Game: Klunker

Image

garygarison — 2008-10-14T00:43:46+00:00

Homemade version using Hoyle Go Fish cards, "Fish Market".

Thread: Re: Play Klunker with your Bohnanza deck

JeffyJeff — 2008-04-15T04:29:26+00:00

I had this game sitting on the shelf and finally read the rules and played it tonight... and I was wondering if Bohnanza had the right components to play this one... seeing Klunker is very similiar to (and really a simplified version of) Bohnanza... would have been nicer to keep the Bean theme as well

Image

dizzyl — 2008-04-04T22:13:39+00:00

Frontbox Klunker Lookout games

Image

scottredracecar — 2007-07-10T00:04:54+00:00

Jewelry card: Ear Pendant

Image

scottredracecar — 2007-07-10T00:04:12+00:00

Jewelry card: Monocle

Image

scottredracecar — 2007-07-10T00:03:27+00:00

Jewelry card: Tongue Bob

Image

scottredracecar — 2007-07-09T23:25:18+00:00

Jewelry card: Diadem

Image

scottredracecar — 2007-07-09T23:24:45+00:00

Jewelry card: Necklace

Image

scottredracecar — 2007-07-09T23:24:12+00:00

Jewelry card: Gold Tooth

Image

scottredracecar — 2007-07-09T23:23:37+00:00

Jewelry card: Shoes

Image

jwalduck — 2007-06-22T10:25:16+00:00

Cards from my home made copy of Klunker - re-themed to be junk trading. The permit is the start player card. Shop window cards are replaced by squares of felt to represent blankets laid out on the sidewalk.

Thread: Re: WARNING: Lookout games version has different rules!

Hanno — 2006-11-01T08:14:22+00:00

Aelf wrote:
The rules have been modified by Clarissa Schindler for the Lookout Games version.

Not true.
The artwork has been modified by Ms. Schindler, but the rules were updated by Uwe Rosenberg himself.

Thread: Re: English rules?

Hanno — 2006-11-01T08:11:58+00:00

Klunker is *not* OOP.
There's a new edition by Lookout Games that has EN rules in it.

Thread: Re: English rules?

facesnorth — 2006-10-24T17:46:49+00:00

The posted rules to bgg are the exact rules from the RGG edition.

Ryan

Thread: English rules?

Starsunsky — 2006-10-24T17:14:02+00:00

Hi all,

Since Klunker is OOP, I have purchased a HIG copy of Klunker from German. I noticed that there are some differences between the German text and the English rules in BGG.

Is the English rules in BGG the same as RGG's? If not, would anyone kindly share the RGG English rules?

Thank you.
Star

Thread: Re: Play Klunker with your Bohnanza deck

generalpf — 2006-10-23T19:40:57+00:00

You can use the 3rd Bean Field cards for your shop window.

Thread: Play Klunker with your Bohnanza deck

Kwyjibo — 2006-10-23T18:28:05+00:00

Grab the rules (files section).
Use 14 each of Green, Stink, Chili, Blue, Wax and Coffee
and 10 of either Black-Eyed or Soy
That'll be your 94 card Klunker deck.
All you need now is a marker for the start player, 5cards/markers/whatever marked 1 through 5, and something to seperate your shop window from yoursafe. (There's a printable little something in the files section)

You're using one Uwe Rosenberg game to play another (out of print one). Go figure.

Thread: Re: WARNING: Lookout games version has different rules!

Aelf — 2006-06-13T16:05:22+00:00

Whoops, I'll have a good compare of the rules and post the definitive differences when I get a moment.

Thread: Re: WARNING: Lookout games version has different rules!

sbszine — 2006-04-03T02:20:08+00:00

I guess I need to check them yet again...

Edit: and the rules are indeed there in my RGG edition. Blame the tiny font...

Thread: Re: WARNING: Lookout games version has different rules!

RPardoe — 2006-04-03T02:13:55+00:00

My RGG copy has these rules. In fact, a quick scan indicates that the English Rules posted on the website appear to be very similar to my RGG rules and have these above listed rules included.

Thread: Re: WARNING: Lookout games version has different rules!

sbszine — 2006-04-03T00:21:13+00:00

My RGG copy definitely does not have these new rules. Maybe there are two different printings floating around?

