Luch wanted to play lots of really short games. To that effect, we managed to play Hey! That's my Fish!, Liar's Dice, Bohnanza, Mama Mia!, Wheedle, Set, Jungle Speed. Surely, this is a record for most DIFFERENT games played in an evening, and maybe most games too.
Missing the cut were: Falling!, Cash n' Guns and Can't Stop.
Bohnanza
I learned that Kozure is not a big fan of Bohnanza. Myself, I like the game, though I agree that three rounds is too long. The biggest problem, though, is how deeply counter-intuitive some of the mechanics are. The cards cannot be sorted or moved in your hand (I'm looking at you, Bharmer!). The three phases in each round always take a read through of the rules to remember. Whatever, it's a fun game once it gets rolling. Luch won, which was not surprising because he was clearly the best at setting up trades in his favour (my favorite was when he refused to take a card Kozure was offering him until he agreed to give him both, knowing Kozure could not afford to keep both cards)
Mama Mia!
I cleaned up at this game. Apparently, it's hard to complete all your orders by the third round but I had all but one done in the second. Throughout, it seemed like everyone else was playing for my benefit (if I had an order for 3 olives and a pepperoni, the other players would play 3 olives leading to my turn, and I would complete the order). I don't expect to see luck like that again for a loooong time.
Wheedle
When I last played this game, I rocked. This time, not so much. Out of four rounds, I called three and made errors in all of them. My score at the end was -10. The others seemed to be doing quite well, so I apologize to all for repeatedly making potentially good hands redundant.
Set
Set seems to be a board game version of Wii's Big Brain Academy. Find patterns in a set of tiles before the other players do. The patterns have to be pretty specific, though: The image on each card has four characteristics (colour, shape, number and fill). To make a pattern, every characteristic has to be THE SAME or DIFFERENT on all three cards. It's pretty hard to do (and to explain), but Kozure was clearly much better at it than us. He CRUSHED us. Big Brain indeed.
Jungle Speed
This was a lot of fun when we last played with guest Wagster Sonja. I'm happy to say that it was just as much fun last night. There was a lot of laughter, twitchyness and bruised fingers to show for it. Once more, Kozure displayed his affinity for pattern recognition by winning 2 of the 3 games rather comfortably, with Luch winning the third. Me? On a couple of occasions I felt like I was on fire and doing really well. Then Kozure would win, and I would realize that I am old, slow and not good at pattern recognition. Sigh. Anyway, this is lots of fun and I hope it becomes a semi-regular evening closer. Back to the Big Brain Academy for me... I will avenge these losses!
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Umm... what? (Liar's Dice, Zendo, Mao, Dvorak)
or... Metagaming is a harsh mistress.
For a change of pace, Kozure chose a variety of games where ther "metagame" matters as much as the game itself (he called them "nomic" games, though I'm not familiar with the term). In other words, what you know about the other players' habits and inclinations is as important as the rules themselves (poker is one such game). We were graced by the presence of normally absent Wagster Shemp (the lure of such an odd theme was too much for him to resist, it seems. Let the metagames begin!)
Liar's Dice
Everybody starts with 5 dice. They are rolled and kept hidden. Players must, in turn, make a bet or call. A bet might be "I bet there are three 4s on the table". To raise the bet, a player would have to either say that there were four (or more) 4s, or that there were three 5s (or 6s). When a player chooses to call the bet, the dice are revealed and SOMEONE will lose dice depending on who was right. If the caller was right, the last player who bet loses as many dice as they overbid. If the better was right, the caller loses one die. Play continues until everyone loses all their dice but one player. To make things interesting, 1s were wild.
This turned out to be quite a fun, light game. The player elimination isn't a big deal, since it's so short (except when you are eliminated in the first round... which did happen to me once). Countless variants exist, which would be fun to try. It seemed like our choice to limit raising the bet to raising the value AND the number of dice limited the variety of betting (once you have reached the 6s, there's not much you can do but increase the number of dice. By the end, we seemed to go to the 6s pretty quickly). I understand that this makes it a quicker game, but allowing a player to go from "three 6s" to "four 2s" would allow players to steer things back to the strengths in their rolled dice... or to bluff about it. As it was, it seemed more like straight push your luck. Fun though.
