Just before the most recent session report shows up, I wanted to point out that the sidebar's "Navigate by Game" section has been updated, for the first time in over a year. All session reports prior to this post should be accounted for. Now you can go nuts browsing the archives.
Or, browse them without going nuts.
Your choice.
NOTE: I'm not sure everything is 100% correct, so let me know if you find any errors or omissions.
Thursday, June 22, 2006
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Friday, June 16, 2006
Stop Bharmering (Railroad Tycoon x2)
It's not every day that a new word enters the English language. Wednesday was one such day. The word has proven so useful at describing something we gamers face all too often that once we came up with it, we found ourselves using it constantly.
It describes a player who doesn't know who's turn it is, particularly when it's his/her turn.
The word, my friends, is "Bharmering".
Use it once, and you'll wonder how you got along without it. I'm sure by this time next year, it will be a part of the basic vocabulary of gaming.
Poor Brian (heretefore know as "Bharmer"). He certainly isn't guilty of Bharmering more often than anyone else, but he had the misfortune of committing the error just as we were saying there should be a word for it. So it is.
Anyway, the game last night was Railroad Tycoon. Bharmer had never played, but since he managed to beat the group in his first outing of Power Grid, we felt he was up to the task of jumping right in. Luch dominated the game by taking control of the red cube rich north east. I did my best to stop him, but to no avail. Kozure worked on the south east, along with Bharmer, and linked to chicago along another line. Shemp started in the south and worked his way up to the west of the mountains. I really wasn't doing anything productive, building short lines everywhere, missing out on the hotel in Chicago (as well as my Tycoon's bonus of 2 points per link out of there), and wasted an effort trying to reach Toronto to claim a service bounty before Bharmer. Overall, the race for 2nd, 3rd and 4th place was tight but Luch won decisively. Bharmer trailed pretty badly for 5th place, but he was hampered the entire game by some unwise early decisions due to inexperience.
We played a second game, now that everyone was familiar. I got caught up in a ridiculous bidding war against Luch for the 1st move. I think I quit at $22000! The starting cards were potentially quite lucrative, though, so it wasn't entirely insane. Luch started in the North East again, but the board had a very different distribution of cubes than the last game, so it didn't prove to be such a huge advantage. Most of the red cubes started on the red cities... the board was described by Kozure as "goods poor", due to this type of distribution. I played a much better game this time, establishing a good medium sized route early on near Cincinatti and grabbing a few card bonuses. I also slowly built a route from New York to Chicago (to satisfy my Tycoon bonus). Chicago became a nightmare of crossing tracks as the area was heavily developped by Kozure, Shemp and myself. Everyone was having a pretty good game this time, with most players neck and neck. I was trailing, but my east-west goal was fairly long term (and expensive... I was taking shares like they were going out of style).
A funny thing happened in the end. One of the most common criticisms of the game manifested itself for the first time: The big 20 point bonus card revealed itself on the 2nd last round, and I was the only one capable of fulfilling it (having already made the connection from New York to Chicago). I had already planned out my last 6 actions... I would upgrade my engine to 6 (2 actions) and then ship the 4 red cubes from New York to Chicago for 24 points. I was therefore not even considering going for the bonus, since I'd be sacrificing the easy deliveries in order to do it and the cost would be higher. Then, on the last turn, a government land grant came up. No one took the card, so on my turn I was able to cheaply go to Kansas, claim the bonus and still make a few deliveries. I went from last place to a win!(though by a single point). Had the card not come up, I would have still vaulted to 2nd place with my long term strategy coming to fruition, but I'm happy to say that in the end the bonus did not swing the game entirely.
Anyway, it was a fun night. I really enjoy the game despite it's design flaws. I have a sneaking suspicion that it may be worthwhile removing the "Railroad Executive" cards from the start pile, since they seem to come up fairly often and allow the start player to rack up significant points (and, no, the auction doesn't balance this out. If the start cards are so good that a real bidding war errupts, the player to the left of the start player is the real winner).
I have a feeling we might be doing more of this type of evening in the future... playing the same game twice instead of a number of games... should be a good way to get a more in depth appreciation for the bigger games we play. I'm looking forward to it.
Until then, stop Bharmering.
It describes a player who doesn't know who's turn it is, particularly when it's his/her turn.
The word, my friends, is "Bharmering".
Use it once, and you'll wonder how you got along without it. I'm sure by this time next year, it will be a part of the basic vocabulary of gaming.
Poor Brian (heretefore know as "Bharmer"). He certainly isn't guilty of Bharmering more often than anyone else, but he had the misfortune of committing the error just as we were saying there should be a word for it. So it is.
Anyway, the game last night was Railroad Tycoon. Bharmer had never played, but since he managed to beat the group in his first outing of Power Grid, we felt he was up to the task of jumping right in. Luch dominated the game by taking control of the red cube rich north east. I did my best to stop him, but to no avail. Kozure worked on the south east, along with Bharmer, and linked to chicago along another line. Shemp started in the south and worked his way up to the west of the mountains. I really wasn't doing anything productive, building short lines everywhere, missing out on the hotel in Chicago (as well as my Tycoon's bonus of 2 points per link out of there), and wasted an effort trying to reach Toronto to claim a service bounty before Bharmer. Overall, the race for 2nd, 3rd and 4th place was tight but Luch won decisively. Bharmer trailed pretty badly for 5th place, but he was hampered the entire game by some unwise early decisions due to inexperience.
We played a second game, now that everyone was familiar. I got caught up in a ridiculous bidding war against Luch for the 1st move. I think I quit at $22000! The starting cards were potentially quite lucrative, though, so it wasn't entirely insane. Luch started in the North East again, but the board had a very different distribution of cubes than the last game, so it didn't prove to be such a huge advantage. Most of the red cubes started on the red cities... the board was described by Kozure as "goods poor", due to this type of distribution. I played a much better game this time, establishing a good medium sized route early on near Cincinatti and grabbing a few card bonuses. I also slowly built a route from New York to Chicago (to satisfy my Tycoon bonus). Chicago became a nightmare of crossing tracks as the area was heavily developped by Kozure, Shemp and myself. Everyone was having a pretty good game this time, with most players neck and neck. I was trailing, but my east-west goal was fairly long term (and expensive... I was taking shares like they were going out of style).
A funny thing happened in the end. One of the most common criticisms of the game manifested itself for the first time: The big 20 point bonus card revealed itself on the 2nd last round, and I was the only one capable of fulfilling it (having already made the connection from New York to Chicago). I had already planned out my last 6 actions... I would upgrade my engine to 6 (2 actions) and then ship the 4 red cubes from New York to Chicago for 24 points. I was therefore not even considering going for the bonus, since I'd be sacrificing the easy deliveries in order to do it and the cost would be higher. Then, on the last turn, a government land grant came up. No one took the card, so on my turn I was able to cheaply go to Kansas, claim the bonus and still make a few deliveries. I went from last place to a win!(though by a single point). Had the card not come up, I would have still vaulted to 2nd place with my long term strategy coming to fruition, but I'm happy to say that in the end the bonus did not swing the game entirely.
Anyway, it was a fun night. I really enjoy the game despite it's design flaws. I have a sneaking suspicion that it may be worthwhile removing the "Railroad Executive" cards from the start pile, since they seem to come up fairly often and allow the start player to rack up significant points (and, no, the auction doesn't balance this out. If the start cards are so good that a real bidding war errupts, the player to the left of the start player is the real winner).
I have a feeling we might be doing more of this type of evening in the future... playing the same game twice instead of a number of games... should be a good way to get a more in depth appreciation for the bigger games we play. I'm looking forward to it.
Until then, stop Bharmering.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
House of 10,000 Bad German Accents
What is it about "Power Grid" that makes our gaming group adopt bad Teutonic accents and make off-colour jokes about Cuxhaven and Wilhelmshaven? How is it that a friendly gaming night degenerates into a morass of bad puns and similar inanity?
Not since the classic "I have wood for sheep" phrase was uttered while playing Settlers of Catan has a game engendered such low humour.
Well, it's a great game, despite all the silliness. As this was Mr. H's first go at this particular gem, we started the evening with the standard introductory game of Step 1 only and a 7 city goal. Mr. H caught on quickly, but not quickly enough to stop Kozure from snagging the lead. Shemp might have come closer to the front runners save for a miscalculation by one Electro which cost him a connection.
Our second, full game was pretty tight. We decided to leave out the two southernmost regions to avoid creating the narrow playing areas we've had in the past. This allowed for fairly wide-open play and a consequently closer game - no one player was locked out of the standings by the usual "Great Wall of China" strategy (although Shemp did make a great try at it).
Mr. H made a few excellent acquisitions of green power plants and pulled off the win with something like 15 Electros in reserve. Hapi came in second with around 8 or 9, and Shemp came up with third, managing to power 17 but only having 1 Electro left.
What about yours truly? Well, a boneheaded power plant overpurchase in step 1 left me with insufficient electros to buy the resources to power it, leaving four cities in the dark, and me about thirty electros behind everyone else for the rest of the game. Despite playing catch up and almost getting there, I only managed to connect 16 cities before the curtain came down.
This game was the closest yet - most of the games we've played previous to this one had one or two clear leaders with a abundance of electros left over, and at least one (and sometimes two) other players behind by three or four connections.
This continues to be one of my favourite games. Tight game play, difficult decisions over a limited set of options, but relatively little AP (analysis paralysis), combined with a good theme and relatively clear ruleset (depsite the three or four rules around timing which tend to be niggly) make this one a winner.
We didn't get around to the proposed second game, "Way out West", due to a late start (my fault), but I'm looking forward to trying out Martin Wallace's cowboy epic next week or sometime soon.
Ja?
Ja, pardner.
Not since the classic "I have wood for sheep" phrase was uttered while playing Settlers of Catan has a game engendered such low humour.
