There is a unfortunate trend in modern society to try to "top ten" everything, from books, to songs, to stupid dog tricks. Although certainly fun, it also over-simplifies and narrows the qualities of things - a movie might be admired for its direction, while lacking somewhat in a script, or a book might have a fantastic set of characters, but lacks pacing - as examples.
As widespread and reductive the trend is, one thing that "top ten" and "best of" lists and articles force you to do is really sit down and evaluate what you really like about something. After listing to a number of Board Game Geek "GeekSpeak" podcasts over the past few weeks, I've decided to come up with my own answers to their "hook", as well as defining a few other favourites.
Derk and Aldie's "hook" is to ask an interviewee about their favourite game for two, three, four, five and six or more players. They usually say that for the six or more player category, that you can also specify a "party" game.
Understanding that preferences can change over time, here are my game favourites:
Favourite Game for Two
Hard question, since I play wargames, many of which are intended for two players. My favourite Euro for two at the moment is Lost Cities. My favourite wargame for two is a toss-up between Firepower, which is an all-time favourite, and the newcomer, Twilight Struggle, which is sort of a "weuro" (Euro-game mechanics with a wargame-like feel). Forced to choose, I would go with Firepower, just because with only three plays of Twilight Struggle under my belt, I can't really call it a favourite with conviction yet. I also enjoy Zero! for two, but I prefer it with four. Combat Commander: Europe was making a strong play for this category to displace Firepower, but after additional plays, the bloom is off the rose for me - I still enjoy it, just not as much as Firepower.
Favourite Game for Three
Three is a very difficult number for games, for balancing reasons - it's too easy for two to gang up on one. I actually don't own many games which work for three. Probably Tigris and Euphrates, even though it's not one of my favourite games in general, and Colossal Arena, which is a little light for my tastes. China is also good, but I'd rather play Tigris and Euphrates over China unless time was limited. In the wargame category, Doom is a lot of fun for three. I haven't really played many others which work for three - Axis and Allies: D-Day and Axis and Allies: Pacific being the principal ones, neither of which being stellar in my opinion. None of the answers feel satisfactory for me with three.
Favourite Game for Four
Another hard call but for the opposite reason of three-player games, because of the sheer volume of games which work well with this number. Probably Power Grid as the front runner, with Tikal and Princes of Florence coming in very close second and third respectively. A dark horse in this category is WildLife - with additional plays, it may creep up past Tikal and Princes of Florence to vie with Power Grid for first place. Louis XIV may do the same, once again, more plays would determine the eventual winner. I think a lot of people list El Grande in this category; I like and appreciate El Grande; it's just not something I jump at playing. In the wargames, my favourite four-player game is Zero!/Down in Flames series, pretty much hands down. I love that game. Duel of Ages is not exactly a pure wargame, but I enjoy it for four as well.
Favourite Game for Five
At the moment the clear winner for me in this player-category is Railroad Tycoon. It's unbalanced, somewhat random and has a number of other flaws, but I just love it, conceptually and during game play. I also like Ticket to Ride for this number, but it's a little light for me. I also like Draw Poker (I prefer draw poker to Stud variants) for five or more, but in the board games category, Railroad Tycoon wins out. I used to love Shogun (Milton Bradley version) and Axis and Allies in this category as wargames, but I played those to death in my teens. With additional plays the new Shogun (Dirk Henn) may also feature as a "waro" (a wargame with Euro-mechanics).
Favourite Game for Six
Until I play more six-player non-party games (doesn't happen often, really) it's probably Railroad Tycoon again. I'd like to be able to say Twilight Imperium, but having only played it three times, and only once with six, I can't really say for sure. Same with Civilization - I've never actually played it with six, but I imagine it would be terrific (if long). Bang! works well with this number, if a shorter game is needed. Firepower works well with almost any number, but I'd love to try it with six sometime, with each player controlling a squad. Duel of Ages is a lot of fun with six as well.
My favourite party game for six at the moment is Wits and Wagers, which is really quite good for almost any group of adults and I've played a lot. I've only played Times Up twice, but I really enjoyed it then, so additional plays of Times Up might bump Wits and Wagers out. Same with Werewolf, which I've only played on three evenings (with one or two plays each evening). I've heard Smarty Party mentioned a lot in this category, but I've never played. A close second in the party games category would be Things... which is a lot of fun with the right group of people.
Derk and Aldie also typically ask the following quesions:
Favourite Book
Hard question, for the reasons I listed at the beginning of this piece. The books I've probably read most often is the Narnia Chronicles, followed closely by "The Lord of the Ring". I'd have to say "The Name of the Rose" by Umberto Eco.
Favourite Movie
My favourite movie is Blade Runner, for reasons which are too complex to go into here. Close runners up are Aliens, Apocalypse Now, Seven Samurai and Once Upon a Time in the West.
Favourite Word
I enjoy the sound and the meaning of "sibilance". Similarly I enjoy "serendipity" as well. Probably "sibilance".
Not on Derk and Aldie's list is favourite TV show...
Favourite TV Show
Another difficult choice. Almost a dead tie between DaVinci's Inquest, Band of Brothers, Deadwood and Firefly. Of those, probably Deadwood and Firefly and if I had to pick between them, Deadwood. Fantastic cast, direction, writing, acting... just fabulous. All of them are great. If Firefly had gone another season or two, it might have been Firefly. As it is, there isn't quite enough depth with just the 14 episodes.
I'll probably be shot if any fellow Browncoat reads that.
In any case, I'm burning up the last minutes of my lunch hour, so I'm going to finish playing favourites and turn it over to my fellow WAGSters for comment.
Friday, March 30, 2007
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Be Very Afraid (Wheedle, LOTR: Sauron, Mall of Horror)
Few games strike fear in the hearts of Wagsters like LOTR w/ Sauron expansion.
Well, that may not be exactly true. In the case of Shemp, this game inspires hatred. Our first play was a pretty brutal experience, since we tried to play it with the "black tiles" mini-expansion... and it was way too hard. That was February 2005. I happen to really like it, and so I took the opportunity of Shemp's temporary absence to give it a second shot.
