Metal fatigue is a harsh mistress (Galaxy Trucker, Power Grid w/ alternate power plants)

The recent announcement of another expansion for Galaxy Trucker reminded me it had been a while since we had played this great game. I though it would be fun to try a really punishing series of flights, so we skipped round 1 entirely and instead did the following:

Ship 2 with evil machinations
Ship 3 with evil machinations and 2 Rough Road Ahead cards
Ship 3A with evil machinations and 2 Rough Road Ahead cards

The first round went pretty smoothly, but starting with round 2 we really started feeling the heat. The rough road cards are pretty tough... Round 2 had a card that made any energy use cost an extra tic-tac and another card that reduced our ship's speed for every ship connection that matched a 3 connector with a 2 or a 1. As you can imagine, ship building was slow and batteries/ furnaces where hot commodities.

... But we all made it without horrible consequences. My MVP was certainly the techie blue alien, since it made the first battery expenditure each encounter free.

Round three saw Remorseless fate (which is every bit as bad as it sounds) and Metal Fatigue. Now, between remorseless fate and metal fatigue, I thought the first sounded the most dangerous. Shemp would beg to differ.

Before launching, Shemp pointed out that this was his best ship ever. No bad connections, plenty of the tiles he wanted, every space used up. The problem is that ship 3A looks a lot like the Enterprise... It's got a very narrow middle. A single mishap there, and the ship splits in half. During the second event, Shemp lost a piece which protected the critical part through metal fatigue and then in event 3 a meteor struck and Shemp had to pick whether he wanted to keep flying with the front or the back of his ship. He chose the front.

When Shemp arrived at the end, he had approximately 5 tiles left in his ship, a single crew member, and no engines ( he lost his final one on the last card). It was pretty funny. Also, since ship 3 A is uninsurable, he paid nearly 30$ for the damage.

Ultimately, Kozure won the game. I actually thought I had it, but he snuck past me by a few points. I really enjoy this every time it comes out, even though it's definitely an experience game and not to be taken seriously.

Power Grid

We then played a three player game of Power Grid with the new power plants expansion (the expansion isn't new, only new to us). Although I enjoy Power Grid, I find it requires too much constant calculation which kind of ruins the pace. Also, I dislike the lull that seems to often happen during the middle of the game because nobody ever wants to by the middle powerplants. Apparently, the solution is to play with only 3 players and use the alternate plants because I found this game quite enjoyable.

It's hard to pick out the differences, but I never felt like nothing on offer was worth buying. We did have an odd result because many of the higher plants got pulled before the start ofthegame (as per the 3 player rules). This led to an end game where only I actually could power the 17 cities once they were built. I unintentionally foiled Shemp's hail Mary to beat me because he planned on buying up the resources preventing me from actually powering to capacity. I decided at the last minute not to power all my cities on the before last turn and kept the resources I needed for the last round so I did pull off the win.

Anyway, it would be interesting to know if the new plants simply have a lower capacity and the struggle to attain 17 is intentional. Either way, it was fun.

Pus is a harsh mistress (Chaos in the Old World, Steam)

Pablo joined us and made it a foursome, allowing me to select Chaos in the Old World... a game I like a lot but only ever want to play with the full complement. We followed with another game that doesn't play well with three: Steam.

Oddly, despite both game being typically 1/1.5 hour affairs, both took 2 hours each.

Chaos in the Old World

I played Slaanesh, Shemp was Nurgle, Kozure was Tzeentch, and Pablo was Khorne. I had never played Slaanesh, the "prince of pleasure and pain", so it was fun to explore. Speaking of which, as much as I enjoy the game, I still can't get past the corny theme. I'm sure there are people out there that think it's the coolest thing ever, but I have to say that I personally wish they could retheme this game.

Oh well, whatever.

The old world cards that came up where definitely favoring me because quite a few heroes were popping up around the land. Since heroes and nobility give me bonuses, i had a much easier time than I otherwise would have getting my dial ticks. Pablo was doing his best to knock us around but I think Khorne becomes more difficult to use as players get to know the other gods... it seems like getting away or neutralizing the attacks is relatively easy. Anyway, Kozure and Shemp were running away with the VP track so I had to try to get there with a dial victory. On the last turn, three players satisfied a win condition. Lucky for me, dial victories take precedence so I took it.