Zendo
There are several identical objects in 4 different colours. One player must think of a rule (such as the group must contain two red pieces) and then display two sets of objects... one which obeys the rule and one which breaks it. The key is that the player can leave several red herrings. In the previous example, the set which obeys the rule could consist of 4 objects, two of which are red and two of which are blue. The red blocks are stacked, but the blue ones are on their side. The other players must, in turn, put together sets of objects in an attempt to try to figure out what the rule is. Is the rule that the group needs to contain four pieces? Is the rule that two objects must be on their side? etc, etc. After each attempt, the player who knows the rule must declare whether the set obeys the rule or not.
This was a very clever game. After the initial frustration of trying to figure out what is going on, things fall into place rather quickly. As usual, I tried to overcomplicate things with my solutions (Kozure's initial rule was that one of the objects needed to be red. My first guess was "There has to be two red objects, arranged in a grid, with one object on it's side). Live and learn. Bharmer stumped us with "There has to be a red and blue object but they can't touch".
Mao
Mao is a game that, by definition, you aren't supposed to know about until you play it. I therefore won't ruin the surprise here, except to say that it involves playing a game without knowing it's rules. During our session, Luch came very close to losing it when he repeatedly comitted error after error. Kozure should have been careful, Luch was playing with a knife at the time.
I couldn't help but think that the game would have been better if the player who knew the rules wasn't playing, but all the reviews I've read since then seem to imply that the player "in the know" is normally involved. It's no surprise that Kozure won.
Dvorak
The last new game of the evening was Dvorak. Dvorak could be renamed "invent your own game", but whatever.
In Dvorak, the players collaborate to come up with a theme and a goal. Afterwards, players each secretely define 8 cards which will make up the draw deck for the game. There are no rules or standards for the cards, and since they are not discussed, there is no garantee that the means to end the game exist in the deck. Once gameplay begins new rules or cards can be added through unanimous vote. Players draw and play cards until the game objectives are met.
I won't embarrass the group by describing what the chosen theme was. I will say that two of the cards I created were "Corn" and "Fancy Hat", and that they were otherwise without description or use (just to see). Over the course of the game, a "Hole" card was added to the game by Luch which combined with the corn card producing unintended results. The fancy hat ended up being instumental to Bharmer's victory, of course.
It's an interesting game, but experience would probably lead to more satisfying results. The card mix wound up being pretty bad if getting anywhere was a priority. At a certain point, you are tempted to invent rules just so that an end can happen! Obviously, this comes off feeling cheap. I'm sure that very clever sessions of this have occurred, and that some players have been able to introduce rules which gave them advantages and led to victory (rather than going for "funny"). Our session was big on funny, but low on clever.
For a change of pace, Kozure chose a variety of games where ther "metagame" matters as much as the game itself (he called them "nomic" games, though I'm not familiar with the term). In other words, what you know about the other players' habits and inclinations is as important as the rules themselves (poker is one such game). We were graced by the presence of normally absent Wagster Shemp (the lure of such an odd theme was too much for him to resist, it seems. Let the metagames begin!)
Liar's Dice
Everybody starts with 5 dice. They are rolled and kept hidden. Players must, in turn, make a bet or call. A bet might be "I bet there are three 4s on the table". To raise the bet, a player would have to either say that there were four (or more) 4s, or that there were three 5s (or 6s). When a player chooses to call the bet, the dice are revealed and SOMEONE will lose dice depending on who was right. If the caller was right, the last player who bet loses as many dice as they overbid. If the better was right, the caller loses one die. Play continues until everyone loses all their dice but one player. To make things interesting, 1s were wild.
This turned out to be quite a fun, light game. The player elimination isn't a big deal, since it's so short (except when you are eliminated in the first round... which did happen to me once). Countless variants exist, which would be fun to try. It seemed like our choice to limit raising the bet to raising the value AND the number of dice limited the variety of betting (once you have reached the 6s, there's not much you can do but increase the number of dice. By the end, we seemed to go to the 6s pretty quickly). I understand that this makes it a quicker game, but allowing a player to go from "three 6s" to "four 2s" would allow players to steer things back to the strengths in their rolled dice... or to bluff about it. As it was, it seemed more like straight push your luck. Fun though.