After a quick game of of Wheedle (which continues to be a fun game, BTW) I again took the role of Sauron.
Lord of the Rings w/ Sauron expansion
The 4 hobbits (Kozure, Bharmer, Ouch and JayWowzer) undertook the hopeless quest. Moria was quite difficult for them. As they clawed thier way through the mines, Frodo became seriously corrupted and the Nazgul had succeeded in finding him (although he didn't make it back in time to end the game). Luckily for the hobbits, Helm's Deep and Shelob's Lair proved much easier. Things were looking pretty good for the halflings: Merry, barely corrupted, held the ring. The Nazgul found them once more, but again did not make it back. The fellowship hadn't yet been forced to resort to calling Gandalf or using many of their powers.
Then, in Mordor, it all went to hell. A substantially corrupted Sam unwillingly inherented The Ring at the conclusion of Shelob's Lair. What's worse, Jaywowzer drew many "bad" tiles on his turn (he was only the second player to act on that board, and by the time he was done there were 5 bad tiles drawn). I had been saving up cards to hit them hard at the end, and the combination was overwhelming. They were crushed just a few steps into Mordor.
I'm really happy I was able to play this again. The Sauron character is lots of fun to play, but the experience is quite different than the other players simply because victory is virtually assured... it's more a question of "when". I was frankly quite surprised at how easily the group made it to Mordor. I was doing my best, but they seemed to easily absorb my attacks (well, not easily, but I didn't really feel like they were struggling THAT hard). It's a bit of a hollow victory that the game was essentially handed to me by several unfortunate draws by JayWowzer. Oh well, the fun is in the experience with this one.
I do wish there was a way to eliminate the possibility of a long line of bad draws, particularly at the beginning of a scenario.
Mall of horror
We finished up the evening with Mall of Horror. Luch locked up the Security Headquarters in the initial placement, and with virtually no zombies attacking he was able to stay there. This meant the Luch was the Security Officer for most of the game.
Hapless movie extras scurried from one location to the next, hot bimbos gathered at the "toy" shop, zombies arrived "en mass". JayWowser had a bad run and was nearly eliminated early on. Then Bharmer found himself with no survivors and gleefully placed zombies on the board until the game ended. As the survivors dwindled, the security Headquarters and the Parking Lot were the places to be. I had my bimbo left, and was holding 2 cards, so I won the tie-breaker against Kozure.
I was a little dissapointed at the lack of deal-making during this session. It seemed that the result of nearly every zombie meal was a foregone conclusion. Not sure why it happened this way, but the theory is that Luch's lock on security combined with the surpringly low volume of Zombies to that room should be blamed for "breaking the game" a little.
Well, that may not be exactly true. In the case of Shemp, this game inspires hatred. Our first play was a pretty brutal experience, since we tried to play it with the "black tiles" mini-expansion... and it was way too hard. That was February 2005. I happen to really like it, and so I took the opportunity of Shemp's temporary absence to give it a second shot.
After a quick game of of Wheedle (which continues to be a fun game, BTW) I again took the role of Sauron.
Lord of the Rings w/ Sauron expansion
The 4 hobbits (Kozure, Bharmer, Ouch and JayWowzer) undertook the hopeless quest. Moria was quite difficult for them. As they clawed thier way through the mines, Frodo became seriously corrupted and the Nazgul had succeeded in finding him (although he didn't make it back in time to end the game). Luckily for the hobbits, Helm's Deep and Shelob's Lair proved much easier. Things were looking pretty good for the halflings: Merry, barely corrupted, held the ring. The Nazgul found them once more, but again did not make it back. The fellowship hadn't yet been forced to resort to calling Gandalf or using many of their powers.
Then, in Mordor, it all went to hell. A substantially corrupted Sam unwillingly inherented The Ring at the conclusion of Shelob's Lair. What's worse, Jaywowzer drew many "bad" tiles on his turn (he was only the second player to act on that board, and by the time he was done there were 5 bad tiles drawn). I had been saving up cards to hit them hard at the end, and the combination was overwhelming. They were crushed just a few steps into Mordor.
I'm really happy I was able to play this again. The Sauron character is lots of fun to play, but the experience is quite different than the other players simply because victory is virtually assured... it's more a question of "when". I was frankly quite surprised at how easily the group made it to Mordor. I was doing my best, but they seemed to easily absorb my attacks (well, not easily, but I didn't really feel like they were struggling THAT hard). It's a bit of a hollow victory that the game was essentially handed to me by several unfortunate draws by JayWowzer. Oh well, the fun is in the experience with this one.
I do wish there was a way to eliminate the possibility of a long line of bad draws, particularly at the beginning of a scenario.
Mall of horror
We finished up the evening with Mall of Horror. Luch locked up the Security Headquarters in the initial placement, and with virtually no zombies attacking he was able to stay there. This meant the Luch was the Security Officer for most of the game.
Hapless movie extras scurried from one location to the next, hot bimbos gathered at the "toy" shop, zombies arrived "en mass". JayWowser had a bad run and was nearly eliminated early on. Then Bharmer found himself with no survivors and gleefully placed zombies on the board until the game ended. As the survivors dwindled, the security Headquarters and the Parking Lot were the places to be. I had my bimbo left, and was holding 2 cards, so I won the tie-breaker against Kozure.
I was a little dissapointed at the lack of deal-making during this session. It seemed that the result of nearly every zombie meal was a foregone conclusion. Not sure why it happened this way, but the theory is that Luch's lock on security combined with the surpringly low volume of Zombies to that room should be blamed for "breaking the game" a little.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Dis-Joint-Ed (Tikal, Set, San Juan, Wheedle)
i'm writing the blog, but I wasn't there the whole night.
From what I understand, the evening started with Ouch and Bharmer playing Tikal. Treasure vs Temple, it seems. I don't know who won. This was followed by Set once Kozure arrived. I've never played, so I can't say much.
San Juan
I arrived around 9:30, and we played San Juan for the first time at WAGS (side note, I wrote recently that I purchased a lot of games recently which were unlikely to see much play because they were 4 player max. Well, Shemp will be bowing out for an undetermined length of time, so I may have been wrong).
