Shemp picked Tikal and Mexica this week, though as he picked them he mentioned that we would surely trash him at Tikal since we had so much more experience than he did with the game. As we gathered around the table, he suggested we start with Tikal... he seemed curious to find out if he really liked the game or not.
He did. And then we played that again instead of Mexica.
The first game was characterized by very expensive pathways. There was a temple site that had two 6 step branches off of it. This also meant that many paths were completely inaccessible (i.e. no stepping stones). All in all, movement was wonky. I was lucky enough to draw the lion's share of the treasure hexes and so I built a big lead in points from those. In the end, those points won me the game (though Kozure surprised us all with a massive 50+ point scoring round at the end).
In our second game, Shemp had the lead in treasures and also strategically located his two tents on either side of a long uncross-able path. The mobility this afforded him allowed his domination of some big temples that we couldn't get to easily. He won.
I'm a little curious how often the player who draws the most treasure hexes wins the game. It's hard to say that it's definitely an advantage, because digging up treasure is costly (and making up sets even more-so). Definitely being able to score complete sets across multiple scorings is a huge advantage.
In my opinion, Tikal is best with 3 players (and is one of my favorite euros when played this way). It was nice to get it to the table again.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
More thinky bloodshed (A Game of Thrones : A Clash of Kings)
Although we were only three players, I wanted to try the A Game of Thrones expansion one more time (now that I've played it with four, I was less afraid of getting a bad impression if it didn't work out).
I was Stark (white), Shemp was Lannister (red) and Kozure was Barratheon (black). Greyjoy is mandated as the house to remove from the game, which appeared to make sense though I was afraid that without my natural enemy it would be too easy for me (in the four player game, Stark and Greyjoy start in the north).
In practice, it wasn't too bad. I did enjoy relative peace for much of the game as I grew my forces and slowly marched south. As it happened in our last game, the Lannisters shot out ahead in VPs early in the game. Unfortunately for Shemp, he watched the Lannisters get beaten down for it, just as in our last game. It was Kozure who was pulling out ahead. He took King's landing and was pushing back the Lannisters, winning Claim with his abundance of power tokens. The three houses converged at Harandhall and Riverrun. I took Riverrun first, satisfying my house tactics card Claim condition. Kozure took Harandhall. Shemp came from the south-west and put pressure on both of them. In order to steal the victory from Kozure, Shemp and I hatched a plan to surround Harandhall, so that I could support the Lannister's siege against the city. As it often happens, particularly between me and Shemp, the partnership did not go as planned. He had just taken Riverrun from me, so in an effort to give me the opportunity to take it back I took an unconventional route to surround Kozure... I crossed the river with a single unit and "supported" with Rob Stark's army rather than moving the army itself. It was good enough to defeat Kozure's army, and good enough to take back Riverrun, but it left me with a single army at the gates of Harrenhall (ironically, the idea to take back Riverrun that turn came frm Shemp, though it was certainly my plan to go back eventually). In the final turn, Kozure's Barratheon's had 7 claim, Shemp's Lannisters had 5 and I had 6. If things went according to plan, Shemp would steal a city and we would find ourselves in a three way tie. knowing I wasn't in a position to gain any claim this turn, and knowing I had to stare down a host of betrayed Lannisters at Riverrun, I had to be defensive on my last turn and set myself up to win on the tiebeaker. Unfortunately, in placing my action tokens I didn't think to put a support token on my army adjacent to Harandhall and s when Shemp did attack, I couldn't help in any way. He lost by one. I hadn't seen it coming, but Shemp had a second target in mind, as he swept east to King's landing and took the city. Barratheon managed to get it back, but for a second there it seemed like he might have managed to stop Kozure from winning.
In the end, my programming mistake was a huge one, because I would have won on the tiebreaker (most supply). Oh well. All hail king Barratheon! All hail the master of A Game of Thrones: A Storm of Swords, Kozure, as his win ratio remains 100% at this game.
I was Stark (white), Shemp was Lannister (red) and Kozure was Barratheon (black). Greyjoy is mandated as the house to remove from the game, which appeared to make sense though I was afraid that without my natural enemy it would be too easy for me (in the four player game, Stark and Greyjoy start in the north).