Thread: Re: WARNING: Lookout games version has different rules!

Rulemonger — 2006-01-26T17:19:36+00:00

Aelf wrote:
As soon as one person chooses not to buy from a shop window, the round is skipped. You may still only choose not to buy if your shop window is empty. For example, the player with the 2nd purchase card and an empty window may elect not to buy. If so, none of the other players (3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th) may buy either!

This is how my version (the Rio Grande version) is.

If every player bought cards during the purchase round, the start player card remains with the player who has it currently. If any person chose *not* to buy during the purchase round, they become the start player.

This is also how the Rio Grande version is.

Thread: WARNING: Lookout games version has different rules!

Aelf — 2006-01-26T16:34:28+00:00

The rules have been modified by Clarissa Schindler for the Lookout Games version.

First, the card mix is different. There are 14 coloured cards for each of 5 gems, plus 12 Amber (Yellow) cards and 15 Diamond (White) cards.

You can use the deck and the original rules by taking 3 diamond cards out of the game, and marking 2 diamond cards with a yellow pen (they will be amber cards).

--------

A quick summary of changes to the rules if playing this version instead of the original:

The pleasant art has been replaced with really ugly photos of semi-precious gems.

You can play with 6 players.

With 5 or 6 players, each person starts with 3 or 5 cash cards respectively.

There are no types of gem more valuable than any other (all follow the old purchase pattern).

As soon as one person chooses not to buy from a shop window, the round is skipped. You may still only choose not to buy if your shop window is empty. For example, the player with the 2nd purchase card and an empty window may elect not to buy. If so, none of the other players (3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th) may buy either!

If playing with 5 or 6 players, at the end of each round, all players discard 1 cash card if able.

If every player bought cards during the purchase round, the start player card remains with the player who has it currently. If any person chose *not* to buy during the purchase round, they become the start player.

Thread: TVB - 3 Player - How Much is that Tongue Stud in the Window?

RPardoe — 2005-09-26T18:30:59+00:00

With still some time left, Rich suggested a quick try of Klunker, another quirky card game by the designer of quirky card games: Uwe Rosenberg. Herr Rosenberg is best known for Bohnanza. Klunker is another game of card trading, converting cards to cash, but this time with a jewelery theme. Players are trying to collect 4 cards depicting the same item. But the more sets a player is collecting, the less each set is worth.

A turn consists of players offering any number/types of cards for sale in their "shop window" in a once-around fashion. After that, in one card at a time fashion, each player plays cards to their "safe" where they start to form their sets. Should a player wish to pass placing a card in their safe, they take the lowest remaining "turn order" card from the middle of the table, so the first person to drop out will have the first privilege to purchase from shop windows. Once everyone has finished playing cards in their safe, in "turn order" players now purchase jewel items on display in the windows. The cost for any purchase is 1 money (ie card) and a player may purchase from themselves. If a player has jewels on display in their window, they must purchase. But if their window is empty (because someone else has purchased the jewels), they may decide not to purchase and end the purchasing round. Player then prepare for the next turn by drawing their hands back up to 6 cards.

As soon as a player has 4 of a kind, they must sell those cards. If those cards are the only cards in the players safe, all 4 cards are converted to cash (turned over to reveal the cash back). But if the player has 1 other set of cards, the set is sold for 3. If the player has 2 other sets of cards, the set is sold for 2. If the player has 3 or more other sets of cards, the jewels are sold for 1.

Dave did have one point in the game where he had 3 sets of 3 cards each. Having acquired the 3 cards needed to complete each set, he sold the first set for 2 (2 other sets), the next set for 3 (1 other set) and the final set for 4 (no other set) in a nice combination play to clean out his safe area. Looking back at the game, I think a player is hurt by trying to limit his sets to 1 or 2 hoping to get maximum payouts each time. Instead it is a balance of when to allow a few more sets because they will not only allow for the high-value sale, but also help one rebuild a hand.

Again, not many notes taken during game play, but final tallies were:

Rich: 21
Dave: 25
Sterling: 20

An interesting set collection game. We did take a bit longer than the stated 30 minutes due to rules explanation (and our session ran over as a result), but I would like to try this game again with more people as I think the game would play much faster as cards are exhausted sooner.