As I've said before, San Juan is a rather clever simplification/ conversion of Puerto Rico into a card game. As this was my second game, I felt a little more in control than I did the first time. At this point, I'm thinking that it's a good game which benefits greatly from the streamlining it's received compared to it's big brother, but the loss of player interaction drags it down a bit.
In our game, Bharmer started a very lucrative chapel early while Kozure went production happy (to match his Guild Hall). I went City Hall. It was pretty close, but Kozure beat us out.
Wheedle
We had a bit of time before the end of the evening, and we had this Knizia card game sitting around (an unplayed impulse buy on the part of Tili). I'll be honest and say that I would never have bought this game based on the presentation alone... it's about as bland as they come. Then, I read the rules. If I had a shred of interest before, I lost it. Wow, it sounded dull.
Anyway, we started playing... and it was a lot of fun!
It's simple enough. The theme is stock trading. You split the deck evenly between the players and put a card in the center of the table. Each card is a stock from a fictional company, and the card in the center is a company in trouble. The point is to collect majorities and monopolies in stocks, and you do that simply by yelling out what you want in real time, making deals with whoever will listen and/ or swapping a card from your hand with the one in the center of the table. When you think you have a better hand than the rest of the players, you yell "stop" and trading ends immediately. There is a small catch... if the calling player has a single card which doesn't score points the entire round is a scratch (for all players) and the calling player loses points. Also, the centre card (the card which represents the company in trouble) converts all those cards into point losses that round!
Hands are scored and the next round begins.
Anyway, the dealmaking and frantic swapping of cards was fun. This is a game you could play with anybody and have a good time. You can concentrate on gaining majorities in small stocks quickly, you can try to pick up a monopoly in a stock everyone seems to be giving away, you can swap a card in the center of the table at the last minute in the hopes of messing someone's stock collection. Not rocket science, but still a good time.
I hear it's based on "Pit", but I haven't played that so I couldn't tell you if it's better or worse.
From what I understand, the evening started with Ouch and Bharmer playing Tikal. Treasure vs Temple, it seems. I don't know who won. This was followed by Set once Kozure arrived. I've never played, so I can't say much.
San Juan
I arrived around 9:30, and we played San Juan for the first time at WAGS (side note, I wrote recently that I purchased a lot of games recently which were unlikely to see much play because they were 4 player max. Well, Shemp will be bowing out for an undetermined length of time, so I may have been wrong).
As I've said before, San Juan is a rather clever simplification/ conversion of Puerto Rico into a card game. As this was my second game, I felt a little more in control than I did the first time. At this point, I'm thinking that it's a good game which benefits greatly from the streamlining it's received compared to it's big brother, but the loss of player interaction drags it down a bit.
In our game, Bharmer started a very lucrative chapel early while Kozure went production happy (to match his Guild Hall). I went City Hall. It was pretty close, but Kozure beat us out.
Wheedle
We had a bit of time before the end of the evening, and we had this Knizia card game sitting around (an unplayed impulse buy on the part of Tili). I'll be honest and say that I would never have bought this game based on the presentation alone... it's about as bland as they come. Then, I read the rules. If I had a shred of interest before, I lost it. Wow, it sounded dull.
Anyway, we started playing... and it was a lot of fun!
It's simple enough. The theme is stock trading. You split the deck evenly between the players and put a card in the center of the table. Each card is a stock from a fictional company, and the card in the center is a company in trouble. The point is to collect majorities and monopolies in stocks, and you do that simply by yelling out what you want in real time, making deals with whoever will listen and/ or swapping a card from your hand with the one in the center of the table. When you think you have a better hand than the rest of the players, you yell "stop" and trading ends immediately. There is a small catch... if the calling player has a single card which doesn't score points the entire round is a scratch (for all players) and the calling player loses points. Also, the centre card (the card which represents the company in trouble) converts all those cards into point losses that round!
Hands are scored and the next round begins.
Anyway, the dealmaking and frantic swapping of cards was fun. This is a game you could play with anybody and have a good time. You can concentrate on gaining majorities in small stocks quickly, you can try to pick up a monopoly in a stock everyone seems to be giving away, you can swap a card in the center of the table at the last minute in the hopes of messing someone's stock collection. Not rocket science, but still a good time.
I hear it's based on "Pit", but I haven't played that so I couldn't tell you if it's better or worse.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Swedishly Betrayed (Power Grid, Downfall of Pompei x2)
Reiner clearly had no clue when he put together Beowulf that the term "Swedish Betrayal" was going to become the king of inside jokes over in our little corner of Canada.
This week we played Power Grid and The Downfall of Pompei (twice).
Power Grid
This turned out to be a rather straightforward session of PG on the USA map. It was Tili vs Ouch vs Bharmer vs Shemp vs me.
I chose to start slightly to the west, while everyone else went east. As it happens, the advantage I might have garnered by being all alone in a very large region pretty much went to waste as the connections there are so pricey I found myself heading east! There weren't too many notable devious moves on anyone's part... mostly straight expansion with only a few surprise grabs. I managed a narrow win over Bharmer, who was also able to power 15 cities at the end (I think the difference was 7 elektros).
I once again purchased the 29 plant, and I'm thinking that it's a particularly powerful one. I haven't checked BGG to see if the relative merits of each plant has already been analysed, but being able to power 4 cities with 1 oil or coal gives a lot of flexibility at a crucial point in the game. When playing with fewer players, it's tricky because it's hard to get to your goal with a 4 city plant, but with 5 or 6 it doesn't even have that dissadvantage!
Downfall of Pompei
It' s been a while since we've played this one. Shemp played for the first time, which is good because for whatever reason I thought he'd enjoy it.
Predictably, unaware citizens moved to Pompei, invited their relatives and then ran in terror as Vesuvius sprayed lava. Although we played with 5, it's clear why the box says 2-4... with 5 there is very little control over what is happening (not that it's really a problem). Taken for what it is, I enjoy it.
Ouch (the gamer formerly know as Luch, ?????? and hapi) stood out in both games. He won the first by breaking the tie-breaker against Shemp. In the second, he lost to Shemp but he managed to get 100% of his meeples out! It's a shame he only had three (not sure how that came to be... omens?).