Well, it's a great game, despite all the silliness. As this was Mr. H's first go at this particular gem, we started the evening with the standard introductory game of Step 1 only and a 7 city goal. Mr. H caught on quickly, but not quickly enough to stop Kozure from snagging the lead. Shemp might have come closer to the front runners save for a miscalculation by one Electro which cost him a connection.
Our second, full game was pretty tight. We decided to leave out the two southernmost regions to avoid creating the narrow playing areas we've had in the past. This allowed for fairly wide-open play and a consequently closer game - no one player was locked out of the standings by the usual "Great Wall of China" strategy (although Shemp did make a great try at it).
Mr. H made a few excellent acquisitions of green power plants and pulled off the win with something like 15 Electros in reserve. Hapi came in second with around 8 or 9, and Shemp came up with third, managing to power 17 but only having 1 Electro left.
What about yours truly? Well, a boneheaded power plant overpurchase in step 1 left me with insufficient electros to buy the resources to power it, leaving four cities in the dark, and me about thirty electros behind everyone else for the rest of the game. Despite playing catch up and almost getting there, I only managed to connect 16 cities before the curtain came down.
This game was the closest yet - most of the games we've played previous to this one had one or two clear leaders with a abundance of electros left over, and at least one (and sometimes two) other players behind by three or four connections.
This continues to be one of my favourite games. Tight game play, difficult decisions over a limited set of options, but relatively little AP (analysis paralysis), combined with a good theme and relatively clear ruleset (depsite the three or four rules around timing which tend to be niggly) make this one a winner.
We didn't get around to the proposed second game, "Way out West", due to a late start (my fault), but I'm looking forward to trying out Martin Wallace's cowboy epic next week or sometime soon.
Ja?
Ja, pardner.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
It takes two to tango (Napoleon, Baker Street, Tally Ho!, Memoir '44)
In an effort to play a few games which rarely see table time, we decided to make this Wednesday all about 2 player games.
There was exactly 4 of us, so we paired off and picked from a stack of available titles. Kozure and Brian picked "Baker Street" (note to self, Brian needs an alias) and Luch and I chose Napoleon.
I recently picked up this copy of the Gamma 2 edition of Napoleon used. I had wanted to try out a Columbia Block game, and I had heard lots of people recommend this one as a nice introductory game.
The game itself looks a little dated with the simple graphics stamped directly on the wood blocks, but unlike current Columbia Games offerings, the board is mounted (which is nice).
I won't get into much description regarding what a "block game" is. If you don't know, go to BGG or the Columbia Games website. Suffice it to say that each player's units are represented by wooden blocks, with the statistics of those units printed on one side. Essentially, you know WHERE your opponent's units are, but not WHAT they are (or how damaged they are).
This is a pretty early one, with the version I purchased dating from the '70s.
Basically, one player plays the French forces led by Napoleon and the other player plays the English and the Prussians. The goal of each player is to eliminate half of the opposing player's units. Movement is simple... essentially players can move the forces from two cities to any adjacent cities on their turn. If units of opposing forces find themselves in the same city, they do battle. Battle is handled by a separate "Battle Board" where units face off across a battle line and use various maneuvres to try to "Rout" the ennemy. Interestingly, each side of the line is split into three regions (termed "columns") similar to Memoir '44 (and Battle Cry/ C&C ancients). I haven't played enough war games to know whether such an organization is frequently used in war games or not, but the left, middle and right flank arrangement must be fairly representative of the fighting for this period.
The rules make the English/Prussian player (the "allies") place his/her pieces on the board first, and city limits ensure that the units are rather scattered to start. The French player not only has the advantage of being able to place second (thus exploiting any weaknesses in the starting player's position), but is allowed to group his/her forces into much larger concentrations and move first as well. Of course, the French are outnumbered, and have a VERY short time limit to defeat the enemy, so they need a few breaks.
I played the French both times. In the first game, Luch positioned his forces along the flanks. I concentrated my units down the middle and marched right up to a rather easy victory. The second game, Luch was not so easily fooled. He started further back and more spread out, though with a concentration in the middle. I decided to try two large forces down both flanks. This was harder to accomplish. I succesfully marched to Ghent and also took Brussels, easily destroying the British. Unfortunately, the Prussians where putting a solid defense at Liege and I was very close to losing due to attrition. 3 badly hurt units were on the run from a large and powerful Prussian army, hoping to last long enough for the Prussian supply problems to make them implode. It came down to a single die roll, as my band faced yet another round of pursuit fire on the last turn before the Prussian defeat. If any units survived, the win was mine. A single unit did, and with that Napoleon won.
I liked it. In time, I think I'll pick up Rommel in the Desert and Hammer of the Scots. Wargames have a "freedom of movement" (for lack of a better expression) which is lacking in most Eurogames, so it's nice to have games such as these in a collection (alongside euro-american hybrids like Duel of Ages, Fury of Dracula, and the like). This game's mechanics feels fairly modern, despite their age. It's a pretty clean, simple and short game. The "battle board" is a nice way to bring a finer grain to what would otherwise be a highly abstracted war game. That said, I can't seem to interpret some of rules (the rule book provided is quite vague, and researching a 30 year old game online isn't easy). Despite the fact that this game is still technically "in print", the current version is quite different. I've read the new rules, and tried to extrapolate how to they would apply to the 1st edition, but some rules are still frustratingly vague. Particularly, many rules depend on the units being "engaged", but in practice it's quite hard to tell at times if they are or not. Anyway, I'll post to the forums and get that stuff worked out. I had fun, and I think Luch liked it too. It would have been nice to play a game with Kozure, since he's the wargame guy, but we'll save that for another time.
We followed up with a quick game of Tally Ho. Not much to say about that one... it's a cute game, enjoyable for what it is, but the luck in the initial random placement probably decides most games.
Last, we played Memoir '44. We combined two sets with the intention of playing the "Omaha Beach" Overloard scenario... little did we know those rules are meant for 8 players! Rather, we simply left each player in charge of one half of the battle and played it straight. It was Luch and Kozure as the Axis vs. Brian and I as the Allies. My tanks were eliminated very early by a "barrage" attack, but Brian's managed to break the enemy line and cross to some of the towns worth victory points. I had a hard time accomplishing anything since I was being cut down as fast as I could get onto the beach. Luckily, my own "Barrage" wiped out Luch's artillery compound (a very unlikely event) and gave me some breathing space. It came down to the wire, but Kozure and Luch pulled a victory by knocking out a different group of Brian's tanks who were racing to occupy another town for the last point.
Fun game, if only it didn't take so long to set up!!!
There was exactly 4 of us, so we paired off and picked from a stack of available titles. Kozure and Brian picked "Baker Street" (note to self, Brian needs an alias) and Luch and I chose Napoleon.
I recently picked up this copy of the Gamma 2 edition of Napoleon used. I had wanted to try out a Columbia Block game, and I had heard lots of people recommend this one as a nice introductory game.
The game itself looks a little dated with the simple graphics stamped directly on the wood blocks, but unlike current Columbia Games offerings, the board is mounted (which is nice).
I won't get into much description regarding what a "block game" is. If you don't know, go to BGG or the Columbia Games website. Suffice it to say that each player's units are represented by wooden blocks, with the statistics of those units printed on one side. Essentially, you know WHERE your opponent's units are, but not WHAT they are (or how damaged they are).
This is a pretty early one, with the version I purchased dating from the '70s.
Basically, one player plays the French forces led by Napoleon and the other player plays the English and the Prussians. The goal of each player is to eliminate half of the opposing player's units. Movement is simple... essentially players can move the forces from two cities to any adjacent cities on their turn. If units of opposing forces find themselves in the same city, they do battle. Battle is handled by a separate "Battle Board" where units face off across a battle line and use various maneuvres to try to "Rout" the ennemy. Interestingly, each side of the line is split into three regions (termed "columns") similar to Memoir '44 (and Battle Cry/ C&C ancients). I haven't played enough war games to know whether such an organization is frequently used in war games or not, but the left, middle and right flank arrangement must be fairly representative of the fighting for this period.
The rules make the English/Prussian player (the "allies") place his/her pieces on the board first, and city limits ensure that the units are rather scattered to start. The French player not only has the advantage of being able to place second (thus exploiting any weaknesses in the starting player's position), but is allowed to group his/her forces into much larger concentrations and move first as well. Of course, the French are outnumbered, and have a VERY short time limit to defeat the enemy, so they need a few breaks.
I played the French both times. In the first game, Luch positioned his forces along the flanks. I concentrated my units down the middle and marched right up to a rather easy victory. The second game, Luch was not so easily fooled. He started further back and more spread out, though with a concentration in the middle. I decided to try two large forces down both flanks. This was harder to accomplish. I succesfully marched to Ghent and also took Brussels, easily destroying the British. Unfortunately, the Prussians where putting a solid defense at Liege and I was very close to losing due to attrition. 3 badly hurt units were on the run from a large and powerful Prussian army, hoping to last long enough for the Prussian supply problems to make them implode. It came down to a single die roll, as my band faced yet another round of pursuit fire on the last turn before the Prussian defeat. If any units survived, the win was mine. A single unit did, and with that Napoleon won.
I liked it. In time, I think I'll pick up Rommel in the Desert and Hammer of the Scots. Wargames have a "freedom of movement" (for lack of a better expression) which is lacking in most Eurogames, so it's nice to have games such as these in a collection (alongside euro-american hybrids like Duel of Ages, Fury of Dracula, and the like). This game's mechanics feels fairly modern, despite their age. It's a pretty clean, simple and short game. The "battle board" is a nice way to bring a finer grain to what would otherwise be a highly abstracted war game. That said, I can't seem to interpret some of rules (the rule book provided is quite vague, and researching a 30 year old game online isn't easy). Despite the fact that this game is still technically "in print", the current version is quite different. I've read the new rules, and tried to extrapolate how to they would apply to the 1st edition, but some rules are still frustratingly vague. Particularly, many rules depend on the units being "engaged", but in practice it's quite hard to tell at times if they are or not. Anyway, I'll post to the forums and get that stuff worked out. I had fun, and I think Luch liked it too. It would have been nice to play a game with Kozure, since he's the wargame guy, but we'll save that for another time.