Thread: [SR] GSG 8/2/2005

Spielfreak — 2005-08-08T18:56:11+00:00

KLUNKER: Phil, Gary, Bob, Stephanie, Jeremy

Looking for a quick closer, we settled on this gem of a game from Uwe Rosenberg. Each player is both a gem dealer and collector, trying to amass sets of 4 like gems in their vault in order to sell them and make money. The key to a 5-player game, I think, is to make your initial window offering super-attractive so that someone buys it and gives you some money. The initial stake of one dollar (taler, ducat, whatever) doesn’t go far if you spend it without completing a set. Without early money, you’ll most likely end up buying your own gems, which could prove disastrous if you were not already collecting those gem types. Just ask Jeremy. I vaulted very little if at all during the first two rounds, preferring to take the #1 buyer card and securing the best offerings. In doing so I never had more than two types of gems in my vault, and was eventually able to cycle through four sets of gems. Gary and Bob each cycled through three sets. Final scores were something like: 13, 9, 8, 3, 3.

Thread: Session Report

ynnen — 2005-03-28T15:47:17+00:00

My inlaws visited over the weekend, and I introduced them to Klunker. They had played Bohnanza before, and several other light euro-flavored card games. Since Klunker and Bohnanza share some qualities (set collection, coverting sets into cash via the cards themselves, diminishing availability) I thought this would be a good choice for a new game.

I was surprised how well it went over, thinking that after the first game it was a complete disaster. But we ended up playing three games in a row! Here are brief summaries of each of the three games.

---

Klunker - Game 1
Joe: 12
Mary: 9
Trish: 15
Jay (me): 13

A fairly low-scoring and close game. We played methodically and somewhat blind to strategy to get a feel for the rules. We would often find ourselves jumping the gun and trying to buy when it was actually our turn to fill the shop windows or store jewelry in the vaults. After four rounds/turns, things felt much smoother.

Still, we were very tentative. No one put more than 1 item in their shop window at at time, and everyone was reluctant to invest in more than two different types of jewelry. As such, the game was also the longest (about 40 minutes) -- not only for learning the rules, but due to the fact that very few cards were used to place in the window or the vault.

---

Klunker - Game 2
Joe: 12
Mary: 11
Trish: 18
Jay (me): 13

The second game only took about 20 minutes to play, as we all felt far more comfortable with the rules. People were willing to risk collecting several different types of jewelry, if they thought they could turn one over quickly. We started to see more two- and three-card window displays. Interestingly enough, some were set up deliberately to tempt another person (by offering things they were collecting), while we also saw our fair share of window dressing that player was hoping to keep.

Mary was the most aggressive in terms of collecting the widest variety of different items, and she paid for it with very low sales -- however, her card mix had something to do with that; after the game, Mary told us she rarely, if ever, would draw cards at the end of the round matching items she already had in her safe, and was forced to "eat" her own window display once when there were 2 types of jewelry different from what she was already collecting.

---

Klunker - Game 3
Joe: 11
Mary: 12
Trish: 16
Jay (me): 19

Our third game also took right about 20 minutes, despite my best efforts to shut the game down quickly. My starting hand held 4 necklaces and 2 diadems. Since I was the first player, I put them all in my window, then skipped the investment phase to purchase them all and invest immediately, selling the necklaces for a quick 4 bucks. My refreshed hand had 2 each of diadems, earrings and tongue bobs... Both tongue bobs went in the display case, since Mary was collecting them.

Since Joe took over the starting player card, and I was in a tough position, I decided to simply move everything into the vault, despite being guaranteed to go last during the purchase phase (and possibly not even be able to purchase anything). Both diadems went into the vault first, for another 4 bucks, followed by the earrings. Purchasing did actually make it all the way back to me, and I was able to buy an earring and shoes from Trish for a buck. And since I ended the buying phase, I got the starting position card back.

That's when I decided to simply go through that same cycle. On my next hand, I dumped everything into my window, purchased it first, and made a few sets (even though they sold off at a lower rate, now having 4 different things). The following round, after refilling my hand, I went dead last, investing everything a card at a time to make the best sets I could, but still getting everything into my vault.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

It was a risky strategy, pretty much tying my fate to the luck of the card draw, but I felt I had developed a significant lead with 3 early and highly profitable trades in the first two turns (necklace for 4, diadem for 4 and earrings for 3). My goal now was to drive the game to the end by depleting the deck as quickly as I could and make a buck or two along the way. I made a few minor sets worth 1 buck toward the end, but didn't care. I just wanted to shove so many cards in my vault, and convert what I could, that the draw deck would be depleted and the game would end.