This week we played Power Grid and The Downfall of Pompei (twice).
Power Grid
This turned out to be a rather straightforward session of PG on the USA map. It was Tili vs Ouch vs Bharmer vs Shemp vs me.
I chose to start slightly to the west, while everyone else went east. As it happens, the advantage I might have garnered by being all alone in a very large region pretty much went to waste as the connections there are so pricey I found myself heading east! There weren't too many notable devious moves on anyone's part... mostly straight expansion with only a few surprise grabs. I managed a narrow win over Bharmer, who was also able to power 15 cities at the end (I think the difference was 7 elektros).
I once again purchased the 29 plant, and I'm thinking that it's a particularly powerful one. I haven't checked BGG to see if the relative merits of each plant has already been analysed, but being able to power 4 cities with 1 oil or coal gives a lot of flexibility at a crucial point in the game. When playing with fewer players, it's tricky because it's hard to get to your goal with a 4 city plant, but with 5 or 6 it doesn't even have that dissadvantage!
Downfall of Pompei
It' s been a while since we've played this one. Shemp played for the first time, which is good because for whatever reason I thought he'd enjoy it.
Predictably, unaware citizens moved to Pompei, invited their relatives and then ran in terror as Vesuvius sprayed lava. Although we played with 5, it's clear why the box says 2-4... with 5 there is very little control over what is happening (not that it's really a problem). Taken for what it is, I enjoy it.
Ouch (the gamer formerly know as Luch, ?????? and hapi) stood out in both games. He won the first by breaking the tie-breaker against Shemp. In the second, he lost to Shemp but he managed to get 100% of his meeples out! It's a shame he only had three (not sure how that came to be... omens?).
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Thursday, March 08, 2007
Thoughts on some new (to me) games (Dungeon Twister, Hey! That's my Fish!, San Juan, Blue Moon City, Goa)
I won a gift certificate at Thought Hammer recently, and purchased a pile of game as a result. Very few of these are likely to see much play at WAGS, since they are all 2-4 player games, but I think friends and family will enjoy many of them. Luckily, I was able to play all of them with some high school friends which came to visit, and I'm glad to say there isn't a bad game in the bunch.
Dungeon Twister
The idea:
A twisted wizard has created a dungeon and pitted two teams of characters against each other. The first team to escape out of the opposite end of the dungeon, or to eliminate enough enemy characters, wins.
The mechanics
8 tiles, each depicting a section of a maze (complete with walls, doors, traps and miscellaneous other features) is layed out in a 2x4 grid. Each player starts the game with 8 characters and a number of items (rope, speed potion, treasure, etc). Some are chosen as starting characters, and the rest are layed face down on the dungeon tiles and are revealed later. Players are also given 3 "jump" tokens (allowing 3 jumps over pit traps over the course of the game), a set of action cards and a set of combat cards. Every round, a player must choose an action card to play which will determine how many actions he will get that round (2-5). The trick is that the player will only get his cards back once he has played them all, so choosing when to play the high value cards vs the low value cards becomes a a critical aspect of the game. When characters engage in combat, players must choose a combat card from their hand (value 0-6) to add to the combat value of the creature. The highest total wins, but the catch in this instance is that all cards except the "0" can only be used ONCE in the game (if you've played Lord of the Rings: Confrontation, you've seen this system before). The "Twister" gimmick referred to in the title of the game is that each dungeon tile has a "twister mechanism" space which allows a character standing there to rotate the dungeon tile (or a second matching tile elsewhere in the dungeon).
Thoughts:
I was intrigued by this title the moment I heard about it. As an ex-Dungeons and Dragons player, the theme has obvious appeal. However, I have not really been interested in other games of this type (such as Descent, etc) for whatever reason. I think it's because those games are about the dungeon crawl/ combat aspect of rpgs, and have often resulted in long fiddly hack n' slash fests. Dungeon Twister, on the other hand, uses the theme to liven up what is essentially an elaborate game of chess. A player needs to plan ahead to either meet his opponent's characters on his own terms or to successfully escape out of the dungeon. He must therefore carefully manage his resources and create synergy between his characters, items and dungeon tiles. Obviously, this type of game would be horrible to play against analysis paralysis prone players, but barring that I really enjoyed the game. As an added benefit, the game publisher (Asmodee) is releasing a stream of expansions ensuring a wide variety of dungeon tiles, characters and scenarios to keep the game fresh. In fact, one of the expansions is a 3-4 player expansion (which I've purchased, but I haven't yet played a game with more than 2 players). Anyway, I really enjoy this game.
As an aside, I used to rate Duel of Ages in my top 10 games, but it was mostly because I hadn't yet played a better game of that type (team of characters, variable terrain, missions, equipment). Problem is, Duel of Ages has it's fair share of issues. I still enjoy it, and it's wargame-lite character makes it different enough to warrant keeping both, but Dungeon Twister is shorter, looks better and plays cleaner. Looks like Duel of Ages lost it's spot.
Hey! That's my Fish!
The idea:
There penguins on ice floes looking to gather as much fish as they can before the ice dissapears.
The mechanics
Players get 3 or 4 penguins (depending on the number of players) and place them on a modular board (+/- 75 tiles). Each tile shows 1-3 fish. Basically, when you move your penguin you pick up the tile you were standing on, so the board gets smaller with every move. A penguin can go as far as it wants in a straight line, as long as it doesn't go over empty spaces. When all the penguins are unable to move, the game ends and the player who picked up the most fish wins.
Thoughts:
This is a simple and fast abstract game which benefits greatly from it's theme. The exact same game could have belonged to the GIPF series and not been nearly so approachable. Easy to teach, fun to play and supports up to 4 players. Very good game.
San Juan
The idea:
Players are developping the city of San Juan in this card game variation on Puerto Rico.
The mechanics
Much like Puerto Rico, the heart of the game involves choosing from a set of roles every round. Each role is associated with a specific action, such as building, that every player gets to do (though the choosing player gets some type of advantage, such as a reduced cost, etc). However, since this is a card game much of the mechanics have been streamlined and simplified. Building costs are payed by spending cards from your hand. Production buildings produce goods, represented by a face down card, and that card can be sold to draw a number of cards into your hand. The buildings' special powers are similarly all repurposed to be hand management related. The game ends once someone builds his 12th building, at which point everyone counts up their victory points to determine the winner.