This game, mechanically, is really good. There is some chaos, and the cards and dice can be swingy, but the better player probably wins most games. Still, I am at a loss for the terrible board layout. Huge expanses of available cardboard real estate are used for nothing while two provinces get crammed into a tiny little space in the corner. This is a fictional landscape, there is no reason why the final layout should have been this impractical!

Steam

This was Pablo's first game of Steam. We played on the USA map and it was a tense game as usual. As with Chaos in the Old World, scores were incredibly close: Kozure in first with me and Shemp tied one point behind the leader. Amazingly, PAblo was just a few points behind us (I say amazingly because in a first game of Steam against experienced players it would be easy to end up in a tailspin and go bankrupt or be way behind). It all boiled down to who had the 6 point deliveries on the last round, and Kozure had 1 and Shemp and I did not. Very close.

The strip is a harsh mistress (Lords of Vegas, Dominion x2)

this week marked the triumphant return of our good friend Bharmer. He had abandoned us briefly in a quest to gather "knowledge". We roundly criticized him, and then got started.

Lords of Vegas

I was really happy to be able to play this with 4, as I was very curious if the dealmaking possibilities would open up even further. Also, I was hoping that a game played without the game being messed up by spectacularly bad shuffling on my part would go.

In the end, I didn't note much difference as far as deal making. This game seemed to have less, if anything. The properties ended up clumping earlier than normal, which probably contributed. Kozure was the victim of poor luck on a couple of occasions (he should have known he was in for a rough ride when he sprawled and drew that tile on the next turn...). For my part, I once again ended up with a large casino in the center left of the board but there was quite a nail biter in the final rounds because Shemp owned the 6 property adjacent to me and my large casino had no sixes in it. Lucky for me, no casino tiles of the right colour remained. Unlucky for me, Kozure was about to renovate one of his casinos which would have put three back in circulation... I was out of contention by that point, but for Shemp it could have meant winning the game, the only worry was that the game was going to end any turn now and he was afraid he wouldn't get to act. On his turn, he drew the game end tile and missed out! Actually, Bharmer had made a bargain with me that would have made it difficult for Shemp to win anyway, but that's just details. It was a memorable ending.

Must admit I wouldn't have predicted Bharmer winning, though!

Dominion

we finished up by playing two hands of a random setup from the basic dominion cards. We ended up with a whole tableau of cards that allow the trashing of one card to get another. The end result was a setup which led to very lean decks and huge trash piles. It also led to me clearly forgetting how to play the game because not only did I come in last in both games, but DEAD last. I had ridiculously low scores. I think Shemp won the first one through a tiebreaker, and Bharmer the second (though my memory is hazy).

Blight is a harsh mistress (Dominant Species)

We finally played a full game of Dominant species last week.

I played the insects, Kozure the mammals and Shemp the reptiles. In our two previous games, "Blight" came early and in all three cases I grabbed it to make sure no one could use it on me. Unfortunately for Shemp, he was the recipient this time and it was difficult for him to recover the loss of sun tokens on the board. For my part, the land was awash in grass tokens so it was comparatively easy for the insects to assert their dominance in many regions (what's more was that the grass tokens where mostly aquired through Wanderlusts I was able to associate with water and wetland hexes). Lady luck was shining on bugdom that day and I won. Kozure was right behind and Shemp... well Shemp didn't get lapped, so that's a kind of victory, isn't it?

Every game i've played so far i've felt compelled to go for tundra dominance. It's so obviously a huge source of points. Also, if you have at least a single dominant tile, it's almost a requirement to place on the Dominance track to scoop up first choice in cards... There always seems to be a hugely powerful card available. It's nice that each player gets so many actions, though, because it allows room for important and less important actions to take place.

One thing: I didn't really feel that playing the full game was an improvement. The way points scale means that the value of the tundra scoring gets too high, and the endgame bonus for majorities is overpowered (and somewhat redundant... What are the odds that the player with the most majorities isn't a already the player that will win?). I think my favorite was playing to 5 fewer cards. I might also suggest eliminating Blight and a few other particularly crippling cards.

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.

