geek
The Hotness
Games|People|Company
Rules | Subscriptions | Bookmarks | Search | Account | Moderators
Recommend
10
11 Posts
New Thread | Printer Friendly | Subscribe  sub options | Bookmark
Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Smee-R-MEW-2
United States
Aberdeen
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron0506
mbmbmbmbmb
Masons » Forums » Reviews
A Chisel to the Heart
Masons, ah Masons. A game that has been on my "to buy" list since it came out. The reasons are beyond me though, as this would mark my first Colovini game to date. Quite possibly my last too. The initial attraction to this game eludes me, its lure broken and lost by cracking the lid open. Maybe I made the mistake of judging a book, er, game by its cover. Maybe because it had open fields, which is something I'm into for some reason (Bison is also on my "to buy" list). The shape and size of the box, at least on the internet, reminded me of Goa, the picture on the box of various other games I like. I'm still not sure where the appeal came from, but it sure left in a hurry.

All it took was half a reading of the rules.


Image by garyjames
An image of a game in progress. Keep in mind that, for the most part, the players had no choice in location of the colors you see. Looks nice though doesn't it?

I was at my game group one slow Thursday, just finishing up my second ever go of Race for the Galaxy. I started browsing their available selection for games I hadn't played yet, when I noticed they had added Masons to their arsenal. Excellent. It was a game that nobody in my group had bothered to purchase and lately I had been buying mostly wargames. Few people had bothered to show that night, and didn't think to bring many games, making a new suggestion halfway appealing. I offered up Masons for a three player game.

All right then, open it up
The cover comes off the box and the pieces out of the bags. Rules get quickly read and explanations all around. The simple nature of the game helped things go along smoothly, no questions asked. Everything is of the expected quality, with my favorite kind of cards; tiny.

The Walls
The first action a player takes is to place a wall on the board. The walls are placed along the lines, and when the walls enclose an area of the board, there is a scoring round. The players can then play cards, which is what gains them points. The don't have to be placed next to another wall, but they cannot be placed in already enclosed areas. Pretty standard. One bonus is that when a wall is placed so as to enclose an area, and that area shares a border with another, that border can be removed.


Image by IronMoss
Here is an image of the walls in the game. They are white and the nicest pieces in the game, other than the board.

The Dice
Many things are wrong with this game. Not the mechanics, per se, as the "place a wall, roll the dice and place a tower/house(s)" mechanics work together nicely, making, technically, a fully rounded game. Sorta. It is the lack of control of which color tower/house(s) the player is able to place because of the chaotic dice rolling that irks me. All the points in the game are gained by having certain color pieces in certain areas, so when the dice force you to stray from what you need for your strategy, it kills the fun your were almost having.


Image by Moviebuffs
This image shows the dice in the game. All three are rolled simultaneously. One shows the color of the tower that is placed at one end of the wall the player just placed. If both ends of the wall are free, then the player may place another tower of his color choice as well. The other two die show the color of the houses the player must place on either side of the newly placed wall. Each of these die has one "?", which means the color house is at the discretion of the player.

The Cards
The cards are another chaotic element, used in a similar way as those in Amun-Re, having random ways to score points that are connected with how the board looks at the time of play. However, more than half the cards have nothing to do with how the just enclosed space looks, making the pillar of game's point, its purpose for theme, irrelevant. The players are meant to build a strategy around these cards in Masons, as they are the sole scoring mechanism. Some of the cards are also alot more powerful than others. Its likely for a player to have a hand of cards that score him between 3-7 points if she can close off her intended city, and another player to have cards that score upwards of 15-20 regardless of which space becomes enclosed. And thats just totally unfair.


Image by Moviebuffs

This picture shows some of the available cards. When played after a space gets enclosed, the bottom three will give the player 2 points for each tower that is part of the enclosed space, and the top three will the player 1 point for each house in one of the regions with that specific Coat of Arms (those are the only three.)

