforward: Players are cooperating to build the wonders of the world, each represented by three discs. It's an area majority and set collection game, but the method used to get tokens on the board is odd. On a turn, a player must either draw a card, or offer to build a section of a wonder (one of the three disks). If building is chosen, the disk will indicate a symbol and a number, which represents the number of matching cards which must be played in order for the player to successfully build it. If successful, a number of tokens equal to the value of the disc are placed on the wonder (the method to determine which player's tokens are placed will be described below). This is the crux of the "area majority" part of the game. The acting player normally takes the disc for end game scoring, forming the "set collecting" part of the game.
Of course, there is a Knizia twist:
A player will normally not have enough cards to satisfy the requirement of the disc. When the building action is announced, all other players simultaneously offer cards from their hand to "help" the acting player build the disc. Any, all or no offers can be accepted, but they must be accepted as offered. All players who's offer was accepted place tokens on the board for each card which was accepted, FOR ALL OTHER PLAYERS, A VICTORY POINT IS SCORED FOR EACH CARD OF THE APPROPRIATE COLOUR WHICH WAS OFFERED BUT REJECTED (bluffs are not scored). The majority of the decision making in the game happens here... An offer for lots of cards can help you conserve your own, but it will compromise your majority on the board. Rejecting the offer gives that player a lot of victory points. (A special card, the "Trader" adds another wrinkle: if offered along with other cards, the player is indicating that he/she wants the building disc rather than the tokens on the board as a reward for providing cards).
Wonders are scored "El Grande" Style (1st=points, 2nd= less points, etc, etc) when their third disc is "built". The points are on a sliding scale, however, so the first wonder to be built will be worth substantially less than the later ones. The game ends when all discs of one type have been built. Sets of discs (2 or more) are worth points at the end.
The fact that offers need to be accepted or rejected AS-IS makes the game, in my opinion. If I have three camels and try to build a 5 disc, and the other players offer 1, 1, and 4 camels... what do I do? I could accept 2 two singles and give the "4" player that many victory points, but retain the majority on the board (at the cost of giving away, in a best case scenario, easy third place points to those players). Alternatively, I could take the 4 and play only one card from my hand, preserving those cards to go after another camel disc on the board on my next turn, but giving up the majority on the wonder.
What if the trader is offered? Am I willing to give up the building disc? If i'm behind on the wonder area majority, it might be worth it.
The end result isn't bad at all, but is far from spectacular. It plays in the advertized time (+/- 45 minutes), offers continuous player interaction and offers various strategies worth pursuing. Unfortunately, the play itself feels a little awkward, the graphics are DULL, DULL, DULL, and the theme sets new standards for "pasted on". Also, the bonus cards a player gets for completing the third disc of a wonder feel fairly tacked on.
The session saw us all pursuing a fairly random agenda of wonder building and disc collecting. I tried to focus on picking up the white discs, and managed to get 4. The score was fairly even amongst us right to the end, and Shemp also managed to collect a set of 4, but a 5 point bonus card and a few points for unfinished works put me in the lead.
I wasn't blown away, but I didn't quite have a grasp of the possible strategies either. It's quite possible that this will get better with time (as has been said by others on the net), and the fact that it plays in such a short time pretty much ensures that it will come out again.
Tower of Babel: 7
The adventure continues for the most hapless trio to ever be in charge of saving the world... Stan McCormick (Psychic sensitive), Sam Buchanan (Nega-psychic) and Helmut von Stauffenberg auf Ulm (Genius)!
Our fearless gamemaster, Shemp, has given us the option of continuing the campaign we had just brought to a conclusion. We all thought that would be a great idea, but we wanted to change systems. He converted our characters from the mostly awful Paladium (Beyond the Supernatural, to be specific) to the Hero system, which he holds in much higher regard. To get our feet wet, we played a sample combat. The scenario was a brief flashback to an encounter which should have occurred in a plane of existence between the world we just saved (?) and the new world we "rifted" into.
As the scene opened, there was a large plain, the three of us, and (in the distance), three humanoids with really big helmets.