We followed up with a quick game of Tally Ho. Not much to say about that one... it's a cute game, enjoyable for what it is, but the luck in the initial random placement probably decides most games.
Last, we played Memoir '44. We combined two sets with the intention of playing the "Omaha Beach" Overloard scenario... little did we know those rules are meant for 8 players! Rather, we simply left each player in charge of one half of the battle and played it straight. It was Luch and Kozure as the Axis vs. Brian and I as the Allies. My tanks were eliminated very early by a "barrage" attack, but Brian's managed to break the enemy line and cross to some of the towns worth victory points. I had a hard time accomplishing anything since I was being cut down as fast as I could get onto the beach. Luckily, my own "Barrage" wiped out Luch's artillery compound (a very unlikely event) and gave me some breathing space. It came down to the wire, but Kozure and Luch pulled a victory by knocking out a different group of Brian's tanks who were racing to occupy another town for the last point.
Fun game, if only it didn't take so long to set up!!!
Labels:
Baker Street,
Memoir '44,
Napoleon,
Session,
Tally Ho
Thursday, May 25, 2006
It was the best of Dice, it was the worst of Dice (Pirate's Cove, Formula De)
Under strict dictatorial orders by Shemp, fueled by delicious Swazi Fire Sauce, we fearless Wagsters played games of "Daring, Bravery and Brinksmanship"...
Pirate's Cove and Formula De.
If those aren't your idea of "Daring, Bravery and Brinksmanship", well you're probably not alone, but who can really figure Shemp out anyway?
It took longer than usual to gather our forces this week, so we started Pirate's Cove (minus Kozure) at around 8pm. Brian was brought up to speed on the rules, and we set sail. Over the course of the game, I spent most turns licking my wounds in Pirate's Cove. Brian was in the lead early on, since no one ever seemed to attack him (clearly, this is the secret to success). We eventually found him, and knocked him back a bit. I dumped a bunch of treasure to take the lead, but Luch then snuck into the lead. The games was unusually close near the end, however. Unlike many games, the last round did not involve a large battle with the black pirate. Surprisingly, we all wound up on the same island (#1) instead! Luch was by far the biggest and best equipped ship at sea, so it was very unlikely we'd survive (particularly due to the first battle card he played which prevented any other cards from being played during combat). Brian went down first, then I took out Shemp for the easy victory point, and Luch ended the game by blasting me out of the water.
Luch supplemented his lead with a number of fame cards for the win! Brian came 2nd, I was 3rd and Shemp last, but as I said earlier it was a very close game right to the end. It was nice to play this one again... it had been too long.
Kozure showed up at 9:30pm, well after we had all gave up on him showing. This guy is a dedicated games player!
We played the Formula De Monaco course, with Luch in the pole position (and last), me in 2nd (and 9th), Kozure in 3rd (and 8th), Shemp in 4th (and 7th) and Brian in the middle.
The race went pretty smoothly to start. My 2nd car unfortunately had a "Bad Start", effectively putting me behind a turn, but I was convinced I could make up the time. The lead was exchanged on numerous occasions between myself and Luch, but the start order was pretty much maintained throughout the race. Exceptions, of course, occurred: Shemp's lead car was inexplicably falling behind until it eventually became the last car. My rear car tried a reckless maneuver to get himself back in the game (leaving the "3" corner in 4th gear so that I could take the long stretch in 5th... it cost me EVERY POINT my car had, but it worked. Unfortunately, the rolls didn't go my way after that and I didn't keep the ground I gained for long). Luch had earned the distinction of losing the first car, but others soon followed. My poor rear car spun out approaching the 2nd last corner and then crashed on an unlikely roll 2 turns later. Kozure received some engine damage early on, but it never caught up with him.
Luch and I turned the final corner in a virtual tie for first place. The win hinged on who rolled what, and luck smiled on team Red (that's me). YOU COULD CUT THE TENSION WITH A KNIFE.
We had settled on a scoring method which gave various points according to position.
1st=10
2nd=6
3rd=4
4th=3
5th=2
6th=1
In retrospect, our point distribution didn't make any sense because there was no way for the 1st place player to lose (no matter how the others placed). At least if 3rd place was worth 5, a player could win by getting 2nd AND 3rd. Otherwise, what's the value of the point system or of racing 2 cars? I wouldn't care, except it seems that the players in the first 2 spots at the beginning have a pretty distinct advantage, and racing the second cars doesn't seem to be of any value if combined points don't win the game.
Maybe next time we should do:
1st=10
2nd=9
3rd=8
4th=7
5th=6
6th=5
7th=4
8th=3
9th=2
10th=1
(cars which don't finish get no points)
This gives every player an equal chance of winning based on starting positions. It increases the importance of finishing every car as well as possible (and makes it especially damaging to crash a car). I don't recall all the finishing positions last night, but I'd be curious to see how the standings would have been affected (I think that due to the number of crashed cars the standings wouldn't have changed, but it's possible Kozure or Brian would have jumped up a bit).
Another fun evening!
Pirate's Cove and Formula De.
If those aren't your idea of "Daring, Bravery and Brinksmanship", well you're probably not alone, but who can really figure Shemp out anyway?
It took longer than usual to gather our forces this week, so we started Pirate's Cove (minus Kozure) at around 8pm. Brian was brought up to speed on the rules, and we set sail. Over the course of the game, I spent most turns licking my wounds in Pirate's Cove. Brian was in the lead early on, since no one ever seemed to attack him (clearly, this is the secret to success). We eventually found him, and knocked him back a bit. I dumped a bunch of treasure to take the lead, but Luch then snuck into the lead. The games was unusually close near the end, however. Unlike many games, the last round did not involve a large battle with the black pirate. Surprisingly, we all wound up on the same island (#1) instead! Luch was by far the biggest and best equipped ship at sea, so it was very unlikely we'd survive (particularly due to the first battle card he played which prevented any other cards from being played during combat). Brian went down first, then I took out Shemp for the easy victory point, and Luch ended the game by blasting me out of the water.
Luch supplemented his lead with a number of fame cards for the win! Brian came 2nd, I was 3rd and Shemp last, but as I said earlier it was a very close game right to the end. It was nice to play this one again... it had been too long.
Kozure showed up at 9:30pm, well after we had all gave up on him showing. This guy is a dedicated games player!
We played the Formula De Monaco course, with Luch in the pole position (and last), me in 2nd (and 9th), Kozure in 3rd (and 8th), Shemp in 4th (and 7th) and Brian in the middle.
The race went pretty smoothly to start. My 2nd car unfortunately had a "Bad Start", effectively putting me behind a turn, but I was convinced I could make up the time. The lead was exchanged on numerous occasions between myself and Luch, but the start order was pretty much maintained throughout the race. Exceptions, of course, occurred: Shemp's lead car was inexplicably falling behind until it eventually became the last car. My rear car tried a reckless maneuver to get himself back in the game (leaving the "3" corner in 4th gear so that I could take the long stretch in 5th... it cost me EVERY POINT my car had, but it worked. Unfortunately, the rolls didn't go my way after that and I didn't keep the ground I gained for long). Luch had earned the distinction of losing the first car, but others soon followed. My poor rear car spun out approaching the 2nd last corner and then crashed on an unlikely roll 2 turns later. Kozure received some engine damage early on, but it never caught up with him.
Luch and I turned the final corner in a virtual tie for first place. The win hinged on who rolled what, and luck smiled on team Red (that's me). YOU COULD CUT THE TENSION WITH A KNIFE.
We had settled on a scoring method which gave various points according to position.
1st=10
2nd=6
3rd=4
4th=3
5th=2
6th=1
In retrospect, our point distribution didn't make any sense because there was no way for the 1st place player to lose (no matter how the others placed). At least if 3rd place was worth 5, a player could win by getting 2nd AND 3rd. Otherwise, what's the value of the point system or of racing 2 cars? I wouldn't care, except it seems that the players in the first 2 spots at the beginning have a pretty distinct advantage, and racing the second cars doesn't seem to be of any value if combined points don't win the game.
Maybe next time we should do:
1st=10
2nd=9
3rd=8
4th=7
5th=6
6th=5
7th=4
8th=3
9th=2
10th=1
(cars which don't finish get no points)
This gives every player an equal chance of winning based on starting positions. It increases the importance of finishing every car as well as possible (and makes it especially damaging to crash a car). I don't recall all the finishing positions last night, but I'd be curious to see how the standings would have been affected (I think that due to the number of crashed cars the standings wouldn't have changed, but it's possible Kozure or Brian would have jumped up a bit).
Another fun evening!
Thursday, May 18, 2006
I don't like you OR you, but I HATE him (Conquest of the Empire)
After some trepidation, I now own Conquest of the Empire. Last night, joined by relative newcomer Brian, we gave it a whirl.
Reviews on this game have been mostly positive, but Chris Farrell recently panned it at his blog (agree or dissagree with him, his arguments are pretty astute when it comes to determining if a game system is sound. How that applies to "fun" can be debated). I was looking for a large scale war game to round out my collection, and this looked like the best bet. The game ships with two entirely different sets of rules, the first being a tweaked re-release of an 80s title and the second being a modified Martin Wallace design based on his "Struggles of Empires" game. The Martin Wallace partnership yielded great results with Railroad Tycoon, so that's the one I wanted to try.
Well, first off, it turns out that this ruleset isn't really a war game. Conquest of the Empire is an area influence game, wrapped in a war game's clothing. That's not a bad thing (and I suspect the other rules would satisfy that itch if I gave them a try), but it needs to be kept in mind when evaluating the game.