My gamble paid off, but only barely. Trish made a very good bid at second place. Had she not purchased one of my window sets earlier in the game, it would have been even closer, as that one purchase is effectively a two point swing (she loses one, I gain one).

---

Klunker - Overall Thoughts

I was pleasantly surprised that my inlaws enjoyed Klunker. It took a while to get the feel for it, and see how the different phases tied together, but it was very fun. I think it's about the same level of difficulty (to teach, learn or play) as Bohnanza, and offers a slightly different gameplay experience while still feeling somewhat familiar. I'll definitely suggest Klunker at our next get together, and I think Joe and Mary would definitely play again.

Thread: User Review

creech — 2005-03-14T06:11:48+00:00

I like Bohnanza with its unique system of trading and certainly look forward to Mr Uwe's other works, where I decided to grab Klunker and giving it a try. The first time we played was really fun though we made one fundamental mistake of allowing a purchaser to stop buying even though he has jewel in his display window. The second try we played with the right rules and we found that it has a much smoother flow, enjoying every bit of it.

The game comes in a pack of cards, though it is an english version published by Rio Grande, the window card still has the German writing and there are also rule cards in German and a rule sheet in English. The German text will not hinder the game as its main function is to mark the zone for the display window. There are also the purchase priority card with the number 1 to 5 printed and also a start player card. Rest of the cards are jewel card. Each jewel card represent a type of jewels worn on different people, the necklace on the leopard is special as it has special rule to that. The back of the Jewel cards has a bank note printed, this represent the money in the game. Player will try to collect same set of jewel to be sold for money, but not collecting too many sets as it will reduce the sale value of the jewel. The rule of the game seems complex at the start (same sentiment with Bohnanza too), so more patience is needed. I think this is acceptable due to the uniqueness of the system designed by Mr Uwe.

Each player starts with 5 cards on his hand. On the table, there are 3 zones to a player's play area :
1) Display Window Zone - Denoted by the display window card, all jewel to be purchase are displayed here
2) Money zone - player starts with 1, subsequent collection are to be placed here
3) Safe zone - This is where the player keep their jewel for exchange of money

Each turns has 3 phases, which player take turns in clockwise fashion and the starting player is the one holding on to the start card. First phase, player choose from their hand the cards that he want to display on the window for purchase. There is no limit to the number of cards to place at the window but he can only place it in once. At least one card must be in the window after a player take the turn.Once all player had displayed his jewel, the second phase starts. Now player can put 1 card into the safe if he want, if he decided not to, he can then take the priority card and will not be playing in phase 2 anymore. These go round and round until all player quit and taken a priority card. During this time, if a particular Jewel in the safe has four of a kind, the player can sell it and convert it into money. If it is the only type of jewel in his safe, he can sell it for 4 by turning the cards he sold over to the money side and deposit it into his money zone. Any additional type of jewel cause the price to depreciate a further 1 money, however, a player can guarantee to sell his jewel for 1 money even if it goes beyond 4 type. The exception is the necklace, it can sell for 4 irrgardless of how many other types in the safe. Third phase starts when each player got hold of one priority card, it will goes according to the priority card with 1 being the first player. Now, player can buy jewels from any display window and add it into his safe. He has to buy all jewels in a window by paying 1 money to the owner of the window, he can also buy the jewels in his own window. Once jewel are purchase, it has to be place into the safe immediately. After all the jewels are in the safe, then the player check whether there are 4 of a kind and sell them off for money. Once that is done, the next player on the priority list takes his turn until every one taken a turn. A player can also choose not to purchase, provided there are no jewels displayed in his window. By doing that, the 3rd phase ends immediately, denying other players to purchase. Once the 3rd phase end, the player who has the priority card 1 now takes the start player card. The priority card are returned to the game for next round. Player then each refill their hand back to 5 cards by drawing from the deck. The game ends when there are not enough cards to returns all players hand back to 5 cards.