Overall
To be fair there are some interesting ideas in this game, they just weren't implemented very well. For instance, nobody actually owns anything on the board, similar to Acquire or T&E (without the partial ownership through stocks or Leaders.) Pieces are placed on the board to try and maximize the bonuses your cards allow when a space is finally enclosed. Unlike Acquire or T&E, the players rarely have a choice in which color towers or houses get placed on the board. However, where the walls, towers and houses go is in the power of the player.

I don't think I will write it off just yet though. If nothing else, I still have hope in this game, although I'm not sure why. I just want it to work so badly! I'll update this review later if my opinion changes, which it often does.

6/10
Nyarlathotep
United States
Unspecified
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron0405
mbmbmbmbmb
Very well thought out review, and interesting to read your opinion on it. I found Masons to be enjoyable from the start, but I think part of it is how you look at the game (that and I admittedly like a lot of Colovini games).

It's really a game of risk management and opportunism, and being aware of how other players can and will score. The cards fly so fast usually that it's more a very tactical game than a strategic one.

Definitely not everyone's cup of tea, but skill is rewarded more than you'd think, the same players win more often then not.
Daren Jackson
United States
Laramie
Wyoming
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Good comments, Shane. I too am a Colovini fan, and while Masons isn't my favorite game, it's still good fun. I think it's meant to be played very fast, and there isn't a whole lot of strategy involved, as Shane points out. How many points can I get by playing this card right now? vs. How many more points could I get by playing this card later? Or will it be too late by then?

Masons is a good game; it's just not a masterwork like Bridges of Shangra-la or Doge.
Tomello Visello
United States
Reston
Virginia
flag msg tools
patron070809
mbmbmbmbmb
To read that your reaction is less favorable than my own does not particularly bother me. I am confused though at part of your setup.

You've desired this for a long time, yet your hopes were deflated as soon as you read the rules? I'd have expected that browsing other threads here would have fairly informed you regarding the nature of the cards and the dice, which were objects of the review's complaints.

I couldn't quite tell from Your comment,"For instance, nobody actually owns anything on the board" which phrase in the previous sentece that related to. It could be either "there are some interesting ideas in this game" or instead "they just weren't implemented very well". If the latter (that it is a fault that lowers your rating), note that the ownership point is something I specifically pointed out in my own review.



Ownership might make a connection that this game is not particular confrontational (an interesting attribute for me, at least). I wondered whether your collection might show a preference for battles.

What caught my eye was Oasis in your list. I've read the rules for it and am just getting ready to play. I have an impression there might be a parallel when you say about Masons, "It is the lack of control of which color tower/house(s) the player is able to place because of the chaotic dice rolling that irks me".

My current knowledge on Oasis, which you've rated an 8, makes me cautious since the placement of land tiles and camels is done exclusively by cards drawn from a random deck. I do not get to choose my own land types. But that's just like not choosing your own colors in Masons, so are there really problems?



If you play some repetitions of Masons you may learn to maximize the cards you are handed, or perhaps learn how to replace them under the two rules for discard.

Joshua Lobkowicz
United States
South Portland
Maine
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron050709
mbmbmbmbmb
SatanicEssence wrote:
this would mark my first Colovini game to date. Quite possibly my last too.


Try Clans - http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/4636 - before you give up on Colovini. Beautiful, abstract fun for 2-4. I think it like it best of his games.

Josh
Nick Fisk
United Kingdom
Stoke on Trent
Staffordshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
0506070809
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Many things are wrong with this game. Not the mechanics, per se, as the "place a wall, roll the dice and place a tower/house(s)" mechanics work together nicely, making, technically, a fully rounded game. Sorta. It is the lack of control of which color tower/house(s) the player is able to place because of the chaotic dice rolling that irks me. All the points in the game are gained by having certain color pieces in certain areas, so when the dice force you to stray from what you need for your strategy, it kills the fun your were almost having.



I love this game the way it is.

However, amongst those that don't like the dice, has no one ever tried just playing without them ?

Just place a wall, with the tower(s) and house(s) you choose.


