Archive for Reviews by a Half-wit
It's never really fair to review a game after just one play, but this is not so much about the way the game plays as it is about the presentation of the game by the unfortunately named Tasty Minstrel Games from a little 'ol town just south of here.
I became interested in possibly buying Belfort after hearing about it on Episode 46 of the Secret Cabal podcast, and broke down and bought it since Mike was at the store to play games, volunteered to sticker it for me, and I was in the mood to buy something. While Mike was busily trying to align the circles, squares, and pentagons, I read the rules. Then I gave them to John to read.
I have a few things to say about the game and the presentation of it. First the one complaint: the stickers. The pieces did not need to be wood and could have been produced as double-sided cardboard pieces. The quality of the guild tiles, the coins, and the other pieces would have made fine player markers. The number of stickers weren't that bad. I've stickered all but the latest of the Commands and Colors Ancients expansions and Commands & Colors: Napoleonics. Compared to those, this is a cake walk with a puppy and an ice cream cone.
Now for the praise. I complain a lot about rules. These are not ones that I can find a reason to complain. Everything is easy to find, well-presented, and easy to read. During the game, I was about to look up a rule as my turn began. Mike said he would do it and found the rule easily, even though he had not read the rules like John and I did. This would be reason enough to give it a huge round of applause but there is more.
The player boards also act as an exceptional player aide, which not only lists the turn sequence, but also indicates how many of each resource or game piece a player starts with. It also lists all the building types that can be built, the resources they take, and the symbol used for that building. Wow. It made playing the game out of the as easy as it could be. If every game were produced with just as clear and helpful rules and components we would see significantly less user files here on BGG.
There are a couple of things which I might have done different as well, but these are more a matter of taste and not really quibbles with the design. I thought the city board would have been better if it were keyed so the pieces would interlock. I understand not doing it so the players can slide out sections when it is scored.
The other thing I would have tried to do is call out that the Gatehouses could only be built in a pair which hasn't been started yet. The card and the board element didn't hint at this and we did not read the section on the cards because the rules seemed so clear. It wasn't until the sixth turn that I looked it up to see that I had done it wrong earlier in the game. I guess it was expected that the players would read through the building section of the rules?
Oh, and we really did enjoy playing the game. While both Mike and I were interested in the past, we've heard both good and bad things about it. It's a solid combination of a worker placement and an area control game. I like that different types of workers are needed for some actions while many of the actions can use any kind of worker. I'm not a huge fan of the take-that kind of interaction that the interactive guilds put into the game, especially when learning a game, but we can mitigate that by playing with just one of them each time.
During the game I took a large lead during the first scoring and then realized I didn't build enough buildings that gave me income so the tax rate killed me the rest of the game. I thought Mike was going to make a big move and win easily and kept pointing that out to John. In the end, Mike did win, but by two points. I would change some of the choices I made during the game, especially being sure I was getting some income from my buildings. I also changed my mind on some of the relative use of the buildings during the different stages of the game.
Mike said might buy this because it looks like something we would play when I go to his house for games. I'll likely bring it sometime for us to try as a two-player game and see if we like it. I suspect that others in the Saturday group will also enjoy playing the game and I will be bringing it along and suggesting it to see if it goes over well with them. And while writing this and thinking about the game I have decided to bump my rating up to an eight from a seven. I really want to play it again in the near future.
I also lucked out because Patty at the Game Depot remembered she had the promo guilds left over from a board game day package of loot because no one played or bought it that day (or since) so she pulled them out and gave them to me. Score!
It's been a while since my last post and this is the first of a couple that will spring from this past weekend's gaming.
This is about some games I've played recently which are new to me.
I could see this winning the Spiel des Jahres this year. It is simple to explain, easy to play, yet has important in-game decisions to make. All this and all players do on their turns is roll five dice up to three times and record one of the results of their choice on their board.
I'd complain about the wooden dice, but they are better than the plastic/resin/whatever dice that come in Würfel Bohnanza which have the faces screened on, because the symbols are at least stamped into the wood and will likely survive more plays than the bean dice.