This is a game full of decisions in every phase. In phase 1, it's a painful decision to place more or less identical jewels to attract others to purchase, or get rid of the unwanted ones so you can, or place it there, just so others will not buy it but you will. Phase 2 is constantly challenge by the pressure to decide whether to set yourself up for better returns by placing cards into the safe, or taking a high priority card since there are something that you're interested in from the display windows. For phase 3, it is a decision to deny others or purchase things you really want. There are some planning, though the luck of the draw is there, as such, it is more tactical in nature. Game play is intense as you try to outguess each others, especially in when to take the purchase priority card. This is a game that needs to be played a few times to appreciate its goodness and I think people will have mixed feel about it. Some will like it, some will not get it and some will dislike it, be it the theme or the game play or the learning time. For the groups that I've played with, it is a blast!

Thread: User Review

ynnen — 2005-02-01T19:01:01+00:00

I've read numerous reviews for Klunker on other sites, which seem to vary widely as to the games true merits. Some reviews have mentioned that never before had they played something that so truly lived up to its name, while others crowned Klunker the next Bohnanza. Me? I'm somewhere in the middle.

COMPONENTS: 9/10 The game comes in a nice, sturdy box, with 105 cards (94 jewelry cards, 5 window shop cards, 5 purchase cards and 1 starting player card) and the rulebook. The cards in my copy are all in german (although the text has no impact on playability) but the rulebook is in english.

The cards are very high quality and stand up well to repeated shufflings. I actually really like the sketchy, stylized art - it is colorful, unique and thematic. It's very easy to see which cards are what.

CLARITY OF RULES: 7/10 For basically being a "simple" family card game, the game takes some getting used to. While there are technically 10 "panels" worth of rules, the rules are not very long or overly complex. The rules contain several nice play diagrams and examples.

The game is played in several rounds, with each round consisting of 3 phases (Fill Shop Windows, Store Jewelry in Safe, Purchase Jewelry). The goal is to display jewelry that's attractive to others, purchase and sell off jewelry and end up with the most cash at the end of the game.

Placing jewelry in your shop window makes it eligible for purchase by yourself or other players, so it requires a degree of strategy and planning. Do you put something out no one else wants so you can claim it yourself, or tempt them with something another player values to get some money out of it?

You only score for jewelry that's been put in your safe, and that's another agonizing decision. The person who decides not to store jewelry first (the first player to pass at this option) actually gets to buy jewelry first that round, creating an interesting set of choices as players decide whether or not they can afford to put one more piece of jewelry into their safe. Once you have 4 pieces of the same jewelry type in your safe, they are converted into bank notes (cash). However, there's a distinct level of diminishing return -- the more different types of jewelry you try to specialize in, the less money you'll make!

You need money to make money, as they say... During the purchase phase, you get to buy ALL the cards currently shown in front of a player's store window for just a single bank note. The caveat is that all jewelry purchased during this phase goes immediately into your safe -- possibly completing sets or even forcing you to sell off jewelry at a lower price if you find yourself juggling too many different types!

Once everyone has had a chance to purchase jewelry, the round ends. All discarded cards are shuffled back into the main deck and everyone's hands are refreshed to 6 cards. The game ends immediately on any round where there aren't enough cards in the deck to refresh everyone's hands back to 6 cards. Only bank notes count! Cards in your hand, shop window or still sitting in your safe have no value. The richest player is declared the winner.

GAMEPLAY QUIRKS: 7/10 There are a few novel elements to the game, but a few special exceptions and rules that first time players might forget until they've gotten a few hands in.

First, the "banking" element from Klunker, where you have to plan ahead to convert jewerly into cash by storing it in your vault and selling it off is reminiscent of Bohnanza to be sure - except that the general cutoff for set collection is 4 instead of based on the different bean types.

There's a special selling exception with necklaces. There are fewer necklace cards than any other type of jewelry in the game (10 necklaces, as opposed to 14 of every other type). When you sell necklaces, you always earn 4 bank notes, regardless of how many different jewelry types you're collecting.

The first couple times you play, it's very difficult to figure out what you need to do in order to have a "good" turn. It's hard to gauge what a good or bad move is, or evaluate the importance of forgoing the banking stage to get to purchase something sooner.