Zendo
There are several identical objects in 4 different colours. One player must think of a rule (such as the group must contain two red pieces) and then display two sets of objects... one which obeys the rule and one which breaks it. The key is that the player can leave several red herrings. In the previous example, the set which obeys the rule could consist of 4 objects, two of which are red and two of which are blue. The red blocks are stacked, but the blue ones are on their side. The other players must, in turn, put together sets of objects in an attempt to try to figure out what the rule is. Is the rule that the group needs to contain four pieces? Is the rule that two objects must be on their side? etc, etc. After each attempt, the player who knows the rule must declare whether the set obeys the rule or not.
This was a very clever game. After the initial frustration of trying to figure out what is going on, things fall into place rather quickly. As usual, I tried to overcomplicate things with my solutions (Kozure's initial rule was that one of the objects needed to be red. My first guess was "There has to be two red objects, arranged in a grid, with one object on it's side). Live and learn. Bharmer stumped us with "There has to be a red and blue object but they can't touch".
Mao
Mao is a game that, by definition, you aren't supposed to know about until you play it. I therefore won't ruin the surprise here, except to say that it involves playing a game without knowing it's rules. During our session, Luch came very close to losing it when he repeatedly comitted error after error. Kozure should have been careful, Luch was playing with a knife at the time.
I couldn't help but think that the game would have been better if the player who knew the rules wasn't playing, but all the reviews I've read since then seem to imply that the player "in the know" is normally involved. It's no surprise that Kozure won.
Dvorak
The last new game of the evening was Dvorak. Dvorak could be renamed "invent your own game", but whatever.
In Dvorak, the players collaborate to come up with a theme and a goal. Afterwards, players each secretely define 8 cards which will make up the draw deck for the game. There are no rules or standards for the cards, and since they are not discussed, there is no garantee that the means to end the game exist in the deck. Once gameplay begins new rules or cards can be added through unanimous vote. Players draw and play cards until the game objectives are met.
I won't embarrass the group by describing what the chosen theme was. I will say that two of the cards I created were "Corn" and "Fancy Hat", and that they were otherwise without description or use (just to see). Over the course of the game, a "Hole" card was added to the game by Luch which combined with the corn card producing unintended results. The fancy hat ended up being instumental to Bharmer's victory, of course.
It's an interesting game, but experience would probably lead to more satisfying results. The card mix wound up being pretty bad if getting anywhere was a priority. At a certain point, you are tempted to invent rules just so that an end can happen! Obviously, this comes off feeling cheap. I'm sure that very clever sessions of this have occurred, and that some players have been able to introduce rules which gave them advantages and led to victory (rather than going for "funny"). Our session was big on funny, but low on clever.
Labels:
Dvorak,
Harsh Mistresses,
Liar's Dice,
Mao,
Zendo
Monday, June 18, 2007
What Bharmer wants, bharmer gets (Pirate's Cove, Goa, Ra)
Bharmer felt like playing Pirate's Cove, Goa and Ra this week... so we did.
Kozure had to drop out at the last minute, leaving us with three players. Couldn't have happened on a better night, all these games work just fine at that number.
Pirate's Cove hadn't been played for a long time. I'd like to say that I won because I played so well, but the fact of the matter is that Luch and Bharmer were rolling like wusses. Yaaar, ya heard me, laddies! Wusses! Without exagerating, a battle between the two of them (which involved 3 or 4 dice per side) took 3 rounds apiece to register the first hit! I did manage to take down the legendary pirate, which also helped.
Goa was next. My success last time was not in the cards this evening. Bharmer was cruising along at breakneck speed, colonizing and increasing his skills extremely efficiently (he ended the game without a single plantation). He also received the lion's share of additional actions. Luch, meanwhile, was also doing a very good job of advancing his skills while he also tried to garner bonus point tiles. While the race was tight between the two of them, I was floundering. In the end, Bharmer won the game by three points (sadly, a poor choice in my last few moves affected the outcome in Bharmer's favour. Had I not overpayed for a tile on the last auction, Luch would have had the most money and tied for first). I'm happy to say that Goa continues to be a very fun optimisation type game which plays well at any number from 2 to 4... not a range of players typically found for this category (3-5 players is far more common, and 5 is usually the magic number)
Last, but not least, we played RA. Luch gathered a large series of monuments to win the game, but along the way had a very nice "push your luck" bit in the 1st era where he drew 5-6 tiles while facing down the last RA spot. It was fun to watch from the sidelines... I would have been far to chicken to draw that many in his situation!