I'm really happy with this purchase and it exceeded my fairly-high expectations for he game after I read about it. Here's hoping alea's Stefan Brück gets his company's first SdJ with this!
Not a bad cooperative game, but it doesn't evoke the theme that the great cooperative games do.
In Pandemic the diseases pop up in what feels like an organic way, with pockets never truly being eradicated until the disease is or the game has been won.
In Flash Point, both the tasks at hand, controlling the fire and rescuing the people, matter. In this game, the murder feels inconsequential as a bunch of unrelated crimes pop up at random. There is no theme except in what the cards say, and they even feel more like something you might experience in Grand Theft Auto than in a TV series or movie and are nothing like what happens in a city on a day-to-day basis. They are completely unrelated to the murder and investigating the murder feels like a tacked on task for police officers.
At its heart, it feels more like a polished Battlestar Galactica, which I found to be a boring, uninspiring game of tossing in cards while playing on my phone waiting for my turn to arrive. This one also has a traitor element, but we played without it and are not likely to play with it since this will get played with three people.
I kickstarted this game because I like deck builders, I like Tanto Cuore which was the last game Japanime brought over, and because it wasn't gathering a lot of steam in the campaign early on. Yes, I bought it even though it came in a non-standard shaped box. No, it had nothing to do with the sexy art. Well, maybe a little. I'm such a perv.
Mike and I played a couple of two-player games were disappointed in it. It does a great job of taking Nightfall's color chaining and modifying it slightly as well as having the cards a player buys going right on top of their deck so they get used right away.
Where it doesn't work is the game appears like it will always drag. In the team game, the goal is to reduce the other team's main player to zero lives ("Energy"). In a free-for-all the goal is to either be the last man standing, or be the first to get to 25 Energy. The problem is that both building up Energy and reducing another player's are both slow and tedious. It might be better as a team game, but as a two-player game it is a drag.
One other issue I had was with the rules. Many of the game effects and much of how the game actually plays is not in the rules. They describe the basic mechanics of how to play, but the players must read and know the Glossary to understand even some of the basic concepts of the game. Everything appears to be in the rules, they just could have been organized better. I suspect some of that is because of the space available for the rules in the can and because it is a fairly direct port from the Chinese rules. Thankfully, they aren't terrible like one of the rulebooks I mention a little further down.
Two people have remarked to me that it is like a simplified Tigris and Euphrates, which I can kind of see. It's a simple, light game which feels like it has a tactical depth which will be discovered with more plays. It's not an inspiring design, but is a solid one which I can see playing a few dozen times before it gets shelved for something else. But I can see pulling it out on occasion in the future because it will be something that is easy to pick up and play right out of the box.
It could easily been produced with a smaller board and less-elaborate pieces for a lesser cost, maybe as part of something like Fantasy Flight's Silver Line. I am not saying it is over-priced for the components, just that it could have been done as a $30 game with less parakeet appeal.
Lord of the Rings Dice Building Game
I had really high hopes for this game because it was cooperative and based on Quarriors, which has gotten a lot of play in these parts.
While it does take the basics of Quarriors and makes it into a cooperative game, the results are clunky and could have been better executed.
The primary, and biggest problem this game has is the rulebook blows. It does a poor job of explaining the game, defining the rules, and being a reference while playing. And this is coming from someone who has played Quarriors. I read the rules and had lots and lots of questions, so I set up a two-player and tried to play it while going through the rules. That didn't work.
It wasn't until I read the forums and got an answer direct from designer Jeph Stahl that I was able to play it.
The biggest issue I had with the game is that a player buys only a few dice during the game and since there is no real way to remove the starting dice those dice do not get played that often. I understand why it is not simple to remove dice, but there should be some way to cull some of the less useful dice while still keeping the theme.
For me, this is a near miss, but I can still see playing it on occasion, especially with Mike. I enjoyed it more the second time with two players than the first game with four players. It might also work better with three. Who knows, maybe there is a small expansion waiting which will solve my minor issues with the game?
Nothing, however, will make me like the rulebook. Nothing. Well, maybe a date with the models for the Gemini card in Kanzume Goddess, but even that might not be enough!
Like I said, perv.
I played a couple of Mike's new acquisitions this past weekend and thought I would comment on them.