I won't get into too much detail regarding the rules, but a general overview is in order. The board represents the ancient Mediteranean, and players are vying for the title of the new Ceasar of the Roman Empire. To this end, they must hold influence in key regions.
The game is broken up into 4 "Campaign Seasons" and two major things happen every such season: 1) the board is "seeded" with a random assortment of tokens representing opportunities to gain influence in the Empire. 2) "Alliances" must be formed, meaning that players must bid their way into one of two groups (i.e. if there are 5 players, 3 will be group "A" and 2 will be group "B"). Alliances are important because although there is no illusions of friendship between players of the same group, they are not allowed to attack each other.
So, over the 4 campaign seasons, players must figure out the most effective method for converting the influence tokens on the board to their colour. The most direct way is to send troops, accompanied by a general or ceasar, to a location containing a token and take an action to "convert it". However, if the target is another player's token any units in the region belonging to that player must first be eliminated or driven away. Each "key" region is worth a number of points to the player with the most influence tokens (and fewer points to the player in 2nd place), similar to the scoring in El Grande. It's worth noting that while the point values vary from region to region, Italia is worth the most by far, and is the only region where a third place is worth points.
Players only get 2 actions per round. They will normally want to do much more than that! There are several reasons for this, but the main one which comes up is that moving units is an action, battling is an action and converting an influence token is a third action. That's 3 actions required for accomplishing the central task of the game, yet players only get 2 at a time! This means that while snapping up an unclaimed influence token is a breeze, getting one from another player takes some planning.
The game also features a number of cards which are turned up every campaign season (similar to Railroad Tycoon), which allow all sorts of special events and abilities to happen, including a political sub-system which adds an interesting twist (and, again, the front runner in Italia gets special abilities during that process, making it even more of an important region than it already is).
In our game, I started with a concentration in Egyptus and Neapolis. I succesfully bid to go first and quickly grabbed some influence tokens in Italia. Kozure, Luch and Brian largely stayed elsewhere, dominating Greece, Mesopotamia, Spain and the rest of the south, while Shemp built up just west of me.
The game system offers plenty of opportunity for surprising plays, largely due to the variety of cards and the very odd movement mechanics (in one "move", armies can move as far as they want inland, so long as they do not cross a region containing enemy units, and can travel by water to any destination adjacent to a ship they have on the board). Brian, for example, swooped into Spain all the way from Egypt and stole a few influence tokens from Kozure when he didn't expect it.
By the end of the first campaign season, I had a small target on my head as the early leader. Luch assassinated my general, leaving me with only my ceasar to activate my troops for the remainder of the game (buying a new one would have been worthless as Luch would have killed it again using the same card). Lucky for me, no one spent a whole lot of time purchasing units, so for most of the game our positions weren't terribly threatened. Most skirmishes were one-sided affairs where a player had left a single unit behind to protect a token. Thanks to Luch, my units in Egypt were stuck without a general to lead them, but luckily there was enough of them that no one attempted a coup. I largely sat in Italia with only the occasional little trip to convert an available nearby token (At one point, Kozure attempted to destroy my Trireme but was unsuccessful... thank goodness because I was relying on that to get me around to the nearby islands). Over time, my investment in Italia grew and that target on my head got bigger and bigger. In the last rounds, my armies in Egypt were destroyed, large armies were being mustered to attack and Shemp tried unsuccesfully to get a majority of influence in Italia, but it wasn't enough. The game ended and I had a large lead, giving me a comfortable victory.
Ironically, Brian (who had to leave early and didn't participate in the last two rounds) only came in 2nd last! I won't mention who lost.
A few lessons learned:
1) Italia must be contested at all costs. It's simply worth too much to allow a single player to hold all game. By the time our group realized this, it was very hard to turn things around.
2) The Alliance system makes a big difference. Most obviously, if you are weak and threatend by an opponent, being in their alliance can buy you the time to rebuild. Also, if a player can't fight you, they can't steal your influence tokens away. Finally, if a player is on your side, he/she can't block your passage across the board.
3) The political angle is a little tricky to work properly, and it can definitely backfire, but the card effects can be quite powerful.
4) Inertia is a real challenge in this game. Once a player has established influence in an area, it's hard and slow to wrestle it away. Once a leader is out front, it's hard to catch up.
5) It's easy to get lost in the "war" aspect of the game, and lose sight of the fact that destroying armies is only a means to an end (and, in fact, of no value on it's own)
I quite enjoyed the game. The massive board and over the top bits lend themselves well to this theme. Downtime can be a problem if players think too long, but with a max. of 2 actions a round, it was never too bad. On the other hand, the game did take nearly 4 hours... I suspect things will go much quicker in the future (probably 2- 2 1/2 hours).
Conquest of the Empire: 8
Reviews on this game have been mostly positive, but Chris Farrell recently panned it at his blog (agree or dissagree with him, his arguments are pretty astute when it comes to determining if a game system is sound. How that applies to "fun" can be debated). I was looking for a large scale war game to round out my collection, and this looked like the best bet. The game ships with two entirely different sets of rules, the first being a tweaked re-release of an 80s title and the second being a modified Martin Wallace design based on his "Struggles of Empires" game. The Martin Wallace partnership yielded great results with Railroad Tycoon, so that's the one I wanted to try.
Well, first off, it turns out that this ruleset isn't really a war game. Conquest of the Empire is an area influence game, wrapped in a war game's clothing. That's not a bad thing (and I suspect the other rules would satisfy that itch if I gave them a try), but it needs to be kept in mind when evaluating the game.
I won't get into too much detail regarding the rules, but a general overview is in order. The board represents the ancient Mediteranean, and players are vying for the title of the new Ceasar of the Roman Empire. To this end, they must hold influence in key regions.
The game is broken up into 4 "Campaign Seasons" and two major things happen every such season: 1) the board is "seeded" with a random assortment of tokens representing opportunities to gain influence in the Empire. 2) "Alliances" must be formed, meaning that players must bid their way into one of two groups (i.e. if there are 5 players, 3 will be group "A" and 2 will be group "B"). Alliances are important because although there is no illusions of friendship between players of the same group, they are not allowed to attack each other.
So, over the 4 campaign seasons, players must figure out the most effective method for converting the influence tokens on the board to their colour. The most direct way is to send troops, accompanied by a general or ceasar, to a location containing a token and take an action to "convert it". However, if the target is another player's token any units in the region belonging to that player must first be eliminated or driven away. Each "key" region is worth a number of points to the player with the most influence tokens (and fewer points to the player in 2nd place), similar to the scoring in El Grande. It's worth noting that while the point values vary from region to region, Italia is worth the most by far, and is the only region where a third place is worth points.
Players only get 2 actions per round. They will normally want to do much more than that! There are several reasons for this, but the main one which comes up is that moving units is an action, battling is an action and converting an influence token is a third action. That's 3 actions required for accomplishing the central task of the game, yet players only get 2 at a time! This means that while snapping up an unclaimed influence token is a breeze, getting one from another player takes some planning.
The game also features a number of cards which are turned up every campaign season (similar to Railroad Tycoon), which allow all sorts of special events and abilities to happen, including a political sub-system which adds an interesting twist (and, again, the front runner in Italia gets special abilities during that process, making it even more of an important region than it already is).
In our game, I started with a concentration in Egyptus and Neapolis. I succesfully bid to go first and quickly grabbed some influence tokens in Italia. Kozure, Luch and Brian largely stayed elsewhere, dominating Greece, Mesopotamia, Spain and the rest of the south, while Shemp built up just west of me.
The game system offers plenty of opportunity for surprising plays, largely due to the variety of cards and the very odd movement mechanics (in one "move", armies can move as far as they want inland, so long as they do not cross a region containing enemy units, and can travel by water to any destination adjacent to a ship they have on the board). Brian, for example, swooped into Spain all the way from Egypt and stole a few influence tokens from Kozure when he didn't expect it.
By the end of the first campaign season, I had a small target on my head as the early leader. Luch assassinated my general, leaving me with only my ceasar to activate my troops for the remainder of the game (buying a new one would have been worthless as Luch would have killed it again using the same card). Lucky for me, no one spent a whole lot of time purchasing units, so for most of the game our positions weren't terribly threatened. Most skirmishes were one-sided affairs where a player had left a single unit behind to protect a token. Thanks to Luch, my units in Egypt were stuck without a general to lead them, but luckily there was enough of them that no one attempted a coup. I largely sat in Italia with only the occasional little trip to convert an available nearby token (At one point, Kozure attempted to destroy my Trireme but was unsuccessful... thank goodness because I was relying on that to get me around to the nearby islands). Over time, my investment in Italia grew and that target on my head got bigger and bigger. In the last rounds, my armies in Egypt were destroyed, large armies were being mustered to attack and Shemp tried unsuccesfully to get a majority of influence in Italia, but it wasn't enough. The game ended and I had a large lead, giving me a comfortable victory.
Ironically, Brian (who had to leave early and didn't participate in the last two rounds) only came in 2nd last! I won't mention who lost.
A few lessons learned:
1) Italia must be contested at all costs. It's simply worth too much to allow a single player to hold all game. By the time our group realized this, it was very hard to turn things around.
2) The Alliance system makes a big difference. Most obviously, if you are weak and threatend by an opponent, being in their alliance can buy you the time to rebuild. Also, if a player can't fight you, they can't steal your influence tokens away. Finally, if a player is on your side, he/she can't block your passage across the board.
3) The political angle is a little tricky to work properly, and it can definitely backfire, but the card effects can be quite powerful.
4) Inertia is a real challenge in this game. Once a player has established influence in an area, it's hard and slow to wrestle it away. Once a leader is out front, it's hard to catch up.
5) It's easy to get lost in the "war" aspect of the game, and lose sight of the fact that destroying armies is only a means to an end (and, in fact, of no value on it's own)
I quite enjoyed the game. The massive board and over the top bits lend themselves well to this theme. Downtime can be a problem if players think too long, but with a max. of 2 actions a round, it was never too bad. On the other hand, the game did take nearly 4 hours... I suspect things will go much quicker in the future (probably 2- 2 1/2 hours).