Kozure had to drop out at the last minute, leaving us with three players. Couldn't have happened on a better night, all these games work just fine at that number.
Pirate's Cove hadn't been played for a long time. I'd like to say that I won because I played so well, but the fact of the matter is that Luch and Bharmer were rolling like wusses. Yaaar, ya heard me, laddies! Wusses! Without exagerating, a battle between the two of them (which involved 3 or 4 dice per side) took 3 rounds apiece to register the first hit! I did manage to take down the legendary pirate, which also helped.
Goa was next. My success last time was not in the cards this evening. Bharmer was cruising along at breakneck speed, colonizing and increasing his skills extremely efficiently (he ended the game without a single plantation). He also received the lion's share of additional actions. Luch, meanwhile, was also doing a very good job of advancing his skills while he also tried to garner bonus point tiles. While the race was tight between the two of them, I was floundering. In the end, Bharmer won the game by three points (sadly, a poor choice in my last few moves affected the outcome in Bharmer's favour. Had I not overpayed for a tile on the last auction, Luch would have had the most money and tied for first). I'm happy to say that Goa continues to be a very fun optimisation type game which plays well at any number from 2 to 4... not a range of players typically found for this category (3-5 players is far more common, and 5 is usually the magic number)
Last, but not least, we played RA. Luch gathered a large series of monuments to win the game, but along the way had a very nice "push your luck" bit in the 1st era where he drew 5-6 tiles while facing down the last RA spot. It was fun to watch from the sidelines... I would have been far to chicken to draw that many in his situation!
Thursday, June 07, 2007
A Toronto Area Math Trade Tribute Session (Mr. Jack/ LOTR: Confrontation, Clue: The Great Museum Caper, Palazzo)
I recently participated in a Toronto Area Math trade. First off, i'd like to thank Willy the Snitch and Belash for organizing it, and for all the participants for making it a successful trade.
I wound up with quite a few traded games, and decided to make this evening my opportunity to give a few a whirl.
Mr. Jack and LOTR: Confrontation
Luch and I started off by playing Mr. Jack while Bharmer and Kozure played LOTR: Confrontation. The idea was to give everyone an opportunity to play both sides, as they are asymmetrical games. In practice, it didn't work out due to the different lengths of the games. In the end, Luch and I played 3 games of Mr. Jack and one very quick game of LOTR. Bharmer and Kozure played a single game of each.
Mr. Jack was a very interesting experience. The game features 8 characters wandering the streets of whitechapel trying to find Jack the Ripper. The catch is that one of them IS Jack. Predictably, one player plays Mr. Jack and his/her goal is to escape the neighbourhood or at least avoid getting caught for 8 rounds. The other player is trying to figure out which character is Mr. Jack and then to nab him.
8 cards represent the 8 characters, and on the first round 4 of the 8 cards are placed face up. The players take turns choosing an available card and controlling that character. In the second round, the second set of 4 are revealed... and so on. The deduction mechanic revolves around light. At the end of each round, the good player asks if Mr. Jack is in the light (near a lit lamp post or beside another character). If yes, all the characters which are "in the shadows" are eliminated as suspects. If no, the opposite happens. In this way, the good character will try to eventually narrow down the suspects.
Having read the rules, I didn't understand how Mr. Jack could be prevented from winning every time. How hard could it be to simply escape the neighborhood? I was wondering if it would be a case similar to the military victory in Lord of the Rings Friends and Foes, where you simply ignore that potential victory condition because it makes the game too easy. I shouldn't have worried... winning according to ANY victory conditions as Mr. Jack is very hard.