First up was Rolling Freight which he has had for a while. Mike hadn't read the rules in a while, but we were looking for a game with five players and Michael suggested it, so we dove into the game.
This is a game in the same family as Age of Steam and Railways of the World, except each player uses dice to generate the actions which they can perform on a turn. From memory, the actions are: buy an improvement, claim a route contract, work on a contact which was claimed, and deliver goods.
One of the really smart things designer Kevin Nunn did (hi Kevin!) was to have each player roll their dice at the end of their turns so they could plan out their turns. The problem I had while playing this game is it didn't matter too much until the player before me started taking his turn because things changed so much between player turns. It was also really, really long. I think we played for 2.5 hours and just managed to get 2/3 of the way through the game. I managed to burn through the battery in my iPhone between turns because it took so long for my turn to come back around.
Both complaints would be fixed by playing with fewer players and I wonder if four might be a better maximum for the game unless everyone was really familiar with it?
The cards for the improvements and contracts are really, really small, but they are effective and once there is a familiarity with the iconography they work just fine. The board is harder to find things on. The graphic design is very, very busy but I can't suggest a better way of handling marking the routes between cities.
I'd really like to try it again, though with fewer players.
Next up was Atlantis Rising.
Mike and I played this in the evening at his place with his wife. They had both played before so going through the explanation was quick and we were off to try and save Atlantis from sinking by building the 10 parts of a machine which would save it.
Each player gets one of the special roles and three workers to place on tasks. They take turns placing the workers on one of the six spokes of the board which each has a function. The abilities at the ends of the spokes are better than the ones closer to the middle of the spokes.
After placing the workers, the pain starts. A card is flipped over for each player, and most of them cause one, or more, spaces on a spoke to sink. Any workers on the space are discarded for the turn and returned to the owner. Then the Greek navy attacks, which can also sink spaces.
Then the workers can activate. Gathering the resources to build the machine parts requires a roll of a die which gets harder the closer to the middle of the spokes. There are also knowledge cards which can help, some mystical blue glass beads which can be used to modify things and un-sink spaces (if you have a LOT of them).
The players are unable to trade amongst themselves without a special card which only happens once in a while, so it really is not all that cooperative. As a cooperative game, this fails because it doesn't require a lot of player interaction. It also fails for me because it is one of those games that is built on a slippery slope. Initially, things might be balanced, but once the players start losing, they start losing badly and no amount of clever play will make up for the fact that the game was designed to beat you down.
I've been talking a lot about miniatures. It's time to do some talking about board games.
Game of the Week
This is something I won't be continuing. I was having a hard time getting excited about getting some of the games to the table. Initially, it was a blast, but as time wore on the games became a casualty to my unwillingness to teach yet another game.
Best recent game not named DreadBall
The game which I learned the last few months which is my favorite is Seasons.
Looking at it, and then hearing the instructions when Mike was going over them, I thought for sure that I would hate the game. Instead, I really liked it and I ended up suggesting it the next day when Nico had his copy at the store.
I played it again with Mike and then again at the store over the next few weeks. This past weekend we were looking for a game which would work for up to four players, and I bought it on the spot and taught it to Michael, Jeff G. and Rob H.
The resource allocation using dice, which can be different each game with less than four players, it clever. Being able to chain together cards is really a lot of fun and it reminds me of playing Magic or any other CCG which has chaining.
I don't like some of the cards which make it too easy to keep siphoning away the points from other players, but they don't break the game. They are just annoyances and I hope we don't see too many more of them if there are expansions.
Most disappointing recent game
A press your luck dice game is right up my alley. I love those! Therefore you would think that I would at least like Escape: The Curse of the Temple. I found it to be a mediocre dice rolling game with a time constraint which appears to be put into place to add some urgency to a flawed game.
The components are top-notch and Queen was smart in making the dice engraved, which should be a requirement for anyone making a dice game with special dice.
Mike has played it a few more times since we tried it out with Jerry and says he thinks I will like it. I am quite willing to try it again, because it only takes a few minutes to play. But if he pulls out the soundtrack, I am out.