Thoughts:
Puerto Rico is a very good game which has always bothered me due to the needlessly tedious setup and finicky rules. Honestly, the game requires me to count out two stacks of tokens which are up to 70-100 pieces EACH, on top of sorting out a large supply of counters and chits. And you can't prepare in advance, because it's all very different according to the number of players! I like it, but if I'm choosing I'll likely go elsewhere. Along comes this neat little card game, and it seems like I might not need to play it's big brother any more. My only worry is that in Puerto Rico, I felt I had more opportunity to passive-aggressively affect the other players. In San Juan, my first few games have not felt very interactive. Time will tell.
Blue Moon City
The idea:
Players are rebuilding Blue Moon City following a great war between the various races of the Blue Moon universe.
The mechanics
This is a hand management game. The cards come in various suits, and each can be played two ways: they have a numbered value which can be used to make donations, and most of them have a special power that can be used instead (the 1 point cards have powers, the 2s have weaker powers and the 3s have none). Essentially, the game is designed so that your hand can almost always be used to do something useful, if not exactly what you had planned. The "board" consists of 16 tiles depicting the blueprints of key buildings semi-randomly distributed in a "+" shape. Each building has 1-4 spaces for "contributions" of different colours. Players move around the board making such contributions, and the building are flipped to show that they are complete once all the "contribution" spaces are filled. When this happens, the player who made the most donations gets a reward, and everyone else who made at least a single donation gets a smaller one. The "twist" here is that neighboring completed buildings give bonus rewards as well, so making a very small donation to the right building in a built up district can yield big rewards. The most common payout is crystals, and these are accumulated and ultimately sacrificed to the obelisk in the center of the board. The first player to make a certain number of offerings is the winner.
Thoughts:
As with many recent Knizia middleweight games, opinions on this one were mixed. I was happy to discover that I really enjoyed it! Once you get a handle on the various special powers of the cards, gameplay is very straightforward (unlike the mindbending Tower of Babel). Coming up with clever uses for your cards is very satisfying, and the game moves pretty quickly. If I had to knock it, I'd say that it could have been livened up a bit with building powers, or something along those lines, to reinforce that it's a city the players are rebuilding. It might have been interesting if the game rules were altered every time a building was constructed, or that the biggest contributer received a new ability related to the building when it is completed. Maybe these are opportunities for expansions...
Goa
The idea:
Trader barons are setting up shop in Goa. By efficiently aquiring goods, making money, founding colonies, etc, players hope to establish themselves as the winner.
The mechanics
The game has 8 turns, and each one starts with an auction. Following the auction, each player has a series of "actions" where they can either found colonies, build ships, tax, produce goods or draw development cards (one last option is to improve an attribute of the colony, allowing to build more ships, make more money taxing, etc). At the end of the game, points are awarded for the number of founded colonies, the level of advancements, etc.
Thoughts:
Goa is a complex game. It's been compared to Princes of Florence by many people, because of the auction/ action game structure (that, and the fact that it's also a "multi-player solitaire" experience. Far moreso than PoF, in fact). I find that the game has a lot in common with Traders of Genoa (also by the same designer). Superficially, there is the trademark "tower". I've only played three Dorn games (Traders of Genoa, Goa and Louis XIV), but they all have used this mechanic! Here it's used to define which items among the grid of available items will be auctioned off. From a gameplay perspective, players must successfully orchestrate lots of disparate elements in order to succeed (plantations and new colonies must be founded in order to produce/ store goods, ships and population must be accumulated to pay for advancements, money must be raised for the auction, etc, etc, etc. ). more than anything, though, I find the games focus on additional actions, game-modifying powers, etc to be right up Dorn's alley. It also makes for a very different experience than PoF, as the powers and cards make for a lot more variety in play.
One thing I found dissapointing was the extreme dullness of the presentation. Unlike most games of this type, the mechanics translate pretty well thematically. If the boards had looked different, I bet the game would be a whole lot "friendlier" (as it is, it looks like accounting). The auctions occur at the shipping yards, money changes hands as the buyers walk amonsgt the crates. Players plant fields for resources, but also go to sea and found colonies (an inherently risky proposition). Boards depicting these scenarios would have been simple to produce, and would have served to ground the game. It's especially a shame since this game brings out a feeling of "civ-building" which few of these types of game can pull off.
Supposedly, this game works very well with 2,3 or 4. Since PoF effectively bottoms out at 4, it's great to have a heavy euro which can be played with fewer players. I really enjoyed my single playing so far.
Dungeon Twister
The idea:
A twisted wizard has created a dungeon and pitted two teams of characters against each other. The first team to escape out of the opposite end of the dungeon, or to eliminate enough enemy characters, wins.
The mechanics
8 tiles, each depicting a section of a maze (complete with walls, doors, traps and miscellaneous other features) is layed out in a 2x4 grid. Each player starts the game with 8 characters and a number of items (rope, speed potion, treasure, etc). Some are chosen as starting characters, and the rest are layed face down on the dungeon tiles and are revealed later. Players are also given 3 "jump" tokens (allowing 3 jumps over pit traps over the course of the game), a set of action cards and a set of combat cards. Every round, a player must choose an action card to play which will determine how many actions he will get that round (2-5). The trick is that the player will only get his cards back once he has played them all, so choosing when to play the high value cards vs the low value cards becomes a a critical aspect of the game. When characters engage in combat, players must choose a combat card from their hand (value 0-6) to add to the combat value of the creature. The highest total wins, but the catch in this instance is that all cards except the "0" can only be used ONCE in the game (if you've played Lord of the Rings: Confrontation, you've seen this system before). The "Twister" gimmick referred to in the title of the game is that each dungeon tile has a "twister mechanism" space which allows a character standing there to rotate the dungeon tile (or a second matching tile elsewhere in the dungeon).
