Sunday, February 22, 2009

A Perfect Storm (Fury of Dracula, Entdecker)

We were three players again, so my plans to pick Cosmic Encounter and Space Alert were dashed. Instead, I chose Fury of Dracula and Entdecker.

Fury of Dracula

Kozure and I have been Dracula numerous times, so Shemp tried his hand as the count for the first time. After the usual rules recap (man, this game has a lot of rules), we started the search. Kozure and I decided after a few turns that Drac was likely in the east... and a bit of searching there revealed his trail as we had hoped. Shemp managed to elude us for a while, but didn't manage to leave the east. Cornered by our four investigators, he tried to escape to sea. Unfortunately for him, I had stormy seas in hand and I was 99% sure I knew which sea space he was in. Even more unfortunate (for Shemp, anyway), after I picked correctly he revealed that to get back to land he needed to cross his path! After losing the blood and clearing his trail, we knew exactly where he was and we closed in for the kill. Outnumbered, outequipped and forced to fight during the day the vamp was slaughtered over the course of a few combats. At 1.5 hours, this was likely the shortest game of Fury of Dracula ever.

This game is interesting because while there is definite room for skill, strategy and cunning, the order that the cards come out can create situations that heavily favour one side or the other. In this case, the only "mistake" Shemp made was to leave himself no way out if he was ever forced to return to land. If I didn't have that card, he would have made a perfect escape and we would have lost him.

While it wasn't a normal session, it was still fun. I wonder whether Shemp will want a rematch next week?

Entecker

Entdecker is a game that I picked up in a math trade, and which exemplifies the problem with good games that don't stand out. For whatever reason, even though the game is enjoyable it lacks a certain spark. I mean, the theme of sea exploration is well captured by the mechanics, the idea of the players creating the regions to be scored is one I quite like and there is no denying that the seascape created in the game is quite attractive. Still, it's ultimately a Carcassonne and El Grande mash-up, a VP fest. As Kozure pointed out, it's also a little long for what it is.

It does work though, and I do do enjoy playing it.

Even though Shemp hadn't yet played it, he did very well. He snagged a couple of big islands, and my attempts to come in 2nd in as many islands as I could didn't pay off. When the native huts where all tallied, he beat me by about a dozen points.

Friday, February 13, 2009

Backstabstract (So Long, Sucker! x2, Cosmic Encounter x2)

It was Shemp's pick, and it was positively Luchian: He did a search on BGG for the word "Backstabby" and then selected 5 games from the list it returned. In the end it didn't matter, we played two sessions of two of the games instead.

So Long, Sucker!

This is an abstract backstabby game (or "Backstabstract", if you will) which was co-designed by John Nash, the mathematician featured in "A Beautiful Mind".

It's simple on the surface, as abstracts often are. It's a chip placement game, but with a heavy emphasis on cutting deals a la Intrigue.

We played two games, and lots of deals were made. Moves can be planned several turns in advance, and frequently a whole sequence of turns would be proposed between two players to achieve a certain nefarious goal. Our group showed a particular knack for living up to the letter of the agreements, but not the spirit: loopholes in agreements where gleefully exploited (not that the game forces players to live up to agreements, but it's more fun to do it this way). Kozure masterminded his way to the top in game 1, and Shemp edged me out in game 2.

Cosmic Encounter

I have the new Fantasy Flight version of this game from the late 70s/ early 80s. I had high hopes for it as a light, fun game with lots of negotiation, backstabbery and variety.

The goal in cosmic Encounter is to get your ships on 5 of the other player's planets first. The basic structure of the game is that on your turn you draw a card which instructs you regarding which player to attack. Then, alliances are made on the offensive and defensive side, each main player chooses a card from their hand and the highest total (number on card + number of ships) wins. If you win as the attacker, you and your allies get to set up a colony on that player's planet. If you win as the defender, your planet is safe and your allies get to draw cards or recuperate destroyed ships as compensation.

This basic structure is livened up by the fact that each player represents a race which has a unique, game changing power. Also, the attack deck is peppered with "flares" which are limited versions of all the race powers in play (which become "super flares" in the hands of the correct race). Finally, in addition to the attack and flare cards, there are "negotiate" cards which allow... negotation.

In our first game, I was the "observer" race. My power was that my allies don't die in battle. I thought it sounded intriguing, and on the very first turn I asked Shemp to help me in a battle under the pretense that "he had nothing to lose". Beleiving this to be true, he committed a large part of his army of flying saucers to my cause. Little did either of us know, but there are cards in the attack deck which cancel the use of a race power. Kozure, playing the "Zombie" race, prevented me from saving Shemp's ships when I lost. Shemp never recovered. Although Kozure was easily dominating the game, Bharmer spied an opportunity to sneak his way to 4 colonies on his turn, giving him the win.

I think we all had a good time, and it was short enough to try again so we did.