By the way, who has a CD player anymore? I have one in my car, and my computer has one but all my portable devices have died over the years. They are so 1990s!
This is a hard decision. I really liked Garden Dice and was going to write about it. It has some depth with limited choices determined by dice rolls, and it takes some thought. But it was edged out by Mice and Mystics when I noticed it on the list of newly-played games. Both Mike and Alex are fans of dungeon crawl games and Mike bought this and we tried it.
The theme comes through as you fight rats, roaches, centipedes and try and avoid the cat and the bird in the courtyard.
The multiple use of the dice is clever and the game is still simple enough to dive into and play right away.
Alex also picked up the game so I have played the initial scenario twice and am really looking forward to playing it again.
I doubt I would pick up Mice and Mystics since it is something I would want to play with either Alex or Mike. Plus, Kevin and Anne picked it up, so I know of three copies floating around. Garden Dice is one I can see myself picking up on a whim at some point if Mike isn't around.
As I mentioned in my monthly recap, I really like D-Day Dice.
Back in December 2010 Mike and I played the print and play version. At the time it was a competitive game (and started as a solo game) which had the players competing to be the first to get to the end bunker and clear out the guns shooting up the beach. I liked it and rated it a 6 on the BGG scale. Mike liked it more than I did and committed to the new-fangled Kickstarter thing to help fund it. Sometime during development it became a cooperative game.
To say Mike was excited about the game as the release date neared is an understatement. For the last couple of months I suspect he mentioned it just about any time I was over at their house to play games. When it arrived we had to play it.
The first time was that Thursday with Hilary, Mike, and I. We played the first map, Exercise Tiger, and managed to advance a fair way up the map before losing.
Mike brought it along when he went to the store the following Saturday. Nico also was a supporter on Kickstarter for it and had played a few games before it was broke out at the store. Michael joined the three of us and we played the Omaha Beach map, losing three times in a row, including one really bad loss, before beating it the fourth game. Michael had to leave and we played a few other games, but to finish the day out Nico, Mike, and I played again. This time we stormed Utah Beach and we beat it the first time out!
That second win was very easy and was the result of a lot of fortuitous dice rolling by all of us. That night I jumped on eBay and started trying to get one of the Kickstarter packages with all the expansions and swag. I drove to Colorado the next day, checking my auctions when I stopped for gas, food, and "comfort" breaks. I did manage to win a copy later in the week and it arrived the middle of the next week.
After getting home I went to Mike & Hilary's for my normal weekly gaming with them and the three of us tried Utah Beach. we lost.
Hilary bowed out and Mike and I tried again and lost three more times, only getting close to the bunker once. Every loss was fun, as we were close to losing for several turns during a couple of the games.
I'd describe the game play, but there is a pretty good video overview by BGG user jllama.
Like Flash Point: Fire Rescue and Pandemic it's a solid cooperative game. The components are top-notch and the boards/maps have not warped at all in the dry, hot desert air, which is saying something. What comes in the main game box is well worth the $40 MSRP.
The one negative for me is one I've seen mentioned elsewhere. The game can be a bit of a challenge to set up because you have to reference the map's rulebook to select the available specialists for each player and the items and specialists which will be available to all players. Since we generally play this multiple times in a row on the same map it is less of an issue because we reset and get right back at it. If that's the only complaint I have about a game, it's a good thing!
As of right now I rate this a 9 and I am very much looking forward to working my way through the different maps and expansions, and new ones which have yet to be released.
When Nightfall came out I had really high expectations for it. I really liked the idea of chaining colors and super-bonuses if the card which was chained from matched a particular color. I liked that the wound cards which were collected had some uses but still clogged the deck. Everything about it made me think I was really going to like it.
As I played it, it never really grabbed me. I picked up Martial Law, the first expansion, and hoped it would ignite a fire for the game for me, but it didn't. There always seemed to be something missing, and by the time the Blood Country expansion came out, I decided I would divest myself of the game.
I tried trading both Nightfall and Martial Law as a single lot in a few math trades, but it never traded.
Then I picked up an iPad and purchased Nightfall for the iPad/iPhone and began playing the app. It rekindled my interest in the game, but I was still leaning towards trading it away.