I can't remember their names, but they were funny enough that I hope Shemp chimes in with them for posterity. In addition to the funny names, they spoke in a funny accent, which had us misunderstanding many of their comments (se blog title). They were the Karmic Police, and they were here to have us settle our debt with "the force", or whatever. Armed with torn sleeves which gave us glimpses into a universe larger than ourselves (I am so insignificant!), "Cubes of Desolation" and invisible guns, they made for very interesting opponents.
Stanly rushed the leader, demanding to know where the temple they were just standing in had gone too. He was promptly attacked and responded with a quick (but effective) jab to the head. Sam started handling "Big Helmet #2" while Helmut fell prey to the cube of desolation. Soon after Stan knocked out his opponent and Sam crushed one of the cubes, the two remaining creatures regrouped with their fallen comrade and disappeared into nothingness. I have a feeling our debt isn't settled.
I'm happy to say that so far, the system looks promising. It's substantially heavier than what I would expect Shemp to choose, but I don't count that against it. The rules encourage "cinematic" combat, which means that it takes longer but is far more involving and satisfying than a random dicefest. Combat maneuvers are effective and affect future offensive and defensive positions, meaning that they actually get used as characters jockey to gain advantage in combat. It also means that there is more storytelling involved in the fighting, which is great. The fact that this system allows for meaningful character advancement is just icing on the cake...
My only (minor) complaint is with the initiative system. I don't find it very satisfying to act at the same time, every time. Not sure how to improve it without making things any more complicated than they are, but it would be nice.
With some time to spare, we pulled out "Tower of Babel", a recent Knizia release I just picked up. I wanted a few games which were relatively short, strategic and played well with 3-4 players (I also purchased China, and will pick up Ra when it's available). Other than some very positive comments by Chris Farrell at his blog, I didn't know much about it... I guess it was a bit of an impulse buy.
The idea is fairly straightforward: Players are cooperating to build the wonders of the world, each represented by three discs. It's an area majority and set collection game, but the method used to get tokens on the board is odd. On a turn, a player must either draw a card, or offer to build a section of a wonder (one of the three disks). If building is chosen, the disk will indicate a symbol and a number, which represents the number of matching cards which must be played in order for the player to successfully build it. If successful, a number of tokens equal to the value of the disc are placed on the wonder (the method to determine which player's tokens are placed will be described below). This is the crux of the "area majority" part of the game. The acting player normally takes the disc for end game scoring, forming the "set collecting" part of the game.
Of course, there is a Knizia twist:
A player will normally not have enough cards to satisfy the requirement of the disc. When the building action is announced, all other players simultaneously offer cards from their hand to "help" the acting player build the disc. Any, all or no offers can be accepted, but they must be accepted as offered. All players who's offer was accepted place tokens on the board for each card which was accepted, FOR ALL OTHER PLAYERS, A VICTORY POINT IS SCORED FOR EACH CARD OF THE APPROPRIATE COLOUR WHICH WAS OFFERED BUT REJECTED (bluffs are not scored). The majority of the decision making in the game happens here... An offer for lots of cards can help you conserve your own, but it will compromise your majority on the board. Rejecting the offer gives that player a lot of victory points. (A special card, the "Trader" adds another wrinkle: if offered along with other cards, the player is indicating that he/she wants the building disc rather than the tokens on the board as a reward for providing cards).
Wonders are scored "El Grande" Style (1st=points, 2nd= less points, etc, etc) when their third disc is "built". The points are on a sliding scale, however, so the first wonder to be built will be worth substantially less than the later ones. The game ends when all discs of one type have been built. Sets of discs (2 or more) are worth points at the end.
The fact that offers need to be accepted or rejected AS-IS makes the game, in my opinion. If I have three camels and try to build a 5 disc, and the other players offer 1, 1, and 4 camels... what do I do? I could accept 2 two singles and give the "4" player that many victory points, but retain the majority on the board (at the cost of giving away, in a best case scenario, easy third place points to those players). Alternatively, I could take the 4 and play only one card from my hand, preserving those cards to go after another camel disc on the board on my next turn, but giving up the majority on the wonder.