Conquest of the Empire: 8
Thursday, May 11, 2006
Furious, after all... (Fury of Dracula, Transamerica x2)
It's good to be back.
First off: Congrats to Shemp (& Hilaria). This week we played at their new house! It's a big step, and I for one am very happy for them.
In my absence, I managed to accumulate a number of new games. The group was kind enough to indulge me this week and I was able to choose a few of them to try out. I picked Fury of Dracula and Transamerica as filler.
We started out the evening with Transamerica as people slowly arrived. Shemp, Hilaria and I started, but we dealt in the other two as they showed up (fairly easy to do with this game). This is a very light game with a train theme. Every player is dealt 5 random destinations on the USA map and hope to be the first to have all of them connected by railroad tracks. On a turn, a player can play 1 or 2 segments of track, depending on the terrain. Tracks aren't "owned", so as you connect to the tracks another player has previously laid, you are free to use and expand from them.
The heart of the game is trying to second guess where your opponents are headed. If they are going somewhere which is useful for you, you let them spend their turns laying tracks to go there while you expand the network in a direction which is advantageous to you. It's very easy to play, and I like it for what it is (and it's handy to have around for younger gamers or others who aren't too enthusiastic about complexity). I think there is some skill despite the high luck, because I lose so many of the games I am sure I am "bad" at it. Online, I often see the same people winning fairly consistently. Predictably, in both this game and the second one I came in last.
The main event was Fury of Dracula. This is a new version of a game released by Games Workshop in the 80s (none of us have played the original). Essentially, it involves one player, assuming the role of Dracula, traveling through Europe in secret as a group of 4 hunters try to track him down and defeat him. Another way to look at it would be to say that it's similar to Scotland Yard, but Dracula bites back! The board and bits are very nice and definitely evocative of the theme.
The execution of the hidden movement is interesting: Dracula travels the board in secret by playing a face down card on each turn which represents where he has traveled to. He then plays an encounter on to that card to represent a trap for the hunters should they ever travel to that city. Dracula's trail can only get 6 cards long, though. After that, the trail runs cold. As new cards are laid, the oldest cards drop off. If a hunter travels to a city on the trail, Dracula must reveal the card and the hunter must face the encounter the Count has left behind.
Dracula wins by getting 6 victory points. Points are gained each day he evades the hunters, each time he sends a hunter to the hospital and each time he matures a new vampire. Hunters win by destroying the Count.
It sounds fairly simple and straightforward, but as is often the case with games like this the basic system is supplemented/ complicated by a wide variety of special rules, actions and events: Time progresses through day and night, and Dracula's abilities change accordingly. Movement options include road, rail and sea (each with their own rules and conditions). Dracula has a number of powers he can use instead of playing a regular location. Combat has it's own sub-system of rules. Hunters can search the towns and villages they travel through for items to use in combat to supplement their starting hand. An "Event" deck contains cards which allow all sorts of things to happen (some to be used by the hunters, others by Dracula). The "traps" Dracula leaves behind all have their own effects. Etc, etc. None of these things are bad, and in fact I'd say the flavour of the game is pretty spot on. I'm just saying that opportunities to play a game of this complexity and length aren't going to be as frequent as I had hoped for a game with such a cool and engaging theme/ presentation.
Being the most familiar with the game, I played Dracula. The 4 hunters where split up amongst Shemp, Luch and Kozure and we started. Their initial placement had them spread out across eastern and western Europe, but they didn't play anyone in Spain so I started there. My secrecy didn't last long, however... By sheer luck, Lord Godalming found me on the 2nd turn in Madrid. Luckily, without equipment, he was powerless to defeat the minion I had defending me. It was a rough start, and things only seemed to go downhill from there! I had a poor hand of encounters, so I took the time to play the "Dark Call" card and got a few vampires and the assassin. I went south to Alicante and set out to sea. My plan was to head to Cagliari and sire a vampire, then head elsewhere to distract the hunters. My inexperience bit me hard. I though I'd be really clever and double back to Cagliari through the Tyrrhenian Sea, hoping to trick the others into thinking I had gone farther than I did. The hunters, being a methodical bunch, weren't fooled and found me anyway (immediately destroying the vampire I had sired). Problem was, all paths leading out of Cagliari were already in my trail! I was blocked. Thankfully, night fell at the start of my turn and I was able to use my "Double Back" power to cross my path and escape. Out of desperation I went all the way north by Sea and landed in Plymouth. The hunters fanned north, having already narrowed by location down to a few locations. I succesfully fooled them into thinking I was heading to Eastern Europe through Amsterdam by playing my power cards as though they were hot on my trail. It worked long enough for me to sire a vampire in Swansea. I went north to Edinborough for an escape out to sea again just as the hunters had discovered my ruse and were closing in on me.
By now, it was only day 2, but I was already in very dire straights. I had played poorly in the start, costing me my location and a lot of blood at sea. The hunters were very lucky and had been drawing event cards nearly 4 to 1 in their favour. My dice rolling in combat could not muster a success for the life of me.
I was down to 6 blood when Mina went to Cadiz to try to block any escape plans I might have had through Spain . Thankfully, my vampire successfully matured and I was within 2 points of winning. A single bite on Mina would win me the game. It was night, I had a few good cards and the rest of the hunters were still in Northern Europe. I gathered all the Fury I could muster and rolled in from the Atlantic to attack her.
What followed was quite a battle. You see, a more intelligent/experienced Dracula would have noticed a few things:
1) The hunters had an ally which prevented me from playing Fangs or escaping without paying 2 blood each time.
2) The hunters had 2 points of resolve to come join the battle.
My initial battle with Mina was terrible. 7 rounds and I was never able to roll a success when it mattered. I was down to 3 blood, she was unaffected. One by one, each hunter "teleported" to Cadiz using resolve (and one event card) and fought me. It was then that I discovered that my luck wasn't bad at all... A whole game's worth of luck was being saved up for this very moment! I not only survived the onslaught of a well equipped Lord Gadalming, Dr. Seward AND Van Helsing, but I managed to kill a previously healthy Mina through physical damage for the WIN.
Fury of Dracula turned out to be quite a fun game. There is skill in playing the characters, but there is also quite a large amount of luck to the way it plays out. At least for our first playing, it made for an immersive and compelling experience, with good tension. At various points, I thought things were hopeless, and others I felt I had the upper hand. There is no doubt it's long, however. We only made it three quarters of the way through the 2nd day when I made my "go for broke" move and the whole thing still clocked in at 2 1/2 hours! Things could be shortened through experience and faster play, but the fact is that strategizing is fundamental to the game for the hunters... so I doubt it will shorten substantially.
P.S. I discovered we did play a few things wrong, minor and major.
1) When I matured the vampire, I should have cleared my trail of cards. This would have given me many more options to escape out of the North Sea. Oh well.
2) When Dracula is at Sea, time does not advance. Estimating I was at sea 8-9 times means we would have been back a full day... affecting my victory points and the hunter's resolve. That's a big one!
3) The hunters should have each payed a cost of 2 health to use the resolve power, but that wouldn't have changed anything in the end.
Transamerica:7
Fury of Dracula:8
First off: Congrats to Shemp (& Hilaria). This week we played at their new house! It's a big step, and I for one am very happy for them.
In my absence, I managed to accumulate a number of new games. The group was kind enough to indulge me this week and I was able to choose a few of them to try out. I picked Fury of Dracula and Transamerica as filler.
We started out the evening with Transamerica as people slowly arrived. Shemp, Hilaria and I started, but we dealt in the other two as they showed up (fairly easy to do with this game). This is a very light game with a train theme. Every player is dealt 5 random destinations on the USA map and hope to be the first to have all of them connected by railroad tracks. On a turn, a player can play 1 or 2 segments of track, depending on the terrain. Tracks aren't "owned", so as you connect to the tracks another player has previously laid, you are free to use and expand from them.
The heart of the game is trying to second guess where your opponents are headed. If they are going somewhere which is useful for you, you let them spend their turns laying tracks to go there while you expand the network in a direction which is advantageous to you. It's very easy to play, and I like it for what it is (and it's handy to have around for younger gamers or others who aren't too enthusiastic about complexity). I think there is some skill despite the high luck, because I lose so many of the games I am sure I am "bad" at it. Online, I often see the same people winning fairly consistently. Predictably, in both this game and the second one I came in last.
The main event was Fury of Dracula. This is a new version of a game released by Games Workshop in the 80s (none of us have played the original). Essentially, it involves one player, assuming the role of Dracula, traveling through Europe in secret as a group of 4 hunters try to track him down and defeat him. Another way to look at it would be to say that it's similar to Scotland Yard, but Dracula bites back! The board and bits are very nice and definitely evocative of the theme.
The execution of the hidden movement is interesting: Dracula travels the board in secret by playing a face down card on each turn which represents where he has traveled to. He then plays an encounter on to that card to represent a trap for the hunters should they ever travel to that city. Dracula's trail can only get 6 cards long, though. After that, the trail runs cold. As new cards are laid, the oldest cards drop off. If a hunter travels to a city on the trail, Dracula must reveal the card and the hunter must face the encounter the Count has left behind.
Dracula wins by getting 6 victory points. Points are gained each day he evades the hunters, each time he sends a hunter to the hospital and each time he matures a new vampire. Hunters win by destroying the Count.
