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!
Thursday, May 25, 2006
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