N.
Pedro Silva
Portugal
Porto
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron09
mbmbmbmbmb
I think you should definitively try it again.

I get the impression from your review that you may be misinterpreting some of the cards. Points scoring is possible both by things inside the just enclosed city, as well as outside... and that makes a lot of difference.
Also, the rule to be able to join two cities that share a wall makes a lot of difference in regard to scoring palaces instead of houses. You also seem to be ignoring the possibility for the players with less points at the end of a scoring round to recycle his hand, which can be quite determinant with more experienced players. It is not uncommon to purposefully stay behind in points in order to be able to get rid of less advantageous cards.

Do try it again and be sure to understand exactly how each card scores. They can be confusing early on.

Hope you give it another chance. It may not be one of the best games I ever played, but it is still quite a good one.

Edit: typos...
Last edited on 2008-01-19 11:32:58 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
Russell InNC
United States
Charlotte
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Good review! (I like Masons more than you do, though.)

I agree 100% with your comment about the cards being of wildly different power.

Please see here for a variant my friend and I developed to offset it:
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/216467
Stven Carlberg
United States
Atlanta
Georgia
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
The way I look at this game, the wide variance in what the different cards can score, combined with the way the value of the cards changes according to the board situation, is the main thing that the player has to confront and turn to his advantage. You get a lot of opportunities to get rid of cards that aren't worth so much in exchange for cards you hope (random draw) will be worth more. This is where judgment comes in. Is this card worth so little that I should get rid of it? Is it not worth much now, but will be worth more later, so I should hold on to it? Is it about to go down in value, so I should hurry up and score for it while I have the chance? Estimating value -- a value that changes over time -- and cashing in at the right moment. This is the challenge of Masons.

The randomizing effect of the dice helps make it more interesting. You're not merely betting on what the other players are trying to make happen (and the board situation that is going to develop due to the different influences brought by the various players) but also on what the random whims of the dice are going to allow. You get to manipulate the board situation to serve your own goals -- but not totally, because you have to let (as Rick says in Casablanca) fate take a hand, too.

To me, all this adds up to a fun and interesting game. Obviously it's not the same kind of game as chess, where I control everything that happens on my side of the board and win or lose strictly on the basis of whether I can outwit my opponent. But, accepting it for the kind of game it is, where there are some things beyond my control and I try to ride the waves, get in on the best deals and cash in the best possible moments, it's quite a nice way to spend 45 minutes.
Smee-R-MEW-2
United States
Aberdeen
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Avatar
patron0506
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the comments everyone. Be assured, I will give the game another chance, but I don't think my reaction will be any different. One of the problems I had with Amun-Re was the bonus cards that could be played at the end, earning a player points for seemingly no reason whatsoever. Although, at least in Amun-Re one had to earn the cards. In Masons, this is the main scoring mechanic.

Also, I think that, like a good moat, the extreme abstractness of it kept me at bay. Why would Masons be leaving the color, anD effectively the design, of the cities up to fate?

Maybe Masons is, to me, suffering from the same disease that ailed Tempus when it first came out; it wasn't what I expected. (Although I like Tempus.)
Brad Stock
United States
Columbus
Ohio
flag msg tools
designer
mbmb
Having played five or six games now, and watching our learning curve elevate, I'd say there is more going on here than meets the eye. My elder son usually wins, so I think there is more than luck also.

One of the key strategies is card management. When to hold back for last place, to discard and redraw? How many to hold? Which?

Also, the ability in any place to discard one and draw two? When to give up scoring in order to do this?

Also, the ability to score two cards even though you can only draw one replacement. When is the right time to do this?

When is it best to be in the lead, knowing that you won't have a chance to be last and discard/draw to your heart's content?

It is playing the odds, requiring intuition and -- yes -- luck. But I suspect there is more skill to this game than I have yet realized (since I have not yet won even once, or maybe only once).
Last edited on 2008-06-08 18:44:42 CST (Total Number of Edits: 2)
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
BoardGameGeek and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.