Thoughts:
I was intrigued by this title the moment I heard about it. As an ex-Dungeons and Dragons player, the theme has obvious appeal. However, I have not really been interested in other games of this type (such as Descent, etc) for whatever reason. I think it's because those games are about the dungeon crawl/ combat aspect of rpgs, and have often resulted in long fiddly hack n' slash fests. Dungeon Twister, on the other hand, uses the theme to liven up what is essentially an elaborate game of chess. A player needs to plan ahead to either meet his opponent's characters on his own terms or to successfully escape out of the dungeon. He must therefore carefully manage his resources and create synergy between his characters, items and dungeon tiles. Obviously, this type of game would be horrible to play against analysis paralysis prone players, but barring that I really enjoyed the game. As an added benefit, the game publisher (Asmodee) is releasing a stream of expansions ensuring a wide variety of dungeon tiles, characters and scenarios to keep the game fresh. In fact, one of the expansions is a 3-4 player expansion (which I've purchased, but I haven't yet played a game with more than 2 players). Anyway, I really enjoy this game.
As an aside, I used to rate Duel of Ages in my top 10 games, but it was mostly because I hadn't yet played a better game of that type (team of characters, variable terrain, missions, equipment). Problem is, Duel of Ages has it's fair share of issues. I still enjoy it, and it's wargame-lite character makes it different enough to warrant keeping both, but Dungeon Twister is shorter, looks better and plays cleaner. Looks like Duel of Ages lost it's spot.
Hey! That's my Fish!
The idea:
There penguins on ice floes looking to gather as much fish as they can before the ice dissapears.
The mechanics
Players get 3 or 4 penguins (depending on the number of players) and place them on a modular board (+/- 75 tiles). Each tile shows 1-3 fish. Basically, when you move your penguin you pick up the tile you were standing on, so the board gets smaller with every move. A penguin can go as far as it wants in a straight line, as long as it doesn't go over empty spaces. When all the penguins are unable to move, the game ends and the player who picked up the most fish wins.
Thoughts:
This is a simple and fast abstract game which benefits greatly from it's theme. The exact same game could have belonged to the GIPF series and not been nearly so approachable. Easy to teach, fun to play and supports up to 4 players. Very good game.
San Juan
The idea:
Players are developping the city of San Juan in this card game variation on Puerto Rico.
The mechanics
Much like Puerto Rico, the heart of the game involves choosing from a set of roles every round. Each role is associated with a specific action, such as building, that every player gets to do (though the choosing player gets some type of advantage, such as a reduced cost, etc). However, since this is a card game much of the mechanics have been streamlined and simplified. Building costs are payed by spending cards from your hand. Production buildings produce goods, represented by a face down card, and that card can be sold to draw a number of cards into your hand. The buildings' special powers are similarly all repurposed to be hand management related. The game ends once someone builds his 12th building, at which point everyone counts up their victory points to determine the winner.
Thoughts:
Puerto Rico is a very good game which has always bothered me due to the needlessly tedious setup and finicky rules. Honestly, the game requires me to count out two stacks of tokens which are up to 70-100 pieces EACH, on top of sorting out a large supply of counters and chits. And you can't prepare in advance, because it's all very different according to the number of players! I like it, but if I'm choosing I'll likely go elsewhere. Along comes this neat little card game, and it seems like I might not need to play it's big brother any more. My only worry is that in Puerto Rico, I felt I had more opportunity to passive-aggressively affect the other players. In San Juan, my first few games have not felt very interactive. Time will tell.
Blue Moon City
The idea:
Players are rebuilding Blue Moon City following a great war between the various races of the Blue Moon universe.
The mechanics
This is a hand management game. The cards come in various suits, and each can be played two ways: they have a numbered value which can be used to make donations, and most of them have a special power that can be used instead (the 1 point cards have powers, the 2s have weaker powers and the 3s have none). Essentially, the game is designed so that your hand can almost always be used to do something useful, if not exactly what you had planned. The "board" consists of 16 tiles depicting the blueprints of key buildings semi-randomly distributed in a "+" shape. Each building has 1-4 spaces for "contributions" of different colours. Players move around the board making such contributions, and the building are flipped to show that they are complete once all the "contribution" spaces are filled. When this happens, the player who made the most donations gets a reward, and everyone else who made at least a single donation gets a smaller one. The "twist" here is that neighboring completed buildings give bonus rewards as well, so making a very small donation to the right building in a built up district can yield big rewards. The most common payout is crystals, and these are accumulated and ultimately sacrificed to the obelisk in the center of the board. The first player to make a certain number of offerings is the winner.
Thoughts:
As with many recent Knizia middleweight games, opinions on this one were mixed. I was happy to discover that I really enjoyed it! Once you get a handle on the various special powers of the cards, gameplay is very straightforward (unlike the mindbending Tower of Babel). Coming up with clever uses for your cards is very satisfying, and the game moves pretty quickly. If I had to knock it, I'd say that it could have been livened up a bit with building powers, or something along those lines, to reinforce that it's a city the players are rebuilding. It might have been interesting if the game rules were altered every time a building was constructed, or that the biggest contributer received a new ability related to the building when it is completed. Maybe these are opportunities for expansions...
Goa
The idea:
Trader barons are setting up shop in Goa. By efficiently aquiring goods, making money, founding colonies, etc, players hope to establish themselves as the winner.
The mechanics
The game has 8 turns, and each one starts with an auction. Following the auction, each player has a series of "actions" where they can either found colonies, build ships, tax, produce goods or draw development cards (one last option is to improve an attribute of the colony, allowing to build more ships, make more money taxing, etc). At the end of the game, points are awarded for the number of founded colonies, the level of advancements, etc.
Thoughts:
Goa is a complex game. It's been compared to Princes of Florence by many people, because of the auction/ action game structure (that, and the fact that it's also a "multi-player solitaire" experience. Far moreso than PoF, in fact). I find that the game has a lot in common with Traders of Genoa (also by the same designer). Superficially, there is the trademark "tower". I've only played three Dorn games (Traders of Genoa, Goa and Louis XIV), but they all have used this mechanic! Here it's used to define which items among the grid of available items will be auctioned off. From a gameplay perspective, players must successfully orchestrate lots of disparate elements in order to succeed (plantations and new colonies must be founded in order to produce/ store goods, ships and population must be accumulated to pay for advancements, money must be raised for the auction, etc, etc, etc. ). more than anything, though, I find the games focus on additional actions, game-modifying powers, etc to be right up Dorn's alley. It also makes for a very different experience than PoF, as the powers and cards make for a lot more variety in play.