One of the things I checked out because of the renewed interest was the new starter cards in the third expansion, The Coldest War. While looking at the cards, and really liking them, I noticed the new wound effect created in this expansion.
This card chains to and from any card. This does not count toward your 1 wound effect per turn limit.
It helps players who are stuck by allowing them to play cards when they might not normally be able to play.
The set also introduces a global condition, which the players can change during the game, called the Moon Phases. These give bonuses for playing certain cards, based on the traits of the card or the type of the card. It adds some chaos to the game, but also some flavor and incentive for making certain plays.
Another addition is cards which attach to minion cards, essentially equipment for the minion, which helps them. There are also cards which can be played directly from a player's hand instead of being chained. Their effects are usually less than their effect if chained. All-in-all, this looked to tweak the game just the way I hoped it would have been with the first expansion.
So I picked up The Coldest War and Mike and I gave it a whirl, playing three games with just cards from the set.
We liked it, and it will be in our regular rotation of games to play when I go over to his place. After we get to know the cards from this set, I'll pick up Blood Country, the second expansion and then will eventually mix in all the cards.
I've changed my earlier assessment that the game is better with three or four players and now prefer it with two, though I would play with three on occasion.
I do have some wishes...
1. Keep the expansions to once a year, or every nine months. Mike mentioned an article that suggested Thunderstone had to be rebooted because of bloat and I would hate to have Nightfall reach that point.
2. Expansions for the iPad/iPhone version. I'm already feeling like I need more for the game. More, dag nab it!
3. More lycanthropes.
4. More ways to kill vampires.
5. One of these for my birthday!
Mike taught Lords of Waterdeep to Hilary and I the other night and playing it only once has made me a total expert on it and given me enough information to make a full, comprehensive review.
All right, all right! Calm down! I really only know enough about it to make some comments which will likely bear out over time.
First up, the box. Whoever designed this poor excuse for a game container should lose their job, be flogged, rehired just so they can suffer the humiliation of being fired again. In other words, it's poopy. Maybe I am being a little dramatic? The box isn't sealed on all four corners and while the insert looks like it would hold everything, if some poor sot placed it on a shelf like a book, the shallow cover would likely come off and spill the contents everywhere. It's something I would not expect from such a big company.
On to the game!
Take the Dungeons & Dragons theme, add some Forgotten Realms, and some flavor text on the cards. Got it? Now toss it all out and let's look at the game because what we have here is a basic Euro worker placement game which has less nothing (which is a really small amount) to do with the theme. Not that it is a bad thing. For me, theme is best used when explaining a game and I think it would help those who need to explain the game to players not familiar with standard Euro conventions. In our playing, we were about 1/4 of the way through the game when Mike held up a black cube and said, "Oh, these are rogues." Until that point, who knew?
The game is about collecting resources (hiring adventurers) and completing goals (quests) by paying the collected resource cubes and, sometimes, cold flexible (because it is cardboard) cash. This is done by visiting locations in Waterdeep, a city in the Forgotten Realms. Most locations have one room for one worker meeple a round and two of them have space for three. When a meeple is placed on a location, the player which placed said meeple collects the resources indicated on the space, or takes some other action, like taking the start player marker.
There are five or six different types of quests and each player will be dealt a "Lord of Waterdeep" card which gives bonus pints at the end of the game for each of two types of quests that are completed*, which adds one more layer of the information the players need to track. I was looking to complete Warfare and Commerce quests and I believe there were Arcana and Skullduggery and others.
One of the actions is completing one of three face-up building tiles, which creates a new space on the board which players can visit. The player that built the building will get a bonus when other players use the building. There is a stack of building tiles which is shuffled at the beginning of the game, so the available buildings will be different every game.
The other location with three spaces is where one of four face-up Quests are taken. Each space allows the player to take a Quests, with a bonus. One space gives the player two coins, one gives an Intrigue card, and one discards the face-up Quests and replaces them with four new ones before the player has to choose one.
Quests are completed after placing a meeple. A player can only complete one Quest after placing a meeple. Usually the Quests are placed face down in a completed quest pile, but some of them give the completing player an ongoing bonus, such as collect an extra fighter (orange cube) anytime the player takes an action which gives them any fighters.