What if the trader is offered? Am I willing to give up the building disc? If i'm behind on the wonder area majority, it might be worth it.
The end result isn't bad at all, but is far from spectacular. It plays in the advertized time (+/- 45 minutes), offers continuous player interaction and offers various strategies worth pursuing. Unfortunately, the play itself feels a little awkward, the graphics are DULL, DULL, DULL, and the theme sets new standards for "pasted on". Also, the bonus cards a player gets for completing the third disc of a wonder feel fairly tacked on.
The session saw us all pursuing a fairly random agenda of wonder building and disc collecting. I tried to focus on picking up the white discs, and managed to get 4. The score was fairly even amongst us right to the end, and Shemp also managed to collect a set of 4, but a 5 point bonus card and a few points for unfinished works put me in the lead.
I wasn't blown away, but I didn't quite have a grasp of the possible strategies either. It's quite possible that this will get better with time (as has been said by others on the net), and the fact that it plays in such a short time pretty much ensures that it will come out again.
Tower of Babel: 7
Friday, October 14, 2005
Passive Aggressive vs. Aggressive Aggressive
"This just in… it seems a number of… creatures… have started menacing the U.S. and Southern Canada. Reports are scattered, but apparently there are… What? A giant gorilla, squid and a floating eyeball?"
Dave… is this for real?
"Okay, we're going to connect with our correspondent in Chicago to get a better idea of what's happening over there. Stan, can you hear me?"
"Yes, I can. Thank you. Carl, I have to say, I can't believe what I'm seeing. There's this giant ape just… wrecking… everything. It's about a half mile away from me. I'm hiding at the mouth of a parking garage and watching it swat the army jets out of the sky like flies. Oh, it looks like one of the rockets scored a hit! Wait a minute… IT'S A ROBOT INSIDE. Sparks are flying everywhere. It looks angry. OH MY GOD IT"S RUNNING TOWARDS US. GET…"
"…"
"…"
"Stan?"
"…umm, do we have anyone else? OK, Helmut. OK."
"Allo, I am here vith ze giant creatures. There is a big noise here, ze gorilla is literally MASHING the eyeball. Now he has the squid by the neck. Oooh, that wasn't pretty. Uh-Oh. It looks angry. OH MY GOD IT"S RUNNING TOWARDS US. GET…"
"…"
"…"
"Helmut?"
"Ughhh"
Okay, enough of that. This Wednesday we played Monsters Menace America and Tikal. (Sadly Shemp couldn't make it due to possible illness).
Monsters Menace America is a straight up aggression fest. Players take the role of large monsters inspired by B-Movies (as well as the role of a branch of the US Military). The goal is to "Stomp" as many sites as possible with your monster, accumulating strength and mutation powers along the way, until a point were a climactic battle occurs between all the monsters. Players also use their military units to attack other player's monsters in order to try to weaken them (the monsters can't attack each other until the final battle).
The game is simple fun. On the good side, the graphic presentation is quite good and the theme is captured quite well by the game. On the bad side, the rules of the game don't feel like their as good as they could have been. For example, it's odd that the creatures can't interact for most of the game. Also, for all the time they take up in the game in deployment, combat, movement and upkeep, the military units don't feel as useful or integrated as they need to be.
These are all relatively minor criticisms. If you are looking for another Puerto Rico, look elsewhere, but if you are looking for big monsters to go out and fight, it fits the bill. There is carnage. Players have fun. It's just not a very sophisticated game (they don't all have to be!)
Next was Tikal.
Tikal is a game I kept hearing about (along with it's cousins Torres, Java and Mexica) but despite the fact that Kramer designed them I never felt compelled to investigate… This is particularly odd considering that two of my favorite games (EL Grande and Princes of Florence) where designed by him. However, when Kozure mentioned he had bought it, I got very excited to play.
Tikal is game involving the discovery and exploration of ancient temples. Players send out teams of explorers into the jungle, hoping to claim the greatest of the discoveries for themselves. There is a distinct "Indiana Jones" feel to the theme.