One thing I found dissapointing was the extreme dullness of the presentation. Unlike most games of this type, the mechanics translate pretty well thematically. If the boards had looked different, I bet the game would be a whole lot "friendlier" (as it is, it looks like accounting). The auctions occur at the shipping yards, money changes hands as the buyers walk amonsgt the crates. Players plant fields for resources, but also go to sea and found colonies (an inherently risky proposition). Boards depicting these scenarios would have been simple to produce, and would have served to ground the game. It's especially a shame since this game brings out a feeling of "civ-building" which few of these types of game can pull off.
Supposedly, this game works very well with 2,3 or 4. Since PoF effectively bottoms out at 4, it's great to have a heavy euro which can be played with fewer players. I really enjoyed my single playing so far.
Labels:
Blue Moon City,
Dungeon Twister,
Goa,
Hey That's my Fish,
San Juan
Wednesday, March 07, 2007
Note: Play this More Often than Once a Year...
Vampire: Prince of the City.
Last time we had this out (according to the blog) was March 9th, 2006. Strangely, almost exactly a year ago. Somehow I thought it had been longer. I guess we've just gone through a lot of games since.
As before, we (well, I) made some rules errors. The rulebook, as atmospheric as it is, is poorly phrased and organized in many cases, which makes for quick location of critical rules difficult.
Concerning Re-rolls: Any card or ability which specifies re-rolls allows re-roll of any dice involved in the challenge or contest, not just those belonging to the player. This is covered under the heading "Dice" in section 3.6. This may have made a difference in Shemp's strategy at one point.
Torpor arising from Resolution Phase loss: Agent Easy was sent into torpor in the last turn of this game because he only had one vitae remaining. This is incorrect... the vitae is lost if the game continues. (section 5.5 - Resolution Phase). This is my error in reading the rules. Fortunately, it would not have made a major difference for this game (though it would permit Easy to place second instead of fourth). It did make a major difference in our first game, so we should definitely remember this.
Where to draw from: For some reason, I told people in this game we drew from the bottom of the deck. I must have confused this game with another, because no where in the rules does it mention this. I can't recall the game where you draw from the bottom, but I know it happens somewhere. In this game, you draw from the top, and put event cards into play as they come up.
Cards in play cannot be put back into the hand. During the game, I lost two zones (harbor and mercantile district) which made it impossible for me to maintain my Labor Union Domain. Thinking it was legal, during my next Resource Phase, I put the Labor Union Domain card back into my hidden hand. This is illegal. Cards must be discarded outright or otherwise lost - they cannot be put back into the hand in normal rules. I used this card later for its one point value which enabled a event to be beaten (the one where Shemp and I were working together) so this had a moderate effect on the game. My mistake.
I am sure there are other rules we got wrong, but I was nonetheless really pleased to be able to get this one back on the table. It is very atmospheric and bloodthirsty - I'm not usually a bloodthirsty player, but one lovely benefit of games is acting out impulses that otherwise aren't socially acceptable.
A very important lesson to learn from the layout of this rulebook: Try not to use more than three to four typefaces on the same page (a generally good graphic design rule, I'm told) ... This rulebook uses five or six... a script-like (and therefore not easily scanned) font for major headings, a bolded, indented serif font for its sub-headings, Casablanca Antique (a "distressed" serif font) for headings of summaries and expositions and a sans-serif font for the summaries and expositions themselves. In addition, the examples are given in italics, and there are often very large blocks of italicized print.
This makes for a very visually dense rulebook, which makes for rapid location of certain rules difficult. Don't do this if you want an easily played game.
I'd really like to play this game again soon while the rules are fresh in our minds. Unfortunately with 5 players, the suggested play time of 2 hours for 6 turns is not feasible - even with five experienced players, I think 3 hours for 6 turns is more realistic.
So, let's play this one again soon, shall we?
Oh yeah, Bharmer won. Kill the leader is vicious in this game!
Last time we had this out (according to the blog) was March 9th, 2006. Strangely, almost exactly a year ago. Somehow I thought it had been longer. I guess we've just gone through a lot of games since.
As before, we (well, I) made some rules errors. The rulebook, as atmospheric as it is, is poorly phrased and organized in many cases, which makes for quick location of critical rules difficult.
Concerning Re-rolls: Any card or ability which specifies re-rolls allows re-roll of any dice involved in the challenge or contest, not just those belonging to the player. This is covered under the heading "Dice" in section 3.6. This may have made a difference in Shemp's strategy at one point.
Torpor arising from Resolution Phase loss: Agent Easy was sent into torpor in the last turn of this game because he only had one vitae remaining. This is incorrect... the vitae is lost if the game continues. (section 5.5 - Resolution Phase). This is my error in reading the rules. Fortunately, it would not have made a major difference for this game (though it would permit Easy to place second instead of fourth). It did make a major difference in our first game, so we should definitely remember this.
Where to draw from: For some reason, I told people in this game we drew from the bottom of the deck. I must have confused this game with another, because no where in the rules does it mention this. I can't recall the game where you draw from the bottom, but I know it happens somewhere. In this game, you draw from the top, and put event cards into play as they come up.
Cards in play cannot be put back into the hand. During the game, I lost two zones (harbor and mercantile district) which made it impossible for me to maintain my Labor Union Domain. Thinking it was legal, during my next Resource Phase, I put the Labor Union Domain card back into my hidden hand. This is illegal. Cards must be discarded outright or otherwise lost - they cannot be put back into the hand in normal rules. I used this card later for its one point value which enabled a event to be beaten (the one where Shemp and I were working together) so this had a moderate effect on the game. My mistake.
I am sure there are other rules we got wrong, but I was nonetheless really pleased to be able to get this one back on the table. It is very atmospheric and bloodthirsty - I'm not usually a bloodthirsty player, but one lovely benefit of games is acting out impulses that otherwise aren't socially acceptable.
