Showing posts with label Castle. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Castle. Show all posts

Thursday, August 19, 2004

My Castle is My Domain(e)

Note: When I wrote this, there was no evidence of Easy's blog. I pressed publish, and the Blogger website went into paroxyms of refreshing the same page over and over again. When it was finished, I saw my log posted. When I came back, I noted my blog was missing and now Easy's with a much earlier publish time, was present. I have no idea what happened. Here's my blog, for the record.

Well, what’s a games night without a theme? Well, a themeless games night, but beyond that, it’s boring and uninspired. Fortunately, we had Shemp to lend a thought to “Mediaeval” games night. The dinner lasagne didn’t quite fit in, but we had “hearty cheese fritos” to help out.

The night opened with Castle, the game aforementioned. With four players, the gameplay tilts over from the tactical side of things to a little more random in nature. Easy caught on quickly, but not quickly enough to deny Shemp the win.

We then switched to Domaine, which I thought had been reviewed before, but I can’t currently find any mention in our blog. Domaine is a game of expansion and territory enclosure, by one of our favourite game designers, Klaus Teuber. It allows two to four players, with slight modifications for two player play, and the theme is that you are lesser royalty (dukes or counts or what-have-you) trying to divide up the spoils of a kingdom before the king returns from a long journey. This theme makes a lot less sense than its original Germanic predecessor, Lowenherz, where they’re doing the dividing while the king is dying. That’s political correctness for you, I guess.

The board is a well drawn map of what looks like a fantasy kingdom – nine moveable large cardboard squares, arranged into a square with the castle at the centre – with each of the nine squares being divided into around eight to ten by eight to ten (can’t remember the exact number) 2 cm grid by light black lines. Terrain of plain, forest, mines (diamond, bronze, silver and gold), towns and a castle is indicated clearly and with fair quality.

The mechanic is very simple – each player executes one of two actions per turn – play a card by paying gold for it, which allows you to either: 1) erect walls to enclose a “domain”, 2) expand already enclosed domains, 3) place knights which protect your own domain and allow you to expand into others, 4) create alliances which stops either domain from expanding into each other, or 5) cause knights from other domains to “defect” into yours.

A second possible action is to sell a card to the chancery – a temporary holding area - for the second (smaller) value printed on the card – one of only two ways to gain money.

After performing one of the two actions, the player then draws from either the chancery or the draw pile to replenish his or her hand.

Players score points by enclosing forest, towns and the castle (1, 3 and 5 points). Additionally, players can supplement their income by enclosing mines, each type providing one gold piece at the beginning of a turn each. Enclosing three of one type of mine scores 5 points.

Victory is gained by points – either by reaching a maximum dictated by the number of players, or by having the most points when all possible cards have been played. Extra money also counts for points – the player with the most scores 5, the second wealthiest scores 3.

For our first game of Domaine, we misremembered (Bushism) some of the rules, forgetting proper rules for placement of knights and the very important rule of only taking one action per turn. Fortunately, this had the effect of speeding up the game.

I got pretty badly boxed in the first game, but wasn’t doing too badly when ????? leapt ahead into the lead for the win.

The second game, we corrected our misrememberings of the rules and played correctly. I was doing better this time around, but Easy took advantage of a really easy massive land grab late in the game and sealed the win. Domaine is interesting for the need to not only grow your own earnings, but also pay attention and smack down other players who might sneak their way into a massive inheritance.

This technique is henceforth christened “snuclear” or “snuculear” tactics, after Easy and Shemp’s strange, giddy exchange. “Snuclear” apparently involves really, really sneaky tactics, to the point of being nuclear sneaky. Apparently.

The evening was ended with a round of Castle, which started out with a huge siege engine vs. soldier battle and ended with a lot of people trying to kill-the-leader Easy, which didn’t help us in the end. Easy took us down, leaving the rest of us just steps from playing out.

?????'s Rules

Last Night, we played three different games:
Castles
Domaine ?R*
Domaine

*?????'s Rules

I was the only one who hadn't played castles, so I expected to get buried, but the game is pretty easy to pick up despite the large number of cards that you need to get to know (probably because it isn't THAT important to get to know all of them). Shemp got the first win, but we were all close. I was more successful on my second try, getting a squeaker of a win (thanks to a few helpful moves by my unsuspecting opponents). Overall, I thought it was a good game. Pretty light, but fun and seemingly quite replayable (and both games were really close, so the ending was exciting). I did find the concept strange, though: The game simulates a castle seige, complete with soldiers on the ramparts defending against seige engines. However, the actual gameplay doesn't have much to do with it. Players don't take sides, the outcome of the battle is irrelevant. It's just a story which unfolds as players play their cards. Not a problem, exactly... just strange.

Castles:7

Next up was Domaine. Klaus Teuber, fromt he two games I have played of his, seems to make fun games which also seem somehow arbitrary. I think that this quality came through last night as we accidentally played an entire game using incorrect rules...
err... I should say "????? Rules". We played that:
1: Every player had two moves per turn (should be 1)
2: The deserter simply took a knight from the board (the knight is supposed to be stolen)
3: Cards could continue to be drawn from the chancery after the deck ran out.

I'm pretty sure the were other "modifications", but the bottom line is that even though the game played differently, it wasn't broken. I don't imagine too many games could with

Saturday, August 07, 2004

Getting Medieval

Last week, we had three players for a new game and an old favourite while Easy was up North w/ the family.

First up was Castle, a card game co-designed by Bruno Faidutti of Citadels fame. Put very simply, it is a game where all players race play all cards out of their hands and draw piles onto the table. Each card has it's own rules regarding where it can be placed, and getting previously played cards returned to your hand is a common occurance.

We played three hands, and I enjoyed each more than the last - it's a good little game, where SYN type gameplay is necessary to win, and momentum seems to shift often and quite rapidly. I think that things would get really wild and woolly with more than 3 players, and I think that would be a good thing, too. Nothing fancy, but very enjoyable. For the record, I think that I won two hands of this, and Kozure one. That's not necessarily indicitave of the play, though. I felt that all of the hands were close to the end, and would play this one again in a second. I'd rank this just slightly higher than however I ranked Bang!, so, give it a 7.

Next, we had a three-player game of Princes of Florence. I always enjoy Princes, but find it to be more fun with four or five players than with three. With more players the bidding process is more competitive, and more profession cards get out into play. I'm not sure I can put my fingers on the reasons why, but the game just seems more interesting with more players, to me anyway. And this is despite the fact that it seems (based on our limited data) that 3 player games tend to be closer.

Anyhow, during this session it came into the last round a three way tie - I had gotten greedy and spent 2 bonus cards in the second last round, which meant I couldn't complete a work in the last round, which meant that I lost. Damn, I shouldn't be such a greedy duck. ????? was slightly ahead at the end of the last round, but Kozure used his Prestige cards (2 of 'em) to secure the win.

I think that I am going to downgrade PoF slightly - it's still a great game, but I haven't been quite as jazzed about it the last few times. Call it an 8.

Edit: I mistakenly thought that Faidutti designed Bang! That's just not true. Emiliano Sciarra designed Bang! Tripped up by a foreign language web site, I was - and I shall be more careful next time, you betcha.