Improbability and the East (San Juan, Shogun)

...or The Dice Tower is Luch's Harsh Mistress

...or The Dice Tower is Easy's Fluzy Lover

First, the big news: Congrats to Kozure and Tili on the arrival of mini-Kozure #2! Despite the baby's arrival, this particular family's commitement to gaming runs deep... This Wednesday, a mere two days after birth, we played at Kozure's place at their request!

While waiting for Luch to arrive, Bharmer and I played a game of San Juan with Tili (did I mention this was two days after birth?). Bharmer ran away with this one, being able to build a couple of large buildings and having the best resource production going. Tili and I pretty much tied, I beleive.

I have to say that from this session, I think that San Juan works much better with 3 than with 4 (and since 2 plays similarly to 3, I guess that must work just as well). Why? Because with 3 (and 2) players more of the roles go unchosen each round. This leads to a less homogeonous game where a player's choice really does impact the other players... with 4 players it seemed that resource production, building and trading occured pretty much every round. With 4, it was quite possible that no resources would be produced for several rounds or that building wouldn't occur. Anyway, it felt like a more satisfying game to me.

As Luch arrived, we set up Shogun. Tili retired for the evening and Kozure sat in. In our last game, I had enjoyed the game quite a bit, but described the game as an adult version of Mousetrap. How did game #2 go? Pretty much the same.

For the record, I won this game. Also for the record, there's no way in hell I should have!

For the first year, I tried to skip out on rice production to see what would happen. I also decided to focus on winning majorities in buildings over other ways to generate points. Not generating rice did lessen my angry farmers, and it was well I did because the rice deficit card which came around in winter was the -7 one. Ouch. I had the potential for 3 nasty revolts, and my building strategy combined with poor planning in the fall had left me short on soldiers. I was fully expecting to get ravaged. Due to the -7, I wasn't the only one in line for a wallopping, but I was by far the worse off.

Guess what, I survived completely unscathed and everyone else lost at least a province. Luch lost three.

The second year was similar. I planned for Rice this time. There were attacks, and I won and lost my fair share. Still, the previous winter had really stacked things in my favour. By the second winter, I had planned for the revolts and didn't lose anything to them. The others didn't fare as well, despite also having planned, and were crippled as a result (this time we were facing down a -6 rice drought).

What can I say? I feel I played a good game, that my building strategy was generally well thought out despite a few glaring mistakes along the way. Still, there were SO MANY large swings of luck that I felt that the result was kind of out of my control.

Shogun does a lot of things right: Despite being long, it never FEELS long. The planning phase is fun, if a little brain-breaking. Seeing things play out is entertaining. you always have more you want to do than you can, and the decisions feel like they matter. Finally, the dice tower is a really fun way to resolve battles.

But (you knew there would be a "but"), I still feel that it's not as much a strategy game as it seems it should be. So much rides on which of the 4 event cards comes up at which point (particularly in winter). Also, the order in which the 10 action cards comes up can REALLY mess up your plans (the timing of combat card and the treasure actions being particularly crucial). Immediately losing the province card if you lose a battle, and therefore potentially losing the associated action, can also be pretty devastating. Lastly, for all the "fun" of the dice tower, it does have a way to introduce more chaos than most randomizers would. These items can literally crush a player's plans unless they play ultra conservative at all times. A Game of Thrones has similar swings of fate with it's decks, and I guess that's one of the reasons I keep comparing the two.

In contrast, the randomized special cards are an example of the type of luck I'd expect to find in the game. As players secretely bid for turn order, the randomized powers create an interesting tension between chosing turn order vs the power you want. It makes the choice interesting, but isn't devastating or unbalancing towards one player or the other.

So, in the end, Shogun fails (for me) to be a STRATEGY game on the same level as similarly heavy games such as Power Grid, El Grande or even Railroad Tycoon (where luck is present, but in controlled ways). Despite that, it's a lot of fun... I'd prefer to play this over Power Grid, actually. I guess i'm mostly harping on the disconnect between what the game seems to want to be, and what it is.

Anyway, i've gone on for quite some time now. i'd be interested in other people's point of view on the matter!