The gameboard is a very attractive depiction of a jungle. The canopy of trees prevents players from seeing what is underneath, but in one corner a jeep and base camp indicates that the exploration has begun… 2 temples and an empty field have already been uncovered. The first order of any player's turn is to draw a tile to place on the board (the tile is designed to look like the canopy of trees has been cleared, revealing either an empty space, a temple or a treasure site). The remainder of the turn involves spending 10 action points on various potential… ummm… actions. Introducing a researcher at the base camp costs 1, for example. Other actions include moving the researchers, searching for treasure, delving into temples, etc. On occasion, a volcano turns up as the tile to be placed, and players must score their position. Points are awarded for temples which have been claimed, for unclaimed temples where a player has a majority and for treasures acquired. The game ends once all jungle tiles have been placed on the board and a final scoring takes place.
The result is an excellent, excellent game. It's not nearly as abstract as most German games, the play is strategic, and the theme is so accessible (and the rules so natural to the action), that I can't think of a medium weight game I would rather first introduce to new gamers. Carcassonne, High Society, For Sale!, Ticket to Ride, etc are all great gateway games but are decidedly "light". I much prefer this to Settlers of Catan, the medium weight "intro" game most would suggest.
The game does have one rather significant potential downfall… those 10 points can take a while to spend if you are not careful about analysis paralysis. On top of that, there isn't much to do when it's not your turn (I'm sure it's no coincidence, but these are also criticisms often leveled at El Grande and Princes of Florence). I'm perfectly happy to live with it as it is, however, because the number of points allows for some surprising comebacks and clever play. I think 3 players is probably the sweet spot for this one to keep downtime manageable (2 player might also be good, but I'm afraid that 4 player might drag).
I think my excitement for the game is partially due to a bit of Knizia overload. I REALLY enjoy those games, and have even purchased Tower of Babel recently because I think he is an amazing designer, but they have a very different feel than Kramer's games… Knizia games seem to revolve around a clever mechanic or two, with a theme applied (sometimes appropriate and well reflected by the system, sometimes not). Players must come to grips with the challenge and turn the system to their advantage against the other players. As much as they are intellectually challenging, the are a bit mechanical and often mathematical (the only Knizia game I find thematically engaging is LotR, although I consider that to be a huge achievement). Kramer's games avoid this… Elegance is found by tying theme to gameplay with innovative mechanics. The results can be abstract (Princes of Florence), Literal (Tikal) or in between (El Grande), but the results definitely have more "soul" than Knizia's games.
Not surprisingly, in my opinion the "Perfect" game (Ra) has been designed by the exact and calculating mind of Knizia, while the rest of the top 4… those I love playing but are each imperfect in one way or another, are all Kramers (El Grande, Princes of Florence and now Tikal).
For the record, as Konk in Monsters Menace America I CRUSHED Luch and Kozure, while Luch beat us both handily at Tikal.
Ratings:
Monsters Menace America: 6
Tikal: 9
Dave… is this for real?
"Okay, we're going to connect with our correspondent in Chicago to get a better idea of what's happening over there. Stan, can you hear me?"
"Yes, I can. Thank you. Carl, I have to say, I can't believe what I'm seeing. There's this giant ape just… wrecking… everything. It's about a half mile away from me. I'm hiding at the mouth of a parking garage and watching it swat the army jets out of the sky like flies. Oh, it looks like one of the rockets scored a hit! Wait a minute… IT'S A ROBOT INSIDE. Sparks are flying everywhere. It looks angry. OH MY GOD IT"S RUNNING TOWARDS US. GET…"
"…"
"…"
"Stan?"
"…umm, do we have anyone else? OK, Helmut. OK."
"Allo, I am here vith ze giant creatures. There is a big noise here, ze gorilla is literally MASHING the eyeball. Now he has the squid by the neck. Oooh, that wasn't pretty. Uh-Oh. It looks angry. OH MY GOD IT"S RUNNING TOWARDS US. GET…"
"…"
"…"
"Helmut?"