In practice, it wasn't too bad. I did enjoy relative peace for much of the game as I grew my forces and slowly marched south. As it happened in our last game, the Lannisters shot out ahead in VPs early in the game. Unfortunately for Shemp, he watched the Lannisters get beaten down for it, just as in our last game. It was Kozure who was pulling out ahead. He took King's landing and was pushing back the Lannisters, winning Claim with his abundance of power tokens. The three houses converged at Harandhall and Riverrun. I took Riverrun first, satisfying my house tactics card Claim condition. Kozure took Harandhall. Shemp came from the south-west and put pressure on both of them. In order to steal the victory from Kozure, Shemp and I hatched a plan to surround Harandhall, so that I could support the Lannister's siege against the city. As it often happens, particularly between me and Shemp, the partnership did not go as planned. He had just taken Riverrun from me, so in an effort to give me the opportunity to take it back I took an unconventional route to surround Kozure... I crossed the river with a single unit and "supported" with Rob Stark's army rather than moving the army itself. It was good enough to defeat Kozure's army, and good enough to take back Riverrun, but it left me with a single army at the gates of Harrenhall (ironically, the idea to take back Riverrun that turn came frm Shemp, though it was certainly my plan to go back eventually). In the final turn, Kozure's Barratheon's had 7 claim, Shemp's Lannisters had 5 and I had 6. If things went according to plan, Shemp would steal a city and we would find ourselves in a three way tie. knowing I wasn't in a position to gain any claim this turn, and knowing I had to stare down a host of betrayed Lannisters at Riverrun, I had to be defensive on my last turn and set myself up to win on the tiebeaker. Unfortunately, in placing my action tokens I didn't think to put a support token on my army adjacent to Harandhall and s when Shemp did attack, I couldn't help in any way. He lost by one. I hadn't seen it coming, but Shemp had a second target in mind, as he swept east to King's landing and took the city. Barratheon managed to get it back, but for a second there it seemed like he might have managed to stop Kozure from winning.
In the end, my programming mistake was a huge one, because I would have won on the tiebreaker (most supply). Oh well. All hail king Barratheon! All hail the master of A Game of Thrones: A Storm of Swords, Kozure, as his win ratio remains 100% at this game.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Of LannisPort and King's Landing (A Game of Thrones: A Storm of Swords)
Back when we were often four players, I used to lament the fact that we couldn't play A Game of Thrones since it took five to play optimally. I recently decided to spring for a copy of the expansion called "A Storm of Swords" because it features a new board designed specifically for four players. Of course, that's when Luch moved out of town, and we dropped to just three players...
Well, this week Bharmer made his once a month appearance and so we were four. Kozure decided to pick this game, and there was joy in the land of Westeros.
If you know A Game of Thrones, this is mostly the same game on a different board, but there are important differences:
1) There are no boats or wilding attacks.
2) Leaders are added to the game, and new rules for taking hostages and hostage negotiations go with them.
3) Each player gets a "Tactics" deck, which gives an ability for each game turn.
4) Four "Ally" deck representing factions that can be, err, allied with.
5) A claim track allows players to gain VPs in other ways than conquering territory.
A few other new items have been added which have a lesser impact on the game, such as a weather track that makes some passages inaccessible during stormy weather, and garrisons which are units that can only defend.
In my opinions, each of the additions are excellent. The loss of boats is unfortunate, but is more than compensated by the other additions.
The leaders, major characters from the books, are interesting because they have two "states". The first is their basic state, and boils down to an addition to the combat value for the group. The second is triggered when the player controlling it plays a certain kind of order (usually raid or consolidate power)... in this case the player can choose to ignore the chosen event and instead execute a march order and benefit from a slightly altered, more powerful leader. As an example, Jamie Lannister goes from a 1 strength unit to a 2 strength unit with a bonus sword icon when activated. The subtle impact here is that the triggering order might cause combat out of sequence... A raid marker that triggers a march allows combat earlier than normal and can therefore allow a player that would otherwise be later in the combat turn to make an attack before his opponent can act. If a combat involving a leader produces losses, the winning player can choose to claim a leader as a prisoner instead. Later on, power tokens can be squeezed out of the owners of your prisoners. Further, hostage negotiations can take place which adds a welcome layer of politics to a game that is meant to be political in the first place.
The tactics cards add a level of uncertainty to each game turn because depending on the choice, a player might have a bonus on siege or on defense, a player might make an alliance from the "Ally" deck, a player might squeeze power tokens from the former owners of prisoners in his holding cell, etc.
The Ally cards are interesting because they add reinforcements and other abilities to the players, and offer another path to follow to cement a lead or stage a comeback.
The Claim track adds another way to gain VPs. Certain tactics cards and westeros cards give the possibility to a player to gain a point on the Claim track, which gives players an alternative to pure military victory.
Overall, the game feels at once significantly different and much the same. The foundation of the game is unchanged, but a layer of chrome has been added which changes the flavour. The tactics card and the Allies shake up the chess-like simplicity of the basic game. Some players may strongly hate or prefer this introduction of randomness, but I like both for different reasons. Due to game length issues, I would probably pick A Game of Thrones: A Storm of Swords for four players and Mare Nostrum for five, but I'd happily play either.
In our game, I was the Lannisters, Shemp was the Barratheons, Kozure was the Greyjoys and Bharmer was the Starks. In the starting setup, the Lannisters start spread out and with Eddard Stark as a prisoner. The prisoner puts me immediately at odds with the Starks, and geographic adjacency + a Barratheon tactics card ensures that there will be conflict with them as well. Still, early in the game the Lannisters managed to conquer two neutral cities and satisfy their tactics card VP condition... I was within a single point of winning the game!