Why? Well, first of all the card selection mechanic prevents any individual character from moving more than 4 times in the entire game. Also, since the order in which the characters are chosen varies from round to round, there is no garantee that Mr. Jack will actually get to play his own character! Most difficult (and clever) of all: the rules stipulate that Mr. Jack can only exit the board if he finished the last round "in the shadows"... problem is the starting board heavily favours gathering in the light.
Luch and I alternated as Mr. Jack in our two first games. We were both terrible in that role, getting caught rather easily by the fourth round. Lucky for me, in my second turn as the bad guy I managed to avoid detection until the end. Still, it was extremely close as Luch was forced to make a 50-50 guess on his last turn, and guessed wrong.
I had a good time. It's a rather clever game of suspect elimination and positioning, though I'd hesitate to call it a "deduction" game. It's short, with most of our games lasting between 15-25 minutes. One note regarding the components... they are of very high quality and the art is very nice, but the package as a whole is substantially undone by the fact that it's entirely inapropriate to the grim theme: who decides to make a game about catching a serial killer in such a cartoony aesthetic? Seriously, the cat and mouse search comes through very well but the Jack the Ripper theme is completely lost. Oh well, can't have everything.
Clue: The Great museum Caper
Next up, we played Clue: The Great Museume Caper. This is an old game from the early '90s which bears very little resemblance to it's namesake other than the theme. Inside one of the most enormous boxes in my collection, you'll find a 3D map of a mansion. Inside the mansion, the up to 3 players place their pawns, the owner's prized paintings and several security cameras. Meanwhile, one player plays the "thief" who runs around the mansion in secret trying to snatch as many paintings as possible without getting caught (using hidden movement). The detectives will take turns moving and asking questions like "can camera 3 see you?" "Can my pawn see you?" "Are you in the red room?" in order to locate the thief. Ultimately, the biggest clue the thief will leave is that one turn after he has stolen a painting, it is removed from the board. Thus, the detectives know roughly where the thief is, but not exactly. Can the thief slip through the detective's fingers and attempt to get another painting? Or should he bail and try to flee the mansion through an unlocked door or window?
You know what? This was a fun game. It's extremely short... short enough that every player can have a turn as the thief in the amount of time a regular game would take. Of course, the games might take longer if anyone could avoid getting caught as the thief! Of the 4 of us, one didn't get any paintings, 2 snatched one painting and I managed to get two before getting caught (though they were side by side, so it's essentially no better than the others). None of of us managed to get the minimum three paintings we needed before attempting an escape. Since there are roughly 10 paintings on the board, I was originally thinking that the fun would be in seeing if HOW MANY of the paintings the thief would steal, in pushing our luck and sneaking under the detective's noses. Now, I'd be happy just to grab the 3 and get out! I do suspect we played one rule wrong: I think that if the thief simply crosses a security camera it should be deactivated. Either way, we'll see if experience with the game leads to more thief victories.
Most memorable moment: Bharmer location is found out on the first turn by a very lucky guess by Luch! To Bharmer's credit, he still managed to elude us for quite some time after that.
Oh, and the 3D aspect of the board is purely an aesthetic choice which has no impact on the gameplay (though it has a significant impact on my game closet)
Palazzo
We finished up with a game of Palazzo. Palazzo is a small box ALEA game by Reiner Knizia, which involves building beautiful buildings in Florence (I think).
Players will, through various mechanics, attempt to build tall buildings with as amny doors and windows as possible. Buildings entirely constructed of a single material are worth more points, but are harder to build. Small buildings count against the player, so it's crucial not to bite off more than you can chew.
In my first playing of the game, I bit off more than I can chew.
Things were going well at first. I had two three storey single material palazzos going. however, I kept running out of money and I kept having to use the currency option (which gives me AND the other players money). I'm guessing that my actions kept the others afloat. Then, heading into the final rounds, I made a very unwise purchase which resulted in a minor benefit to one of my palazzos and forced me to start two more single storey palazzos (with level 5 tiles!!!). I followed this unwise move with a another similarly unwise purchase, and found myself nearing the end with several negative scoring buildings. Bharmer, on the other hand, had a very tall, very windowed, very stucco building which gave him lots of points and won him the game.