It sounds fairly simple and straightforward, but as is often the case with games like this the basic system is supplemented/ complicated by a wide variety of special rules, actions and events: Time progresses through day and night, and Dracula's abilities change accordingly. Movement options include road, rail and sea (each with their own rules and conditions). Dracula has a number of powers he can use instead of playing a regular location. Combat has it's own sub-system of rules. Hunters can search the towns and villages they travel through for items to use in combat to supplement their starting hand. An "Event" deck contains cards which allow all sorts of things to happen (some to be used by the hunters, others by Dracula). The "traps" Dracula leaves behind all have their own effects. Etc, etc. None of these things are bad, and in fact I'd say the flavour of the game is pretty spot on. I'm just saying that opportunities to play a game of this complexity and length aren't going to be as frequent as I had hoped for a game with such a cool and engaging theme/ presentation.
Being the most familiar with the game, I played Dracula. The 4 hunters where split up amongst Shemp, Luch and Kozure and we started. Their initial placement had them spread out across eastern and western Europe, but they didn't play anyone in Spain so I started there. My secrecy didn't last long, however... By sheer luck, Lord Godalming found me on the 2nd turn in Madrid. Luckily, without equipment, he was powerless to defeat the minion I had defending me. It was a rough start, and things only seemed to go downhill from there! I had a poor hand of encounters, so I took the time to play the "Dark Call" card and got a few vampires and the assassin. I went south to Alicante and set out to sea. My plan was to head to Cagliari and sire a vampire, then head elsewhere to distract the hunters. My inexperience bit me hard. I though I'd be really clever and double back to Cagliari through the Tyrrhenian Sea, hoping to trick the others into thinking I had gone farther than I did. The hunters, being a methodical bunch, weren't fooled and found me anyway (immediately destroying the vampire I had sired). Problem was, all paths leading out of Cagliari were already in my trail! I was blocked. Thankfully, night fell at the start of my turn and I was able to use my "Double Back" power to cross my path and escape. Out of desperation I went all the way north by Sea and landed in Plymouth. The hunters fanned north, having already narrowed by location down to a few locations. I succesfully fooled them into thinking I was heading to Eastern Europe through Amsterdam by playing my power cards as though they were hot on my trail. It worked long enough for me to sire a vampire in Swansea. I went north to Edinborough for an escape out to sea again just as the hunters had discovered my ruse and were closing in on me.
By now, it was only day 2, but I was already in very dire straights. I had played poorly in the start, costing me my location and a lot of blood at sea. The hunters were very lucky and had been drawing event cards nearly 4 to 1 in their favour. My dice rolling in combat could not muster a success for the life of me.
I was down to 6 blood when Mina went to Cadiz to try to block any escape plans I might have had through Spain . Thankfully, my vampire successfully matured and I was within 2 points of winning. A single bite on Mina would win me the game. It was night, I had a few good cards and the rest of the hunters were still in Northern Europe. I gathered all the Fury I could muster and rolled in from the Atlantic to attack her.
What followed was quite a battle. You see, a more intelligent/experienced Dracula would have noticed a few things:
1) The hunters had an ally which prevented me from playing Fangs or escaping without paying 2 blood each time.
2) The hunters had 2 points of resolve to come join the battle.
My initial battle with Mina was terrible. 7 rounds and I was never able to roll a success when it mattered. I was down to 3 blood, she was unaffected. One by one, each hunter "teleported" to Cadiz using resolve (and one event card) and fought me. It was then that I discovered that my luck wasn't bad at all... A whole game's worth of luck was being saved up for this very moment! I not only survived the onslaught of a well equipped Lord Gadalming, Dr. Seward AND Van Helsing, but I managed to kill a previously healthy Mina through physical damage for the WIN.
Fury of Dracula turned out to be quite a fun game. There is skill in playing the characters, but there is also quite a large amount of luck to the way it plays out. At least for our first playing, it made for an immersive and compelling experience, with good tension. At various points, I thought things were hopeless, and others I felt I had the upper hand. There is no doubt it's long, however. We only made it three quarters of the way through the 2nd day when I made my "go for broke" move and the whole thing still clocked in at 2 1/2 hours! Things could be shortened through experience and faster play, but the fact is that strategizing is fundamental to the game for the hunters... so I doubt it will shorten substantially.
P.S. I discovered we did play a few things wrong, minor and major.
1) When I matured the vampire, I should have cleared my trail of cards. This would have given me many more options to escape out of the North Sea. Oh well.
2) When Dracula is at Sea, time does not advance. Estimating I was at sea 8-9 times means we would have been back a full day... affecting my victory points and the hunter's resolve. That's a big one!
3) The hunters should have each payed a cost of 2 health to use the resolve power, but that wouldn't have changed anything in the end.
Transamerica:7
Fury of Dracula:8
Friday, April 07, 2006
Russia's Greatest Love Machine.
This week!
There was no EASY, hey!
But there was SHAMUS! Wow! And TILI! played also! Hey!
So we were four and five players for RA! and RA! and then RA!! (but played by the correct rules this time)
And Then Colossal Arena!! Wow!
Please forgive the jarring nature of the above. My brain has spent the last couple of weeks running out of my ear, slowly, and that is impacting both the quality of this report and the quality of game choice for this week, since I, Shemp, was dictating. (The quality of my grammar and sentence structure is also affected, apparently.)
We ordered Pizza and jumped right in to teaching Shamus how to play RA! Foolishly, we trusted Luch! to do the explainening, "reasoning" that he would know the rules inside out as a result of playing RA! Fifty Thousand Times! a! Day! on Brettspielwelt, Hey!
Should we have known better? Yes! We should have known better! HEY!!
But we didn't. SO, the first couple of games of Ra (one four player, one five) were played such that any player could draw a tile AND call Ra or draw a tile and play a God. So things were a little wackier than usual, and a little higher scoring, I think. It's difficult to say! Wow! I should leave the answer open to more frequent players! Wow! I think!
Then we played again, the right way, with Kozure holding the rule hammer, and things settled down. Lots of RA! leading to a sparse first couple of ages, and a lot of PRESS! YOUR! LUCK! type action in the last age.
When Tili was playing, she often heard "Do it! It's TOTALLY WORTH IT!" Whether it was worth it or not ~ she was remarkably tolerant of this.
Final Analysis: FUN! CLOSE! & I believe that Shamus enjoyed his introduction to this game, despite a rough first play. (I said that everyone has a first rough play? Is it true? I definitely did. Mos Def)
AND THEN: Some Colossal Arena to fill out the evening. I wasn't quite feeling it.
Not sure why! Hey!
Overall, Easy's goal was to come a distant fourth! Unachieved! Sixth for him!
But there will be further chances for redemption! Hey!
WAGS next Week? Sans Easy? Sans Shemp? HEY! Stay tuned and find out! True believers!!
Wow!
Comment if you can and dare to.
(This is why we let Easy post usually. All of this.)
There was no EASY, hey!
But there was SHAMUS! Wow! And TILI! played also! Hey!
So we were four and five players for RA! and RA! and then RA!! (but played by the correct rules this time)
And Then Colossal Arena!! Wow!
Please forgive the jarring nature of the above. My brain has spent the last couple of weeks running out of my ear, slowly, and that is impacting both the quality of this report and the quality of game choice for this week, since I, Shemp, was dictating. (The quality of my grammar and sentence structure is also affected, apparently.)
We ordered Pizza and jumped right in to teaching Shamus how to play RA! Foolishly, we trusted Luch! to do the explainening, "reasoning" that he would know the rules inside out as a result of playing RA! Fifty Thousand Times! a! Day! on Brettspielwelt, Hey!
Should we have known better? Yes! We should have known better! HEY!!
But we didn't. SO, the first couple of games of Ra (one four player, one five) were played such that any player could draw a tile AND call Ra or draw a tile and play a God. So things were a little wackier than usual, and a little higher scoring, I think. It's difficult to say! Wow! I should leave the answer open to more frequent players! Wow! I think!
Then we played again, the right way, with Kozure holding the rule hammer, and things settled down. Lots of RA! leading to a sparse first couple of ages, and a lot of PRESS! YOUR! LUCK! type action in the last age.
When Tili was playing, she often heard "Do it! It's TOTALLY WORTH IT!" Whether it was worth it or not ~ she was remarkably tolerant of this.
Final Analysis: FUN! CLOSE! & I believe that Shamus enjoyed his introduction to this game, despite a rough first play. (I said that everyone has a first rough play? Is it true? I definitely did. Mos Def)
AND THEN: Some Colossal Arena to fill out the evening. I wasn't quite feeling it.
Not sure why! Hey!
Overall, Easy's goal was to come a distant fourth! Unachieved! Sixth for him!
But there will be further chances for redemption! Hey!
WAGS next Week? Sans Easy? Sans Shemp? HEY! Stay tuned and find out! True believers!!
Wow!
Comment if you can and dare to.
(This is why we let Easy post usually. All of this.)
Thursday, March 30, 2006
I Build, I Bleed, I Barter (Carcassonne - The City, Jyhad CCG and Santiago)
Well, it finally happened. The strike which was keeping my wife off course for nearly a month has finally ended. Good news for her, but bad news for gaming! The month off from WAGS I spoke of earlier will finally happen.
Lucky for me, it was my pick.
While waiting for Kozure, four of us played Carcassonne the City (Luch, Shemp, Sonja and I). Sonja hadn't played, but she was familiar with Carc Hunters and Gatherers, so she caught on pretty quick. The abstraction of the game defies session reporting... but let's just say that Shemp showed a knack for picking the right walls to guard. He won.
With Kozure ready and willing, I broke out the Jyhad CCG (now known as "Vampire: The Eternal Struggle" CCG).
*Edit*
To those not familiar with the game, it is a collectible card game (CCG) where each player takes the role of a Methuselah (an ancient and powerful Vampire) vying for ultimate control by destroying the influence of his opponents (measured in "blood pool"). Everyone has two decks: the first holds the cast of vampires which the Methuselah will use as pawns and the second holds cards representing the various actions those vampires may take. As the game was designed for multiplayer from the ground up, a number of design decisions help to keep the game from devolving into a slugfest where the least involved player inevitably wins. First is a "Predator - Prey" mechanic which forces a player to focus most of his atention to the player on his/her left. This means that your forces must be balanced to be offensive enough towards your prey while being defensive enough towards your predator at all times. It also means that any player more than one seat away from you is potentially your ally, since the pressure they place on your predator or prey makes life easier on you. Of course, things can't get too friendly, because as players are eliminated that player who used to be 2 seats away might now be your new predator or prey! Finally, a well implemented political system allows certain referendums to take place which can effect the whole table at once (and this is one of the key places where short term alliances across a table can really pay off).