Then came turn 6.
In turn 6 I miss-programmed one of my armies, putting it in a situation where it became decimated. I lost King's Landing to the Barratheons, lost a 7 point army due to rout, etc, etc. I played very badly, making stupid call after stupid call, dropping back to 4-5 points in the process.
Greyjoy and the Starks were similarly exchanging blows in the north for much of the game. Jamie Lannister was planning a raid into the Greyjoy camp as The Starks came down from the north and started putting pressure in the center of the board.
Unfortunately, it was getting late and we were forced to end the game prematurely. It ended up being a three-way tie for most VPs, so we had to go to three levels of tie breaker to find the Greyjoys victorious (most supply was the determining tie-breaker).
A Game of Thrones is quite a long game to play, and requires a certain amount of effort to play properly. That's fine. I enjoy it quite a bit when it does get on the table.
Well, this week Bharmer made his once a month appearance and so we were four. Kozure decided to pick this game, and there was joy in the land of Westeros.
If you know A Game of Thrones, this is mostly the same game on a different board, but there are important differences:
1) There are no boats or wilding attacks.
2) Leaders are added to the game, and new rules for taking hostages and hostage negotiations go with them.
3) Each player gets a "Tactics" deck, which gives an ability for each game turn.
4) Four "Ally" deck representing factions that can be, err, allied with.
5) A claim track allows players to gain VPs in other ways than conquering territory.
A few other new items have been added which have a lesser impact on the game, such as a weather track that makes some passages inaccessible during stormy weather, and garrisons which are units that can only defend.
In my opinions, each of the additions are excellent. The loss of boats is unfortunate, but is more than compensated by the other additions.
The leaders, major characters from the books, are interesting because they have two "states". The first is their basic state, and boils down to an addition to the combat value for the group. The second is triggered when the player controlling it plays a certain kind of order (usually raid or consolidate power)... in this case the player can choose to ignore the chosen event and instead execute a march order and benefit from a slightly altered, more powerful leader. As an example, Jamie Lannister goes from a 1 strength unit to a 2 strength unit with a bonus sword icon when activated. The subtle impact here is that the triggering order might cause combat out of sequence... A raid marker that triggers a march allows combat earlier than normal and can therefore allow a player that would otherwise be later in the combat turn to make an attack before his opponent can act. If a combat involving a leader produces losses, the winning player can choose to claim a leader as a prisoner instead. Later on, power tokens can be squeezed out of the owners of your prisoners. Further, hostage negotiations can take place which adds a welcome layer of politics to a game that is meant to be political in the first place.
The tactics cards add a level of uncertainty to each game turn because depending on the choice, a player might have a bonus on siege or on defense, a player might make an alliance from the "Ally" deck, a player might squeeze power tokens from the former owners of prisoners in his holding cell, etc.
The Ally cards are interesting because they add reinforcements and other abilities to the players, and offer another path to follow to cement a lead or stage a comeback.
The Claim track adds another way to gain VPs. Certain tactics cards and westeros cards give the possibility to a player to gain a point on the Claim track, which gives players an alternative to pure military victory.
Overall, the game feels at once significantly different and much the same. The foundation of the game is unchanged, but a layer of chrome has been added which changes the flavour. The tactics card and the Allies shake up the chess-like simplicity of the basic game. Some players may strongly hate or prefer this introduction of randomness, but I like both for different reasons. Due to game length issues, I would probably pick A Game of Thrones: A Storm of Swords for four players and Mare Nostrum for five, but I'd happily play either.
In our game, I was the Lannisters, Shemp was the Barratheons, Kozure was the Greyjoys and Bharmer was the Starks. In the starting setup, the Lannisters start spread out and with Eddard Stark as a prisoner. The prisoner puts me immediately at odds with the Starks, and geographic adjacency + a Barratheon tactics card ensures that there will be conflict with them as well. Still, early in the game the Lannisters managed to conquer two neutral cities and satisfy their tactics card VP condition... I was within a single point of winning the game!
Then came turn 6.
In turn 6 I miss-programmed one of my armies, putting it in a situation where it became decimated. I lost King's Landing to the Barratheons, lost a 7 point army due to rout, etc, etc. I played very badly, making stupid call after stupid call, dropping back to 4-5 points in the process.
Greyjoy and the Starks were similarly exchanging blows in the north for much of the game. Jamie Lannister was planning a raid into the Greyjoy camp as The Starks came down from the north and started putting pressure in the center of the board.
Unfortunately, it was getting late and we were forced to end the game prematurely. It ended up being a three-way tie for most VPs, so we had to go to three levels of tie breaker to find the Greyjoys victorious (most supply was the determining tie-breaker).
A Game of Thrones is quite a long game to play, and requires a certain amount of effort to play properly. That's fine. I enjoy it quite a bit when it does get on the table.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