There are also Intrigue cards, which give bonuses to the player that played them and/or sometimes have a minor annoying effect on an opponent. They can only be played when visiting the harbor space (which has room for three meeples) and meeples on the harbor are placed on different spaces in the town at the end of the round. So the cost of being able to play one of the cards is losing out at the better spaces available earlier in the round. A fair trade off in my book.
The Intrigue cards are what almost stopped me from wanting to try the game. Severe screw your neighbor effects really can ruin a good game, especially random ones. If a game is set up so every player has the same effects which they can play on others, then it is fair and everyone knows what can (and likely will) happen during the game. But drawing cards randomly which can then be played on another player really can ruin a good game.
What I saw of the Intrigue cards during the game we played made me believe they are all pretty equal. Sure, some might be better than others for a particular task at the moment, but overall the designers look to have done a great job with them.
I enjoyed my playing and will happily play again, though I am sure each playing with come with some kind of taunt made at the stupid box design. Yes, I obsess over small things.
It's a good Euro-style game, and one which might lead some of the RPG fans to the world of board gaming. Since Mike has it, I see no reason to buy it. Plus the box wouldn't work well with how my games are stored. (See? Small things!) We can play whenever he is up for it and it might also be something Nico buys, which means I would be able to play on Saturdays when he's not playing at being shark bait.
Mike has played it with two, three, and four players and said it scales well with that number of players.
I wonder how much I would have to say about something I actually knew more about? Sheesh!
* I see from perusing the pictures for the game that at least one of the Lords of Waterdeep gives bonus points for constructing/controlling buildings.
Last night we played three new dice games which are based on already-existing favorites. Mike ordered these from Time Well Spent when they had them in stock a couple of weeks ago and this was our first chance to try them out.
'Clover' little dice game
First up was Keltis: Das Würfelspiel. It comes in a small cube, about four inches on a side, with five dice, 16 wooden player markers, 40 wishing stone chits, German rules, and a four-piece, double-sided board. The dice are all the same with each having one of the five path symbols on one side and wishing stone on the sixth side.
The game is simple and plays much like a streamlined version of Keltis. Each player gets four pieces which they will use to mark their progress up the columns of the board. The active player rolls the five dice and may roll any of them a second time. They then move one of their four pieces along one of the paths equal to the number matching symbols rolled on the dice. They must be able to move all the available spaces or the piece cannot be moved. They would also collect one wishing stone chit for every two stones rolled on the dice. Each player can only have one piece on any path and they have only four pieces, so they will be at least one path they will not be scoring.
There are three symbols which appear on the board, which should be familiar to anyone who has played Keltis: clovers, wishing stones, and leprechauns (from Keltis: Das Orakel). If a player piece lands on a space with a wishing stone icon, they collect a wishing stone. If it lands on a space with a clover, that player can move any one of their pieces one space along the path that piece is on. Should the lucky roller land on a leprechaun they will get to take another turn.
The game ends when a specified number of pieces (depending on the number of players) passes the line between the sixth and seventh spaces. Each piece scores between -4 and 10 points depending on the row it is in when the game ends, plus each player will score points between -10 and 10 points based on the number of wishing stones they have collected.
The second board (pictured on the right) scores the same but plays slightly differently. There are a number of spaces which crossed sticks in the shape of an "X". The difference for this board is a piece cannot stop on the X spaces so the player might have to roll two or three of a symbol to continue along a path.
Mike, Hilary, and I played the first board and it was a lot of fun and fairly quick, which you would hope for in a dice game filler. Mike and I then played the harder side and it added a little length to the game. It made some of the decisions on which dice to re-roll and whether or not to risk getting an additional space on a path when trying to get a wishing stone on the dice. I would likely want to play the harder side most of the time, while the easier side is more family friendly.
After playing it, I still want to acquire a copy of it.
A market for beans
Hilary then rejoined us for a game of Würfel Bohnanza.
This comes in a standard Amigo card box with seven dice, 61 harvest cards, five reference cards, a bean field, and the rules in German.