Palazzo has got a lot of the eurogames checklist covered: It's got auctions, controlled luck, set collection, short playing time, and little direct interaction. It's also got enough odd little rules (which I suspect are thrown in as balancing mechanisms), that make the game a bit of a chore to explain (such as the way monies of different currencies can be combined, or the fact that auctions turn into a simple distribution of tiles when the stack exceeds 4 tiles). Also, as Luch pointed out the board components are both uninspired AND of questionable design (why the 5 pieces if they don't scale according to the number of players?). It all comes together into a game which works and is pleasant enough, but didn't really excite me either. I think I like it better than the deeply odd Tower of babel, which I traded it for, so at least there's that. It's also approachable enough that it might make a good game to introduce players to this type of game.
I wound up with quite a few traded games, and decided to make this evening my opportunity to give a few a whirl.
Mr. Jack and LOTR: Confrontation
Luch and I started off by playing Mr. Jack while Bharmer and Kozure played LOTR: Confrontation. The idea was to give everyone an opportunity to play both sides, as they are asymmetrical games. In practice, it didn't work out due to the different lengths of the games. In the end, Luch and I played 3 games of Mr. Jack and one very quick game of LOTR. Bharmer and Kozure played a single game of each.
Mr. Jack was a very interesting experience. The game features 8 characters wandering the streets of whitechapel trying to find Jack the Ripper. The catch is that one of them IS Jack. Predictably, one player plays Mr. Jack and his/her goal is to escape the neighbourhood or at least avoid getting caught for 8 rounds. The other player is trying to figure out which character is Mr. Jack and then to nab him.
8 cards represent the 8 characters, and on the first round 4 of the 8 cards are placed face up. The players take turns choosing an available card and controlling that character. In the second round, the second set of 4 are revealed... and so on. The deduction mechanic revolves around light. At the end of each round, the good player asks if Mr. Jack is in the light (near a lit lamp post or beside another character). If yes, all the characters which are "in the shadows" are eliminated as suspects. If no, the opposite happens. In this way, the good character will try to eventually narrow down the suspects.
Having read the rules, I didn't understand how Mr. Jack could be prevented from winning every time. How hard could it be to simply escape the neighborhood? I was wondering if it would be a case similar to the military victory in Lord of the Rings Friends and Foes, where you simply ignore that potential victory condition because it makes the game too easy. I shouldn't have worried... winning according to ANY victory conditions as Mr. Jack is very hard.
Why? Well, first of all the card selection mechanic prevents any individual character from moving more than 4 times in the entire game. Also, since the order in which the characters are chosen varies from round to round, there is no garantee that Mr. Jack will actually get to play his own character! Most difficult (and clever) of all: the rules stipulate that Mr. Jack can only exit the board if he finished the last round "in the shadows"... problem is the starting board heavily favours gathering in the light.
Luch and I alternated as Mr. Jack in our two first games. We were both terrible in that role, getting caught rather easily by the fourth round. Lucky for me, in my second turn as the bad guy I managed to avoid detection until the end. Still, it was extremely close as Luch was forced to make a 50-50 guess on his last turn, and guessed wrong.
I had a good time. It's a rather clever game of suspect elimination and positioning, though I'd hesitate to call it a "deduction" game. It's short, with most of our games lasting between 15-25 minutes. One note regarding the components... they are of very high quality and the art is very nice, but the package as a whole is substantially undone by the fact that it's entirely inapropriate to the grim theme: who decides to make a game about catching a serial killer in such a cartoony aesthetic? Seriously, the cat and mouse search comes through very well but the Jack the Ripper theme is completely lost. Oh well, can't have everything.
Clue: The Great museum Caper
Next up, we played Clue: The Great Museume Caper. This is an old game from the early '90s which bears very little resemblance to it's namesake other than the theme. Inside one of the most enormous boxes in my collection, you'll find a 3D map of a mansion. Inside the mansion, the up to 3 players place their pawns, the owner's prized paintings and several security cameras. Meanwhile, one player plays the "thief" who runs around the mansion in secret trying to snatch as many paintings as possible without getting caught (using hidden movement). The detectives will take turns moving and asking questions like "can camera 3 see you?" "Can my pawn see you?" "Are you in the red room?" in order to locate the thief. Ultimately, the biggest clue the thief will leave is that one turn after he has stolen a painting, it is removed from the board. Thus, the detectives know roughly where the thief is, but not exactly. Can the thief slip through the detective's fingers and attempt to get another painting? Or should he bail and try to flee the mansion through an unlocked door or window?