A very important lesson to learn from the layout of this rulebook: Try not to use more than three to four typefaces on the same page (a generally good graphic design rule, I'm told) ... This rulebook uses five or six... a script-like (and therefore not easily scanned) font for major headings, a bolded, indented serif font for its sub-headings, Casablanca Antique (a "distressed" serif font) for headings of summaries and expositions and a sans-serif font for the summaries and expositions themselves. In addition, the examples are given in italics, and there are often very large blocks of italicized print.
This makes for a very visually dense rulebook, which makes for rapid location of certain rules difficult. Don't do this if you want an easily played game.
I'd really like to play this game again soon while the rules are fresh in our minds. Unfortunately with 5 players, the suggested play time of 2 hours for 6 turns is not feasible - even with five experienced players, I think 3 hours for 6 turns is more realistic.
So, let's play this one again soon, shall we?
Oh yeah, Bharmer won. Kill the leader is vicious in this game!
Monday, March 05, 2007
So, Grendel Ate My Legs... Again.
Christofer Marcusson the Battle-Scarred rolled over in his cot of straw and stared at his guest, one rheumy eye drilling a hole of intensity into the young thane, the other eye-socket a mass of healed burns and claw scars.
"Aye, young thane. I travelled with Beowulf Grendel-slayer in my youth. But beware, says I; The path to glory leads but to the halls of Valhalla, or the sodden bunk of a battered old man."
Marcusson sat up gingerly, leg stumps dangling where powerful calves once donned thick leather boots.
"I have dined in the halls of Hrothgar-King, and I have heard the fell screams of the Sea Hag. I drained full the draughts of the victory over the great Dragon when the great Geat himself fell."
A shadow passed over his one good eye, "and aye, I carried him on his shield to his cremation. He met his doom like a warrior, not as an old and useless churl."
"So hear my tale and know that not all who would sail into glory die happy or in the heat of battle."
Beowulf plus Taj Mahal, two fine auction/bidding games from Knizia, paired up to be our gaming entertainment last week. Unfortunately, as the intro to this entry alludes, my foray into Beowulf was not as successful as previous efforts. I had won both of our previous games with scores in the 40s (or thereabouts). This time I limped away from the final chapter with something like 14 points. At least I avoided the dreaded three-wound penalty of -5 points per wound, which would've probably put me into the negative. Shemp came away with this one, though I believe Easy and Bharmer weren't too far behind. About halfway through, my main goal morphed from coming in first to not being last, which is never a good sign.
This does bring up the question of whether it's very possible to come back after an early game disaster (or disasters) in Beowulf. I suppose later games will tell. I still enjoyed this game, but more from a survival perspective rather than a competition for first standpoint. I just felt like I was almost constantly fighting to keep my head above water (avoiding additional wounds and scratches) instead of being able to gain new cards and points.
This game is both more competitive and shorter than Knizia's previous game with a similar mechanic, Lord of the Rings. I enjoy both, but for very different reasons.
Taj Mahal falls into the category of games which I admire from a design point of view, but don't find very engaging personally. Once again, after falling behind early, I felt like I was largely out of the running for the remainder of the game. There are mechanics to assist in this regard, so I don't intend this as a criticism (yet). Maybe after two or three more games. Easy and Shemp duked it out for first, with Shemp coming in first, I believe and Bharmer not too far behind.
A bad night for me, but enjoyable for friendship and gaming in general as always.
Partially inspired by playing the game this week, I rented "Beowulf and Grendel" (2005 Canadian-Danish-UK co-production) on the weekend. It's not bad - a few great lines and a few real clunkers. Sarah Polly in particular seems out of place. Worth watching, though.
"Aye, young thane. I travelled with Beowulf Grendel-slayer in my youth. But beware, says I; The path to glory leads but to the halls of Valhalla, or the sodden bunk of a battered old man."
Marcusson sat up gingerly, leg stumps dangling where powerful calves once donned thick leather boots.
"I have dined in the halls of Hrothgar-King, and I have heard the fell screams of the Sea Hag. I drained full the draughts of the victory over the great Dragon when the great Geat himself fell."
A shadow passed over his one good eye, "and aye, I carried him on his shield to his cremation. He met his doom like a warrior, not as an old and useless churl."
"So hear my tale and know that not all who would sail into glory die happy or in the heat of battle."
Beowulf plus Taj Mahal, two fine auction/bidding games from Knizia, paired up to be our gaming entertainment last week. Unfortunately, as the intro to this entry alludes, my foray into Beowulf was not as successful as previous efforts. I had won both of our previous games with scores in the 40s (or thereabouts). This time I limped away from the final chapter with something like 14 points. At least I avoided the dreaded three-wound penalty of -5 points per wound, which would've probably put me into the negative. Shemp came away with this one, though I believe Easy and Bharmer weren't too far behind. About halfway through, my main goal morphed from coming in first to not being last, which is never a good sign.
This does bring up the question of whether it's very possible to come back after an early game disaster (or disasters) in Beowulf. I suppose later games will tell. I still enjoyed this game, but more from a survival perspective rather than a competition for first standpoint. I just felt like I was almost constantly fighting to keep my head above water (avoiding additional wounds and scratches) instead of being able to gain new cards and points.
This game is both more competitive and shorter than Knizia's previous game with a similar mechanic, Lord of the Rings. I enjoy both, but for very different reasons.
Taj Mahal falls into the category of games which I admire from a design point of view, but don't find very engaging personally. Once again, after falling behind early, I felt like I was largely out of the running for the remainder of the game. There are mechanics to assist in this regard, so I don't intend this as a criticism (yet). Maybe after two or three more games. Easy and Shemp duked it out for first, with Shemp coming in first, I believe and Bharmer not too far behind.
A bad night for me, but enjoyable for friendship and gaming in general as always.
Partially inspired by playing the game this week, I rented "Beowulf and Grendel" (2005 Canadian-Danish-UK co-production) on the weekend. It's not bad - a few great lines and a few real clunkers. Sarah Polly in particular seems out of place. Worth watching, though.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