"Ughhh"
Okay, enough of that. This Wednesday we played Monsters Menace America and Tikal. (Sadly Shemp couldn't make it due to possible illness).
Monsters Menace America is a straight up aggression fest. Players take the role of large monsters inspired by B-Movies (as well as the role of a branch of the US Military). The goal is to "Stomp" as many sites as possible with your monster, accumulating strength and mutation powers along the way, until a point were a climactic battle occurs between all the monsters. Players also use their military units to attack other player's monsters in order to try to weaken them (the monsters can't attack each other until the final battle).
The game is simple fun. On the good side, the graphic presentation is quite good and the theme is captured quite well by the game. On the bad side, the rules of the game don't feel like their as good as they could have been. For example, it's odd that the creatures can't interact for most of the game. Also, for all the time they take up in the game in deployment, combat, movement and upkeep, the military units don't feel as useful or integrated as they need to be.
These are all relatively minor criticisms. If you are looking for another Puerto Rico, look elsewhere, but if you are looking for big monsters to go out and fight, it fits the bill. There is carnage. Players have fun. It's just not a very sophisticated game (they don't all have to be!)
Next was Tikal.
Tikal is a game I kept hearing about (along with it's cousins Torres, Java and Mexica) but despite the fact that Kramer designed them I never felt compelled to investigate… This is particularly odd considering that two of my favorite games (EL Grande and Princes of Florence) where designed by him. However, when Kozure mentioned he had bought it, I got very excited to play.
Tikal is game involving the discovery and exploration of ancient temples. Players send out teams of explorers into the jungle, hoping to claim the greatest of the discoveries for themselves. There is a distinct "Indiana Jones" feel to the theme.
The gameboard is a very attractive depiction of a jungle. The canopy of trees prevents players from seeing what is underneath, but in one corner a jeep and base camp indicates that the exploration has begun… 2 temples and an empty field have already been uncovered. The first order of any player's turn is to draw a tile to place on the board (the tile is designed to look like the canopy of trees has been cleared, revealing either an empty space, a temple or a treasure site). The remainder of the turn involves spending 10 action points on various potential… ummm… actions. Introducing a researcher at the base camp costs 1, for example. Other actions include moving the researchers, searching for treasure, delving into temples, etc. On occasion, a volcano turns up as the tile to be placed, and players must score their position. Points are awarded for temples which have been claimed, for unclaimed temples where a player has a majority and for treasures acquired. The game ends once all jungle tiles have been placed on the board and a final scoring takes place.
The result is an excellent, excellent game. It's not nearly as abstract as most German games, the play is strategic, and the theme is so accessible (and the rules so natural to the action), that I can't think of a medium weight game I would rather first introduce to new gamers. Carcassonne, High Society, For Sale!, Ticket to Ride, etc are all great gateway games but are decidedly "light". I much prefer this to Settlers of Catan, the medium weight "intro" game most would suggest.
The game does have one rather significant potential downfall… those 10 points can take a while to spend if you are not careful about analysis paralysis. On top of that, there isn't much to do when it's not your turn (I'm sure it's no coincidence, but these are also criticisms often leveled at El Grande and Princes of Florence). I'm perfectly happy to live with it as it is, however, because the number of points allows for some surprising comebacks and clever play. I think 3 players is probably the sweet spot for this one to keep downtime manageable (2 player might also be good, but I'm afraid that 4 player might drag).
I think my excitement for the game is partially due to a bit of Knizia overload. I REALLY enjoy those games, and have even purchased Tower of Babel recently because I think he is an amazing designer, but they have a very different feel than Kramer's games… Knizia games seem to revolve around a clever mechanic or two, with a theme applied (sometimes appropriate and well reflected by the system, sometimes not). Players must come to grips with the challenge and turn the system to their advantage against the other players. As much as they are intellectually challenging, the are a bit mechanical and often mathematical (the only Knizia game I find thematically engaging is LotR, although I consider that to be a huge achievement). Kramer's games avoid this… Elegance is found by tying theme to gameplay with innovative mechanics. The results can be abstract (Princes of Florence), Literal (Tikal) or in between (El Grande), but the results definitely have more "soul" than Knizia's games.