The basic turn order works as follows:
1. Untap
2. The Methuselah can play a MASTER card, if he/she has any. This represents the Methuselah taking DIRECT action in the world, rather than through a minion.
3. The Methuselah can direct his minions to take action:
A damaged vampire can hunt to replenish him/herself
It can attempt to bleed his Methuselah's Prey
It can call a political action
It can equip itself with equipment or a retainer
It can engage an ally (non-vampire minion, like a werewolf or street gang)
An "ACTION" card can be played and the vampire does what the card says
4. The Methuselah transfers up to 4 points from his/ her blood pool (the "life" total of the player) to uncontrolled vampires he has waiting to enter the game. For this reason, a player must constantly balance his/ her well being with the need to employ minions in order to survive and thrive. (side note: blood pool is extremely hard to replenish, and is also the currency for playing MASTER cards, equiping minions, etc. Since being reduced to 0 blood pool eliminates a player from the game, these expenses must be carefully considered... it's not uncommon for a player to spend a good portion of the game teetering on oblivion)
ACTION MODIFIER cards can be played by the acting player to alter the action, and REACTION cards can be played by another player to counter the action (to be specific, the player's minions are playing those cards).
ACTIONS can be blocked. Actions have an associated STEALTH rating, and if the target METHUSELAH can muster enough INTERCEPT to match they can stop the action from happening. For this reason, STEALTH and INTERCEPT are the most fundamental ACTION MODIFIERS and REACTION CARDS.
If an action is succesfully blocked, the acting vampire and the blocking vampire enter combat. Combat has it's own subsystem, but all cards played are COMBAT cards. Vampires first determine range, then exchange strikes, and then determine if the combat will go to another round. Combat doesn't necessarily end with a defeated vampire.
* end of edit to add game description *
This game holds a special place in my heart because back in university I started playing it as soon as it came out. It quickly replaced Magic as my CCG of choice (I had also played Magic CCG, Illuminati CCG, Shadowrun CCG, Star Wars CCG and Dr. Who CCG). I lived with Luch at the time and we played it pretty much every chance we had. I wound up amassing a pretty large collection of cards and making quite a number of very good decks. At the time, Kozure and Shemp also played on occasion, but never got into it as much as we did.
Now, 10 years later, the introduction of Vampire: Prince of the City rekindled my interest to make decks and play again. I still counted it as one of my favorite games, despite it's long moratorium... I was very curious to see how it would go.
The answer is: Like a lead ballon.
Jyhad is a wonderful game on many levels. The game mechanics are very good. The theme is very well integrated into the game. There is real tension. The multiplayer aspect is extremely well implemented. Sadly, there are three very big downfalls:
1) The rules, though individually clear and straightforward, are complex due to sheer volume.
2) The game features player elimination.
3) The game is pretty long.
Now, when you combine a game that has lots of rules with the inherent complexities of a CCG, you wind up with quite a beast. Each card must be read and understood. Many have a fair bit of text on them, with different results in different circumstances. Most, by their very nature, are intended to allow something not normally allowed by the rules. That's a lot to take in. Make it a 5 player game, and it gets even more complex! Me and Luch were still pretty comfortable. Kozure didn't comment much, so I don't really know, but Shemp said he wasn't quite comfortable and Sonja was obviously buried in information overload. She had never played a CCG before, and it didn't help that I let her play a commercial preconstructed deck without being terribly familiar with it... The Ravnos deck she played turned out to be heavily defensive and reliant on tricky cards to get their job done.
But like I said, there is so much to admire! The central mechanic of giving up your own life essence to influence your minions (and other such things) is brilliant. The Predator/ Prey relationship gives order to the chaos which can result from multiplayer CCGs. That being said, the political system prevents the players from ever being able to ignore the players they are not directly involved with... "My enemy's enemy is my friend" is a concept which can really be turned to your advantage in Jyhad through the various referendums which come and go. The rules and card types do a great job of building a slow tension as everyone jockeys for position while hanging on to a very slim lifeline.
Our game pitted several clan specific decks against each other. The Nosferatu (me) preyed on the Ravnos (Sonja), who preyed on The Lasombra (Kozure), who preyed on the Brujah (Shemp), who preyed on the Tremere (Luch), who preyed on me.
Things were shaping up well. I started out quickly with a 4 capacity vampire, who soon equipped with a set of hand claws for increased combat damage and found a handy hunting ground (through a master card I played). I then influenced a larger minion to the table… a prince no less, and got ready to start doing some damage. Meanwhile, the other clans were readying their minions. There was a brutal battle between the Brujah and the Tremere which saw the 6 Tremere vampire reduced to 0 through 2 shots by a 22 magnum loaded with manstopper rounds. I managed to tear up one of Sonja’s big hitters myself, sending it to torpor after a few rounds of “growing furies” and the like. My referendum to force all players to lose 1 blood pool for every tapped vampire was also successful… Kozure, being neither my predator or my prey, had little to lose backing my position and the motion carried. We both lost 1 and the others lost 2-3 (to those who haven’t played the game, that difference may seem low, but every point is important as it’s not uncommon to spend a good chunk of the game trying to hold on with +/- 5 blood pool left!).
Although Shemp’s deck was doing fairly well, it could not do anything to prevent the stealthy Lasombra. One turn before I was going to eliminate Sonja, Kozure took out Shemp. Since the game was going long, and some weren’t really comfortable enough with the system to enjoy it, we called it at that point. Despite the good things going on, it was clear we weren’t firing on all cylinders. I guess it was too much too soon.
I think it’s fair to say that it wasn’t a success (though for me, I can definitely say the magic is still there)
We had a quick conversation on our preferences for types of complexity afterwards. It was very interesting! As I said before, CCGs are complex by their very nature because no matter how simple the rules are you are faced with a hand of cards and each has an effect which can change the environment, nature of rules and play. That said, each game system is likely to highlight different complexities.
Let’s take Jyhad and compare it to Illuminati CCG and Shadowrun CCG (since those are the other CCGs we play on occasion)
In Jyhad, there are many rules to cover the many phases and aspects of the game. It is rules complex.
In Illuminati, there are also a fair number of rules, but they tend to be variations on a central mechanic so it’s not too hard to pick up the basics. It’s rules moderate.
Shadowrun is a little more like Jyhad. There are several phases and subsystems, with cards specific to each. Still, it's significantly simpler overall.
In Jyhad, Your individual decisions are not to overwhelming, because you tend to be limited by the situation on the table and the cards in your hand. Once you understand the rules, gameplay is pretty straightforward (and the system has very few ambiguities, which is nice). Internalizing the rules is the main challenge.
In Illuminati, a fair bit of effort is required to understand what is on the table at a given time. There are countless modifiers through the cards in your hand, the cards on the table, the current “New World Orders”, etc. To complicate things further, on most turns any other player is free to get involved. Gameplay cannot be simplified without accepting that modifiers will be missed (that's probably the point, but it feels wrong to me). Typically, after trying to determine the possible outcome of a possible move, I give up and resort to "What the hell, let's see what happens".
In Shadowrun, you neither have too much to consider, nor much difficulty determining what to do on a round. Unfortunately, instead of resulting in a better game than both the other entries it kind of feels a little bland. It's a good game, but the least engaging of the three for me.
Since I am typically willing to absorb a lot of rules so long as the game plays smoothly afterwards, Jyhad suits me fine. Illuminati, on the other hand, I typically find overwhelming (though still enjoyable). Put a different way, once you "get" the Jyhad system, there isn't much to it. I feel I can focus on my objectives, weigh my options, try to manipulate the table, etc. Picking my action is an important decision, but figuring out the outcome is simple. In Illuminati, I will always have to stop and read all the cards on the table and do the math every turn (as does anyone else who wants to get involved). It's the same issue I had with Arkham Horror... I need to draw info from too many sources at one time to figure out what's going on at any given time. There are too many rules which need to be remembered and taken into consideration AT THE SAME TIME. More often than not, something gets forgotten. Again, in Illuminati I think that's part of the point, it's a humorous game after all. In Arkham Horror, it's just a problem (IMHO).
I’ll definitely try to bring this out again, but maybe with a smaller group and strictly with the decks I made up (as they were meant to be simpler than the preconstructed ones). Hopefully the audience will still be willing!
We finished off with a game of Santiago. I angled for a big potato farm, but didn’t quite make it. For a while, I was a contender! (I blew any chance I had in the second last round by going high on a bid and still winding up third… leaving me broke and with no good plantation to show for it). Luch was looking good with a few big stakes in a few fields, but in the end it was Shemp who carried it on the strength of some good representation in many fields of varying worth. On an amusing note, Sonja was endlessly perturbed by our group’s lack of interest in bribes. We all typically shunned the money and went for the strategic move on the board… which not only makes us very different than her other gamer friends but also pretty cheap (of course, if she thinks we are cheap at Santiago, she should see us at Traders of Genoa!).
See you in a month!
Lucky for me, it was my pick.
While waiting for Kozure, four of us played Carcassonne the City (Luch, Shemp, Sonja and I). Sonja hadn't played, but she was familiar with Carc Hunters and Gatherers, so she caught on pretty quick. The abstraction of the game defies session reporting... but let's just say that Shemp showed a knack for picking the right walls to guard. He won.
With Kozure ready and willing, I broke out the Jyhad CCG (now known as "Vampire: The Eternal Struggle" CCG).