There are three tan dice and four white dice. The reference cards show which dice have which beans on them. On their turn a player rolls the dice and must freeze at least one by placing it on the bean field and these will represent the available beans the player will have to fill orders on their harvest card. Once they are done rolling the dice they will then compare the available beans with their harvest card. A die can be used to fill multiple orders, but the orders must be sequentially filled.
At the beginning of the game, each player gets two harvest cards dealt to them. The first one lists the orders they need to fill and the second one is the future market and is used to track the orders which have been filled by covering them. The orders are filled beginning at the bottom of the card and moving to the top. Once three orders have been filled the card can be harvested for talers (coins/VPs/etc.). It will be worth one to four talers depending on how many orders are filled. Once it is scored, the future market card becomes the current harvest order card and the player will receive a new future market card. The active player may use the dice currently in the bean field to fill orders on their new card.
That might be a fun enough game, but there is far more player interaction that, my friends!
When the active player rolls dice, the other players need to pay attention, because they can use the dice which were just rolled to fill their current order, if all the required beans are available. This does not include the dice on the bean field, just the dice rolled.
The game is won by the first player to collect 13 talers.
I suspect this could easily be re-themed into the Le Havre or At the Gates of Loyang dice game and it probably fits one of those themes more than it does Bohnanza's.
This is a little heavier than a filler game because every player needs to be paying attention to the rolls of the other players. I was not in the mood for something which required this much attention so I wasn't thrilled by it after we played. As I thought about the game, I liked it more but would need to play it when I was in more of a mood to be attentive the entire game. So it is still on my to-buy list.
He bought a zoo (dice game, that is)
We finished the night with Zooloretto Würfelspiel.
This one comes in a small box, about the same size as the Zoch dice games. It comes with 10 dice, a double-sided board, a pad of 50 double-sided score sheets, a pencil, and German rules.
Each player gets a score sheet, the board side and number of dice are selected based on the number of players. On their turn the active player may choose one of two actions. They can roll and place two dice or take all the dice on one of the trucks. Once every player has claimed a truck a new round begins with all the dice being available and the last player which claimed a truck starts the new round.
When the dice are rolled, the player can place them both on one truck or can split them up. Each truck can hold three dice. To claim a truck and the animals on the truck, the player just takes the dice from the board and places them in their holding area on their score sheet to show that they have finished their actions for this round. They then mark off the animals on their score sheet. If an enclosure is filled, then the player checks to see if they were the first to fill the enclosure for that type of animal. If they are, then they mark the bonus box.
The coins work differently from that animals in that there is no bonus for filling all the boxes. If a player ends up claiming a die for an animal with a full enclosure, they will have to mark the animal off in the barn.
The game ends the round when any player has completely filled either all five or four of their five animal enclosures. The players score one point for each animal they collected, plus any bonuses for being the first to complete enclosures, minus two points for each type of animal in their barn. Each group of coins (three boxes, then two boxes, then one box) is worth one point or can be used to clear the mark (and the negative two points) from an animal type in the barn.
This was the lightest of the three games, even lighter than the basic board for Keltis: Das Würfelspiel, but it was also my favorite of the three. It gives the hint of playing Zooloretto as a filler dice game. You have choices to make and there is the same type of interaction with the other players as in the namesake game.
More money to spend
It ended up being a fun exploration of the three new games in the respective franchises. The first and last of them felt very much like lighter versions of their parent games, while Würfel Bohnanza might have fit the theme of one of Rosenberg's other games a little more. All three are good games which I will be getting when I have the chance.
It's getting late and I probably should wait and edit this later, but I'm not likely going to have time for a few days, so here it goes now.
I've now played all three of the games I've bought this year. Mike and I tried out Knights of Ten this evening, playing it twice. The first was a single-hand of getting to know the game, and the second was a two-hand game. So how was it? It was really fun. It's essentially a two-player trick-taking game which can be played by four player in teams of two. You play to a set number of points or a set number of rounds.
I've griped a lot about game boxes, especially those in odd shapes or made out of metal or plastic. This one comes in a burlap bag with a tag which has the game's name and a description. Bags suck. They don't go on shelves with other games the components aren't protected. I'm not a fan and will probably be using an extra small Arkham Horror small expansion box to store and transport it. Of course, I will have to create a box cover so I know what game is in the box.