You know what? This was a fun game. It's extremely short... short enough that every player can have a turn as the thief in the amount of time a regular game would take. Of course, the games might take longer if anyone could avoid getting caught as the thief! Of the 4 of us, one didn't get any paintings, 2 snatched one painting and I managed to get two before getting caught (though they were side by side, so it's essentially no better than the others). None of of us managed to get the minimum three paintings we needed before attempting an escape. Since there are roughly 10 paintings on the board, I was originally thinking that the fun would be in seeing if HOW MANY of the paintings the thief would steal, in pushing our luck and sneaking under the detective's noses. Now, I'd be happy just to grab the 3 and get out! I do suspect we played one rule wrong: I think that if the thief simply crosses a security camera it should be deactivated. Either way, we'll see if experience with the game leads to more thief victories.
Most memorable moment: Bharmer location is found out on the first turn by a very lucky guess by Luch! To Bharmer's credit, he still managed to elude us for quite some time after that.
Oh, and the 3D aspect of the board is purely an aesthetic choice which has no impact on the gameplay (though it has a significant impact on my game closet)
Palazzo
We finished up with a game of Palazzo. Palazzo is a small box ALEA game by Reiner Knizia, which involves building beautiful buildings in Florence (I think).
Players will, through various mechanics, attempt to build tall buildings with as amny doors and windows as possible. Buildings entirely constructed of a single material are worth more points, but are harder to build. Small buildings count against the player, so it's crucial not to bite off more than you can chew.
In my first playing of the game, I bit off more than I can chew.
Things were going well at first. I had two three storey single material palazzos going. however, I kept running out of money and I kept having to use the currency option (which gives me AND the other players money). I'm guessing that my actions kept the others afloat. Then, heading into the final rounds, I made a very unwise purchase which resulted in a minor benefit to one of my palazzos and forced me to start two more single storey palazzos (with level 5 tiles!!!). I followed this unwise move with a another similarly unwise purchase, and found myself nearing the end with several negative scoring buildings. Bharmer, on the other hand, had a very tall, very windowed, very stucco building which gave him lots of points and won him the game.
Palazzo has got a lot of the eurogames checklist covered: It's got auctions, controlled luck, set collection, short playing time, and little direct interaction. It's also got enough odd little rules (which I suspect are thrown in as balancing mechanisms), that make the game a bit of a chore to explain (such as the way monies of different currencies can be combined, or the fact that auctions turn into a simple distribution of tiles when the stack exceeds 4 tiles). Also, as Luch pointed out the board components are both uninspired AND of questionable design (why the 5 pieces if they don't scale according to the number of players?). It all comes together into a game which works and is pleasant enough, but didn't really excite me either. I think I like it better than the deeply odd Tower of babel, which I traded it for, so at least there's that. It's also approachable enough that it might make a good game to introduce players to this type of game.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Wow, That Was Quick
BEGIN GAMING SESSION SUMMARY
Played at Bharmer's. Domaine to start. Everyone knew rules. Ouch won. Played Tikal second. Everyone knew rules. Kozure won, via careful treasure-grabbing strategy. Many pyramids capped early at 5-6 point range. Ouch finished close second place with lots of capped pyramids. We still forget to place tiles sometimes. Must fix. Played Domaine again third - already there, everyone knew rules. Kozure won.
Lesson learned: you can play three medium to medium-heavy games in an evening if everyone already knows the rules.
END GAMING SESSION SUMMARY
Played at Bharmer's. Domaine to start. Everyone knew rules. Ouch won. Played Tikal second. Everyone knew rules. Kozure won, via careful treasure-grabbing strategy. Many pyramids capped early at 5-6 point range. Ouch finished close second place with lots of capped pyramids. We still forget to place tiles sometimes. Must fix. Played Domaine again third - already there, everyone knew rules. Kozure won.
Lesson learned: you can play three medium to medium-heavy games in an evening if everyone already knows the rules.
END GAMING SESSION SUMMARY
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