Not surprisingly, in my opinion the "Perfect" game (Ra) has been designed by the exact and calculating mind of Knizia, while the rest of the top 4… those I love playing but are each imperfect in one way or another, are all Kramers (El Grande, Princes of Florence and now Tikal).
For the record, as Konk in Monsters Menace America I CRUSHED Luch and Kozure, while Luch beat us both handily at Tikal.
Ratings:
Monsters Menace America: 6
Tikal: 9
Labels:
Kramer,
Monsters Menace America,
Session,
Tikal
Saturday, October 08, 2005
Big is IN
Wednesday this week found us down a player once more, as Kozure was unable to attend. What works with three? Not too much in my collection, as it turns out. I didn't feel like Puerto Rico, and we had just played Robo-Rally (I am going to make it a point to make my next purchase 3 player friendly...) Anyway, I settled on a jumbo sized game of Carcassonne (with EVERY expansion included) to start out the evening. I have also had an itch to play Duel of Ages for quite a while now, so I was determined to make it work for three (DoA says it's a game for 2-16 players, but in fact the game consists strictly of two teams... a 3 player game would force 1 player to play twice as many characters as the others... far from ideal).
Started with Carc. I really like this game, because it's exactly as complex and strategic as you want to make it (sure, it's random... but it works for what it is) . With all expansions in, it's got quite a lot going on! We played with: "The River","The King and Scout", "The Count of Carcassonne", "Inns and Cathedrals", "Traders and Builders" and "The Princess and the Dragon" (As far as I know, that is every expansion available). Since we don't seem to get around to playing any one game really often, remembering all the rules for each expansion was a little daunting (particularly "The Count" and "The Princess and the Dragon"). What this mega game really pointed out, for me, is how well most of these expansions ratchet up the strategy just a little bit at a time. There are two, however, which are exceptions: The Count is fairly complex and fiddly in comparison to most, but luckily I like what it adds. The same can't be said for "The Prncess and the Dragon". The rules this adds are interesting in principle (various ways of getting meeples off the board, along with a method to get meeples into unfinished cities/roads/cloisters), but in practice it doesn't quite fit. I've said before that I felt this expansion would probably best be played on it's own, and this session backs that up. The fairy, in particular, is a pain to keep track of with so much going on. I'd love to try this mega-Carc again sometime soon, but without "The Princess and the Dragon", I think it would be much better.
For the record, I made an effort to go for goods and large cities (to snag the King). I did manage to get the majority in 2 of 3 goods, but unfortunately, Luch managed to beat me out for every large city or road I would try to build! In the end, he won by quite a large margin (I find that the more expansions we play with, the larger the spread in scores). This didn't seem to be Shemp's night... he had a hard time getting things going and came in last.
Next up was Duel of Ages.I checked out the official website and downloaded their 3-4 player variant rules (termed "Cutthroat Rules") and decided to give them a try. How did it go? Great! The rules add minor changes which effectively eliminate many of the problems inherent in any 3 player free for all battle game (two fight it out, and the third swoops in to win, or two gang up on the third, leaving that player no chance).
The changes are fairly simple: 2 players form a temporary alliance, and the third is termed the "Loner". The loner gets an additional character+ 2 equipment to start, but is otherwise at a disadvantage due to fewer characters compared to the alliance. The "Alliance" take their turn as though they were 1 team (i.e., they both move, then they both battle, then they both do challenges, etc). They are considered allies as far as special powers, combat and movement go. HOWEVER, the twist is that once a player manages to kill one of the Loner's characters, that player becomes the NEW Loner,drawing a new character+2 equipment at the start of his/ her next turn (the previous Loner joins forces with the third player in the Alliance). This interesting mechanic constantly shifts the forces of power, keeps the target moving to avoid kingmaker problems and creates interesting temporary alliances. There are also changes in the scoring which gives diminishing points for placing 1st or 2nd in the labyrinths.