Edit: I better way to describe my feelings towards Shogun occurred to me today... In Shogun, you can't win unless you play well strategically (where+when to build temples, which provinces to take, protecting your investments, etc). However, there is enough large swings of luck that your best play could easily get erased by bad luck.

In other words, play well + cross your fingers.

How Cthulu Ate Us All, or Arkham Horror is a Harsh Mistress (Arkham Horror x2)

We've played Arkham Horror a few times before, so I won't comment in depth on the game mechanics (North American-style) or overall production values (very good).

Arkham Horror is a game not to be approached lightly. In addition, if you have players who are not in the mood to play (as I suspect we did last night), do not, under any circumstances, try to force them to play. The game requires you to keep a brisk pace and make quick decisions on your turn or it slows into the morass of dullness that any North American-style boardgame can fall into (too many rules, too many exceptions, too many things decided by die-roll).

I fear that I dragged people into a game they didn't enjoy last night, which is my personal anathema for a game evening.

Arkham Horror is a game where a single card draw (especially some of the mythos cards like "Good Work Undone" or some of the more powerful Great Old Ones, like Hastur or Cthulhu) can turn what is usually a challenging game into a brutal one. This makes it difficult to justify the hour or two you might have already invested in playing being turned upside down by random chance. This, coupled with poor dice rolling, can make a gaming session singularly unfun.

I have had lots of fun with Arkham Horror in the past. Last night was average enjoyment for me, but from the reactions of some other players, terminally boring or frustrating for others.

I think I have learned a few things about Arkham Horror after one solo play and five multi-player plays.

1. Only play Arkham Horror when everyone is in the mood to play.

2. Only play Arkham Horror when you have a solid block of 3-4 hours in which to play it. Do not attempt to squeeze in a game if you will run out of time. You cannot finish a game in under two hours unless you are really lucky or have very few players (who are also game veterans). You can (we have, anyway) finish it in two and a half hours, but you have to be lucky and have people who've played before. I should have not tried to play the second round last night with only one and a half hours remaining. I realize now as I write this that when I made the decision to play the second game, I made a critical math error. We usually stop at 11, and it was 9:30 when we finished the first game. Somehow that made 2.5 hours in my defectively quick mental math.

3. The gate/other world exploration mechanic can be big drag on the game and should probably have been differently developed. You have two (and sometimes, with a number of cards that delay you in the other world, three or more) turns where you make virtually no decisions and random, mostly bad things happen to you in which your only reaction is to roll dice (this is especially bad if you were sucked in unprepared (no clue and no elder sign) and the experience will be for nought). One unfortunate player was stuck in Celeano for four encounters (!) as a result of two trap-type encounters last night. Coupled with the fact that gates are usually opening at a rate where you will lose in six (at minimum) to eight (average) turns (in a five player game) if you don't close a gate almost immediately, you will lose. The amount of time spent in other worlds seems overly much - given the few options available to the player. I actually remembered a rule incorrectly for the first few gate encounters - we should get sucked into the other world where we then have a other world encounter on the same turn, instead of waiting until the next turn. This made an important difference in our first run through last night, and I should have caught the mistake earlier. I believe it affected two gate exploration attempts. The effect of having no decisions to make and simply watching as things happen to you in a game (as can happen in the Other Worlds) is a "locked on auto-pilot" feeling that is the exact opposite of enjoyable gaming. I will have to think of other games where this occurs, because it is not exclusive to Arkham Horror.

4. The FAQ version of monster introduction rate (two monsters per gate with five or more investigators, and monster surges of monsters = # of investigators or number of gates, whichever is higher) should only be used with experienced players for a greater challenge. It seemed overly challenging with four experienced players and one rookie last night.

5. I propose that one possible aid to play is the ability to trade clues. Aside from a game mechanic point of view, I don't see why (thematically) investigators wouldn't trade clues. In fact, thematically, they SHOULD trade clues. If you cannot close/seal a gate unless you explore it, if you are sucked through a gate and no one has elder signs to trade, you are stuck with the option of closing the gate only. Another alternative is that you can close a gate with clues or elder signs if at least one investigator in the space has an explored marker. I don't know; this might make the game too easy.