*Edit*
To those not familiar with the game, it is a collectible card game (CCG) where each player takes the role of a Methuselah (an ancient and powerful Vampire) vying for ultimate control by destroying the influence of his opponents (measured in "blood pool"). Everyone has two decks: the first holds the cast of vampires which the Methuselah will use as pawns and the second holds cards representing the various actions those vampires may take. As the game was designed for multiplayer from the ground up, a number of design decisions help to keep the game from devolving into a slugfest where the least involved player inevitably wins. First is a "Predator - Prey" mechanic which forces a player to focus most of his atention to the player on his/her left. This means that your forces must be balanced to be offensive enough towards your prey while being defensive enough towards your predator at all times. It also means that any player more than one seat away from you is potentially your ally, since the pressure they place on your predator or prey makes life easier on you. Of course, things can't get too friendly, because as players are eliminated that player who used to be 2 seats away might now be your new predator or prey! Finally, a well implemented political system allows certain referendums to take place which can effect the whole table at once (and this is one of the key places where short term alliances across a table can really pay off).
The basic turn order works as follows:
1. Untap
2. The Methuselah can play a MASTER card, if he/she has any. This represents the Methuselah taking DIRECT action in the world, rather than through a minion.
3. The Methuselah can direct his minions to take action:
A damaged vampire can hunt to replenish him/herself
It can attempt to bleed his Methuselah's Prey
It can call a political action
It can equip itself with equipment or a retainer
It can engage an ally (non-vampire minion, like a werewolf or street gang)
An "ACTION" card can be played and the vampire does what the card says
4. The Methuselah transfers up to 4 points from his/ her blood pool (the "life" total of the player) to uncontrolled vampires he has waiting to enter the game. For this reason, a player must constantly balance his/ her well being with the need to employ minions in order to survive and thrive. (side note: blood pool is extremely hard to replenish, and is also the currency for playing MASTER cards, equiping minions, etc. Since being reduced to 0 blood pool eliminates a player from the game, these expenses must be carefully considered... it's not uncommon for a player to spend a good portion of the game teetering on oblivion)
ACTION MODIFIER cards can be played by the acting player to alter the action, and REACTION cards can be played by another player to counter the action (to be specific, the player's minions are playing those cards).
ACTIONS can be blocked. Actions have an associated STEALTH rating, and if the target METHUSELAH can muster enough INTERCEPT to match they can stop the action from happening. For this reason, STEALTH and INTERCEPT are the most fundamental ACTION MODIFIERS and REACTION CARDS.
If an action is succesfully blocked, the acting vampire and the blocking vampire enter combat. Combat has it's own subsystem, but all cards played are COMBAT cards. Vampires first determine range, then exchange strikes, and then determine if the combat will go to another round. Combat doesn't necessarily end with a defeated vampire.
* end of edit to add game description *
This game holds a special place in my heart because back in university I started playing it as soon as it came out. It quickly replaced Magic as my CCG of choice (I had also played Magic CCG, Illuminati CCG, Shadowrun CCG, Star Wars CCG and Dr. Who CCG). I lived with Luch at the time and we played it pretty much every chance we had. I wound up amassing a pretty large collection of cards and making quite a number of very good decks. At the time, Kozure and Shemp also played on occasion, but never got into it as much as we did.
Now, 10 years later, the introduction of Vampire: Prince of the City rekindled my interest to make decks and play again. I still counted it as one of my favorite games, despite it's long moratorium... I was very curious to see how it would go.
The answer is: Like a lead ballon.
Jyhad is a wonderful game on many levels. The game mechanics are very good. The theme is very well integrated into the game. There is real tension. The multiplayer aspect is extremely well implemented. Sadly, there are three very big downfalls:
1) The rules, though individually clear and straightforward, are complex due to sheer volume.
2) The game features player elimination.
3) The game is pretty long.
Now, when you combine a game that has lots of rules with the inherent complexities of a CCG, you wind up with quite a beast. Each card must be read and understood. Many have a fair bit of text on them, with different results in different circumstances. Most, by their very nature, are intended to allow something not normally allowed by the rules. That's a lot to take in. Make it a 5 player game, and it gets even more complex! Me and Luch were still pretty comfortable. Kozure didn't comment much, so I don't really know, but Shemp said he wasn't quite comfortable and Sonja was obviously buried in information overload. She had never played a CCG before, and it didn't help that I let her play a commercial preconstructed deck without being terribly familiar with it... The Ravnos deck she played turned out to be heavily defensive and reliant on tricky cards to get their job done.
But like I said, there is so much to admire! The central mechanic of giving up your own life essence to influence your minions (and other such things) is brilliant. The Predator/ Prey relationship gives order to the chaos which can result from multiplayer CCGs. That being said, the political system prevents the players from ever being able to ignore the players they are not directly involved with... "My enemy's enemy is my friend" is a concept which can really be turned to your advantage in Jyhad through the various referendums which come and go. The rules and card types do a great job of building a slow tension as everyone jockeys for position while hanging on to a very slim lifeline.
Our game pitted several clan specific decks against each other. The Nosferatu (me) preyed on the Ravnos (Sonja), who preyed on The Lasombra (Kozure), who preyed on the Brujah (Shemp), who preyed on the Tremere (Luch), who preyed on me.
Things were shaping up well. I started out quickly with a 4 capacity vampire, who soon equipped with a set of hand claws for increased combat damage and found a handy hunting ground (through a master card I played). I then influenced a larger minion to the table… a prince no less, and got ready to start doing some damage. Meanwhile, the other clans were readying their minions. There was a brutal battle between the Brujah and the Tremere which saw the 6 Tremere vampire reduced to 0 through 2 shots by a 22 magnum loaded with manstopper rounds. I managed to tear up one of Sonja’s big hitters myself, sending it to torpor after a few rounds of “growing furies” and the like. My referendum to force all players to lose 1 blood pool for every tapped vampire was also successful… Kozure, being neither my predator or my prey, had little to lose backing my position and the motion carried. We both lost 1 and the others lost 2-3 (to those who haven’t played the game, that difference may seem low, but every point is important as it’s not uncommon to spend a good chunk of the game trying to hold on with +/- 5 blood pool left!).
Although Shemp’s deck was doing fairly well, it could not do anything to prevent the stealthy Lasombra. One turn before I was going to eliminate Sonja, Kozure took out Shemp. Since the game was going long, and some weren’t really comfortable enough with the system to enjoy it, we called it at that point. Despite the good things going on, it was clear we weren’t firing on all cylinders. I guess it was too much too soon.
I think it’s fair to say that it wasn’t a success (though for me, I can definitely say the magic is still there)
We had a quick conversation on our preferences for types of complexity afterwards. It was very interesting! As I said before, CCGs are complex by their very nature because no matter how simple the rules are you are faced with a hand of cards and each has an effect which can change the environment, nature of rules and play. That said, each game system is likely to highlight different complexities.
Let’s take Jyhad and compare it to Illuminati CCG and Shadowrun CCG (since those are the other CCGs we play on occasion)
In Jyhad, there are many rules to cover the many phases and aspects of the game. It is rules complex.
In Illuminati, there are also a fair number of rules, but they tend to be variations on a central mechanic so it’s not too hard to pick up the basics. It’s rules moderate.
Shadowrun is a little more like Jyhad. There are several phases and subsystems, with cards specific to each. Still, it's significantly simpler overall.
In Jyhad, Your individual decisions are not to overwhelming, because you tend to be limited by the situation on the table and the cards in your hand. Once you understand the rules, gameplay is pretty straightforward (and the system has very few ambiguities, which is nice). Internalizing the rules is the main challenge.
In Illuminati, a fair bit of effort is required to understand what is on the table at a given time. There are countless modifiers through the cards in your hand, the cards on the table, the current “New World Orders”, etc. To complicate things further, on most turns any other player is free to get involved. Gameplay cannot be simplified without accepting that modifiers will be missed (that's probably the point, but it feels wrong to me). Typically, after trying to determine the possible outcome of a possible move, I give up and resort to "What the hell, let's see what happens".
In Shadowrun, you neither have too much to consider, nor much difficulty determining what to do on a round. Unfortunately, instead of resulting in a better game than both the other entries it kind of feels a little bland. It's a good game, but the least engaging of the three for me.
Since I am typically willing to absorb a lot of rules so long as the game plays smoothly afterwards, Jyhad suits me fine. Illuminati, on the other hand, I typically find overwhelming (though still enjoyable). Put a different way, once you "get" the Jyhad system, there isn't much to it. I feel I can focus on my objectives, weigh my options, try to manipulate the table, etc. Picking my action is an important decision, but figuring out the outcome is simple. In Illuminati, I will always have to stop and read all the cards on the table and do the math every turn (as does anyone else who wants to get involved). It's the same issue I had with Arkham Horror... I need to draw info from too many sources at one time to figure out what's going on at any given time. There are too many rules which need to be remembered and taken into consideration AT THE SAME TIME. More often than not, something gets forgotten. Again, in Illuminati I think that's part of the point, it's a humorous game after all. In Arkham Horror, it's just a problem (IMHO).
I’ll definitely try to bring this out again, but maybe with a smaller group and strictly with the decks I made up (as they were meant to be simpler than the preconstructed ones). Hopefully the audience will still be willing!
We finished off with a game of Santiago. I angled for a big potato farm, but didn’t quite make it. For a while, I was a contender! (I blew any chance I had in the second last round by going high on a bid and still winding up third… leaving me broke and with no good plantation to show for it). Luch was looking good with a few big stakes in a few fields, but in the end it was Shemp who carried it on the strength of some good representation in many fields of varying worth. On an amusing note, Sonja was endlessly perturbed by our group’s lack of interest in bribes. We all typically shunned the money and went for the strategic move on the board… which not only makes us very different than her other gamer friends but also pretty cheap (of course, if she thinks we are cheap at Santiago, she should see us at Traders of Genoa!).
See you in a month!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