In our second game, I player "The Loser". This race has the ability to reverse the winning conditions in a battle (i.e. a win result means "lose", a lose result means "win". Kozure was "The Oracle" which forces battling opponents to reveal their card before the Oracle reveals hers. Shemp was a race that grew in strength when it won a battle, and grew even more when it lost. Bharmer had a power which allowed him to keep a full hand at all times.

For whatever reason, we struggled on a couple occasions to figure out how certain powers interact. There was a situation where I, as the Loser, reversed the win conditions to a battle with Kozure, the Oracle. I reversed the win conditions but he only had a negotiate, so what happens then? We ruled that the negotiate card would normally lose and collect retribution, so if reversed he should win and collect retribution. Another example: If the Oracle has her super flare, which allows her to stop a combat and send the attacking aliens home, but when attacked she has no encounter cards left and should therefore draw a new hand. When I looked at the timing listed on the cards afterwatrds, it was clear that the hand needed to be discarded and re-shuffled (the artifact can only be played in the "resolution phase", which occurs after both players have chosen their cards).

The struggle to interpret cards led to more downtime for the other players. Also, we seemed to get more greedy because players were refusing any allies during most of the combats. As a result, it was substantially less fun than the first session.
I won by converting a combat in to negotiations and proposing a simple exchange of colonies with Kozure, who didn't notice it would win me the game (it was late and everyone needed to leave, so it was okay, right?).

If we can keep the game length down, get comfortable enough with the rules and interactions that sessions don't devolve into interpretation parties and ratchet up the negotiations and backstabbing, I think this could be a great game (that is a lot of "ifs", however). The powers really do have a major impact on the feel of the game, and negotiations are similarly affected. There isn't a large number of items to negotiate for other than allowing bases on planets, which is a touch disappointing. However, the impact and interaction of the race powers means that while in each individual game there may not be a lot of depth in deal making, the kinds of interaction, negotiation and backstabbing that are likely to take place are going to be fairly different from game to game. That's a good thing in my book.

It was fun. Looking forward to trying it again.

Sunday, February 08, 2009

Excess vs. Restraint (Glory to Rome x2, In the Year of the Dragon)

Kozure hates having to pick games when it's just three players. This was one of those nights (It was just me, Kozure and Shemp).

Glory to Rome

Shemp hadn't particularly enjoyed this when he was introduced to him in October, so I can't imagine he approached this session with much enthusiasm. Luckily, with a bit of experience under his belt the game's interaction appeared to "click" this time and I think he became a fan.

Our first game saw Shemp attempt to build the forum and face the same fate that befell Kozure when he tried that many moons ago... Kozure and I collectively froze the supply of merchants and patrons in the pool. Unfortunately, he appeared to be in the lead in points as well, so we were a little stymied on the best way to steal the victory. He had a viscious combination going (I don't recall it exactly, but I believe it had to do with using the power of the client he was placing into his clientelle, whch activate half a dozen cards as well). I completed a few quick buildings, hid a bit of treasure in the vault and then completed the catacombs to end the game. I had focussed on getting rubble and wood into the vault, gambling that I'd get easy majorities since no one else would bother. Not only did that not happen, the 1 value material meant my haul there was particularly low. I came in last, while Shemp actually did win.

We played again, though this time I fared much better. This time it was I who built the killer combos (though I nearly didn't get the chance... Kozure nearly ended the game early while he had the lead. I did something one round before he was going to do it that prevented it from happening, but I don't remember what). I had a building, the gate, which allowed my unfinished marble buildings to use their function. Marble buildings are amongst the most powerful, so this is quite an advantage! I then started 2 important marble buildings: One that made my merchant clients into wilds (Ludus Magna), one that allowed me to play multiple cards out of my hand to "follow" the lead role multiple times (Palace). I also had a completed concrete building (The storeroom) which allowed all my clients to act as labourers if I wanted.

So, essentially, I was sweeping all the materials in the pool and then using my three craftsmen and my two wilds (the merchants) to build lots of stuff. Heck, just having those two wilds and being able to "think" every turn and still act twice was incredibly powerful. Every time I play this gam, I'm tempted to say that a different card is too powerful, and this time I feel that way about the gate (incomplete marble buildings still give their power). I imagine that we are just scratching the surface with the crazy combos... I would expect that experienced players set up some pretty ridiculous chains of events.

Anyway, I won.

In the Year of the Dragon
We *almost* played a third game of Glory to Rome, but Kozure elected to play this instead (ok, I suggested it). I followed a path I typically avoid: building up my number of palaces and trying to hold on to a large number of workers. Unfortunately, I didn't manage to get the food I needed in time on two occasions and it really hurt my chances. Still, I did okay with the rest and I was keeping pace on the military track (unlike last game). With Shemp and Kozure being equally aggressive in military and VPs, it was a very competitive game to the very end. In the final tally, Shemp's large roster of buddhas gave him the lead over my large clientele. He won.

As an aside, Shemp purchased a dragon tile in the eighth month. I mentioned that it would only give him four points, but he purchased it anyway. You'll never guess how many points he beat me by...

(four)