Coming away from these games, I still feel like I want to play again. Oh, I forgot to mention - we were all devoured by Cthulhu in the first game (lost by a long shot - we didn't have a chance), but we made decent headway in the second against Hastur. I feel that with many repeated plays, you might get a situation in which you feel you've explored all possibilities, but I haven't reached that level yet after six games. I almost feel like I want to play this game two or three times in a row with a dedicated group of players to fully appreciate it, but I don't think that will happen with this group. Arkham Horror requires either dedicated North American-style game afficianados or Cthulhu-mythos fans to be a frequently revisited game. Our gaming group does not match this description (3 Mythos fans, one of which is a North American-style game fan, so only 60% of the group)

As a final side note, I find it interesting to note that the two players who appeared least enthused about the game were also the ones most distracted by comparisons of which illustrations had the sexiest women (Jenny Barnes, "cleavage girl" (forgotten her name) and the Witch) and also happened to be the youngest players (well, still well over 25, but...). Low attention-span blipheads! Can't you see the importance of focusing your attention on a board game based on the lunatic/paranoid writings of a semi-racist New Englander* for three hours? I blame MTV. Kids today... *mutter mutter grumble*

* Yes, yes, I know. His views on miscegenation and racial purity changed over his lifespan, and toward the end of his life he had changed many of his viewpoints. Doesn't change the fact that a lot of his early work was undoubtedly racially prejudiced.

Fondues, Flaming Zeros and Freezing Death is a Harsh Mistress

Observations on last night's session:


1. Fondues, while extremely yummy, are very non-condusive to rapid starts to the evening.

2. Mmmmmmmm. Fried bread.

3. Never try to explain game rules over sizzling fondue.

4. Zeros tend to make short work of F4F Wildcats.

5. It's a lot more fun to turn Zeros into flaming paper kites.

6. Shemp likes calling things by strange, masculine first names, i.e. "Zeke", "Jimmy". He finds this very humourous.

7. Captain Park is a harsh mistress.

8. Elabourate stories about heroic adventures in far-away lands are best told in a really bad accent.

9. Used fondue pot oil is not for drinking.


The games for the evening were: Zero! The Rise of the Imperial Japanese Air Force by GMT Games and Captain Park's Imaginary Polar Expedition by Cheapass Games.

Zero! The Rise of the Imperial Japanese Air Force is a stand-alone, non-collectible card game of air-to-air combat in the early years of the Pacific theatre in WWII. Up to six players can fight, each controlling one or more aircraft. Using a fairly simple "attack-response" combat system which has added layers of complexity built onto it with the addition of wingmen and altitude, the game does a really decent job of simulating quick and deadly aerial combat in 15-30 minutes.

Captain Park's Imaginary Polar Expedition is a game for up to six players. Having witnessed the fame and attention accorded to Captain Park for a completely fabricated story told to the Adventurer's Club of London, you set out into London to acquire photographs, anecdotes, "facts" and biographies of "heroes" to embroider your own elabourate tale of daring-do. Unfortunately, Captain Park doesn't want his thunder stolen and will report you to the club as a fraud if he catches you. A simple game mechanic with many "Kill Dr. Lucky" undertones, Captain Park's Imaginary Polar Expedition plays in about 60 - 75 minutes.

I really enjoyed playing Zero!, but I fear it may suffer from "wargame trying to be a simpler card game syndrome" that many of today's 'new and improved' wargames suffer from - the basic system is quite simple and elegant, but a number of fussy exceptions make it difficult for non-wargamers to penetrate... which is basically a general critique of all the "real" wargames I played prior to 1998 or so. I fear that Zero! may not get many repeat playings for this reason. I enjoyed it, however, and rate Zero! a 7.

As with many Cheapass Games, Captain Park's Imaginary Polar Expedition was hard to judge in advance. Like Deadwood and Kill Doctor Lucky, the rules are pretty basic. Fortunately for the late start of the game, the rules of Captain Park's Imaginary Polar Expedition are simpler than even most Cheapass Games, with even fewer fiddles. Overall, I didn't find the gameplay as engaging as Deadwood, but more fun than Kill Doctor Lucky. I can't really see it improving with multiple sessions, but it's not all that bad. I rate it 6.5, sliding halfway between Deadwood and Kill Doctor Lucky.