We played a simple game, including only the basic labyrinths and no special keys. We used 5 characters apiece (4 might have been better). I started out as the Loner, and drew a competent mix of fast and powerful characters. I was fairly successful in completing challenges (drawing far too many mounts than I needed as rewards). In time, my Robin Hood was killed and Luch took over as loner. I did eventually get the title back (drawing the pile of WeeWaks for my trouble), and had a very successful finish with a score of 13-3-1 (or something like that).
Unfortunately, this session didn't feature too many really memorable moments. The game mostly involved each player making straight lines to their labyrinths, with a few combats along the way. Not sure why it didn't click, but I'm not going to blame the 3 player variant, as I'm quite happy with how that turned out.
Started with Carc. I really like this game, because it's exactly as complex and strategic as you want to make it (sure, it's random... but it works for what it is) . With all expansions in, it's got quite a lot going on! We played with: "The River","The King and Scout", "The Count of Carcassonne", "Inns and Cathedrals", "Traders and Builders" and "The Princess and the Dragon" (As far as I know, that is every expansion available). Since we don't seem to get around to playing any one game really often, remembering all the rules for each expansion was a little daunting (particularly "The Count" and "The Princess and the Dragon"). What this mega game really pointed out, for me, is how well most of these expansions ratchet up the strategy just a little bit at a time. There are two, however, which are exceptions: The Count is fairly complex and fiddly in comparison to most, but luckily I like what it adds. The same can't be said for "The Prncess and the Dragon". The rules this adds are interesting in principle (various ways of getting meeples off the board, along with a method to get meeples into unfinished cities/roads/cloisters), but in practice it doesn't quite fit. I've said before that I felt this expansion would probably best be played on it's own, and this session backs that up. The fairy, in particular, is a pain to keep track of with so much going on. I'd love to try this mega-Carc again sometime soon, but without "The Princess and the Dragon", I think it would be much better.
For the record, I made an effort to go for goods and large cities (to snag the King). I did manage to get the majority in 2 of 3 goods, but unfortunately, Luch managed to beat me out for every large city or road I would try to build! In the end, he won by quite a large margin (I find that the more expansions we play with, the larger the spread in scores). This didn't seem to be Shemp's night... he had a hard time getting things going and came in last.
Next up was Duel of Ages.I checked out the official website and downloaded their 3-4 player variant rules (termed "Cutthroat Rules") and decided to give them a try. How did it go? Great! The rules add minor changes which effectively eliminate many of the problems inherent in any 3 player free for all battle game (two fight it out, and the third swoops in to win, or two gang up on the third, leaving that player no chance).
The changes are fairly simple: 2 players form a temporary alliance, and the third is termed the "Loner". The loner gets an additional character+ 2 equipment to start, but is otherwise at a disadvantage due to fewer characters compared to the alliance. The "Alliance" take their turn as though they were 1 team (i.e., they both move, then they both battle, then they both do challenges, etc). They are considered allies as far as special powers, combat and movement go. HOWEVER, the twist is that once a player manages to kill one of the Loner's characters, that player becomes the NEW Loner,drawing a new character+2 equipment at the start of his/ her next turn (the previous Loner joins forces with the third player in the Alliance). This interesting mechanic constantly shifts the forces of power, keeps the target moving to avoid kingmaker problems and creates interesting temporary alliances. There are also changes in the scoring which gives diminishing points for placing 1st or 2nd in the labyrinths.
We played a simple game, including only the basic labyrinths and no special keys. We used 5 characters apiece (4 might have been better). I started out as the Loner, and drew a competent mix of fast and powerful characters. I was fairly successful in completing challenges (drawing far too many mounts than I needed as rewards). In time, my Robin Hood was killed and Luch took over as loner. I did eventually get the title back (drawing the pile of WeeWaks for my trouble), and had a very successful finish with a score of 13-3-1 (or something like that).
Unfortunately, this session didn't feature too many really memorable moments. The game mostly involved each player making straight lines to their labyrinths, with a few combats along the way. Not sure why it didn't click, but I'm not going to blame the 3 player variant, as I'm quite happy with how that turned out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