Inside the bag is a two-sided color, illustrated rule sheet, 16 gold acrylic gems, and 55 cards.
The cards are a decent stock, but they are oddly over-sized so if you insist on sleeving your card games you might be out of luck unless Mayday Games decides to make sleeves specially for the game.
The acrylic gems are a nice quality and serve their purpose in the game quite well.
The cards come in five suits of ten cards, with each suit having one of each card numbered 1 to 10. There are also five special cards: four wizards and one dragon. Two of the suits (Archer and Foot Knight) are normal cards, the Thief suit cards count as negative values, the Mounted Knights can be used as either positive or negative cards, and the Gold cards are like the Mounted Knights plus they are worth one gold (point) each when they are in a trick.
I found the rules covered everything you would likely need to know the game, but could also have used some minor editing. Nowhere in the rules does it explain that the symbols on the cards tell you which cards can be played as positive and which can be played as negative. It's an oversight you would expect from someone who has played and explained a game so much that they just don't think about those things anymore. This isn't a game-breaker as it is pretty intuitive which is which, though I will still contend they look like crosses, feathers, and fleur-de-lis to me!
How to Play
The dealer deals 10 cards to each player. The players then discard three cards each, so they have a starting hand of seven cards. The top card of the deck is flipped over for the players to see, this is called the donkey.
Beginning with the dealer, the players will alternate playing cards until one player passes, causing the other player to win the trick. The winner of the trick scores one gold, plus one gold for each gold card in the trick. He then draws one card, either the face-up donkey or he draws blind from the deck. The loser of the trick then draws two cards, one of them must be the donkey if the winner didn't take it.
The round ends when either the last card is drawn or the 16 gold gems run out. The game is played a set number of rounds or to a certain score.
How is a trick won?
When cards are played, they are played in front of either player into their respective hordes, either adding or subtracting points from that horde. Each player can play on either horde, though a player cannot play a card in another player's horde until they have a card in front of them. Each player's total can never be below zero nor can it be above ten. To play a card, the active player must cause the value of their horde to be equal to or exceed that of the opponent's horde. If they can't play, they pass and lose the trick.
Negative cards are played sideways to indicate they are minus points.
If a player's horde is ever reduced to zero, they are limited in what they can play. At this point they can only play a Dragon, a Wizard, or a Gold card. That's it. They still must make their horde's value equal the other player's, or they must pass.
The winner of the trick scores one gold for winning the trick then one more gold for each gold card in the trick.
A Wizard makes the value of a horde 10. The Dragon ends the trick and the player who played it wins the trick, but any gold cards in the trick must be paid to the Dragon before scoring the gold for winning the trick. The gold is removed from the game for the hand, and if there is not enough gold left over to pay the Dragon, then the player playing the card must pay the Dragon from their points!
I didn't explain all the rules, but I covered most of them.
I was really impressed by the game. It's a really fun trick-taking game for two. Good two-player card games are always a welcome addition to my collection, and excellent ones might even end up with multiple copies in the collection in case I wear out the first one. I'm not a fan of the bag and that the cards are a little oversized, but I can live with those minor flaws since the game is so good.
There is some strategy in choosing your initial seven cards from the 10 dealt. You want high cards, but you also want some negatives, and some lower cards in case you need to add or subtract just a few points during a trick.
It's also important to gauge when is a good time to fight for a trick and when to pass to build up the cards in your hand. Sometimes you might want to keep playing just to keep the donkey card out of the other player's hand, and others when you hope the other player takes the donkey instead of leaving it for you.
I can see Mike and I playing this a lot, and suspect he and his wife will like it.
If you are looking for a two-player game you can play with your spouse, or maybe during lunch then I suggest you check it out.
The rules can be downloaded from Brain Candy Games web site (http://www.braincandy-games.com/) and there is a good video rules explanation and demonstration on how to play on on the game's page. Right now, the game is only available from them and my local FLGS, the Game Depot in Tempe, AZ. It costs a reasonable $14.95 and is only missing a box.