This is a very difficult game to win "solo" by strictly working with your own cards. What other people put up for sale, or when they decide to purchase from your shop window, adds a very unpredictable element to the game. I thought it was very difficult to think past a single turn, since things could change pretty dramatically in such a short amount of time.

Since the distribution of jewelry, availability of items in shop windows and speed with which you'll go through the deck varies greatly based on the number of players, playing with 3 can feel much different than playing with 5 (where I think you need to be slightly more aggressive and just bank/convert whenever you can, as scores may be quite low).

STRATEGIC ELEMENTS: 7/10 Despite the fairly simple rules structure, it can take a while to really pick up on Klunker and get a good feel for strategy. I think the most pivotal decisions in this game include:

1) What to put in your window display. Do you want someone to pick up something from your window for a bank note, or try to build up a collection that may mesh well with your hand in a few turns? Since you have to put at least 1 item up if your window is empty, how do you hurt yourself least while also helping your opponents least?

2) What do you bank? Sure, necklaces are always worth good money, but aside from that, is the bank note hit you take for diversifying worth it? Do you only bank jewelry you already are close to 4 in so you can cash out quickly and free up room in your safe? Or do you skip banking altogether to get an earlier shot at buying jewelry?

3) To buy or not? You must buy if you still have items in your store window - but if someone just cleared out your inventory, you may decide to pass. Since purchased items go directly into the safe, you may end up devaluing part of your collection by purchasing a collection with different types of jewelry.

THE BOTTOM LINE: 7.5/10 Klunker is a fairly engaging, light card game with some tough strategic decisions. The game play mechanics and strategy elements can take a few games to get the feel for, as it introduces some mechanics that players may be unfamiliar with. It's an enjoyable way to spend a half hour, although it may lack enough "meat" for serious gamers to play more than once or twice at any given sitting.

Thread: Session Report

Godeke — 2004-08-23T15:58:18+00:00

After dinner the usual four of us (My wife, mom, Nate and I) were ready for a game. Klunker is one of my wife's favorites. We had to read through the rules (it had been a while), but once we started playing the game was second nature. The first round through we played fairly poorly and so the final scores were very close. I was thwarted at one point from an excellent potential when an odd suggestion for a purchase was made: this is a game where if you plan on your opponents playing logically it can be frustrating when they take a suboptimal purchase leaving you without the purchase you expected (and therefor were placing cards in the safe for). Once that happens it can be very difficult to recover. I found by the end of the first game that I was better off placing things in my window that people wanted to purchase and then taking the start card than allowing myself to potentially be sideswiped.

For the second round I started the game off in an excellent position: I had placed only a single type of card in the safe, was going to be able to purchase the last of that card along with the better part of a set that I had the completion of in my hand. Mom asked "what's the least damaging" and Nate and my wife suggested Nate's window with only two cards. I cried out as the cards were transfered: I had earlier pointed out that my window would complete a set for Mom and had been counting on the set she was buying! Now Mom had nothing but junk in her hand and I was forced to buy a full set of garbage that prevented me from scoring as well. After I had calmed down a bit (and after some damage control for making such a fuss about the purchase) we resumed the game. It turned out Nate had profited handsomely for his "recommendation" and by the end of the game won by three.

This is a game where a poor situation can destroy several turns of play, and your planning is only as good as your guesses at what the others will do. If you get into a situation where you have many types of cards in your safe you have two problems: first, you probably will need to place more cards from you hand in an attempt to clear the junk, so you won't get an early purchase and each clear is worth one point, which you probably spent on more junk because you are down. For example: I tried to put nothing new in the safe and buy myself out of the situation, but you rarely find cards that complete sets without creating more junk, which keeps you down at that 1 point purchase. At that point you are paying 1 point to get maybe 1 point in return. A more workable salvage move is to place cards from your hand into your window (if you get luck and draw them) that complete some of your junk, but don't match your opponents sets. Place nothing in your safe so you get the first purchase and purchase from yourself. Now you can score maybe two points with no expenditure and keep control over the junk.

The game is more strategic that I expected and I look forward to paying again (and getting my temper under control when I get sideswiped next time: I wasn't prepared for the game to allow for as much "screw your neighbor" gameplay).

Thread: Session Report

Jonathan Degann — 2004-01-27T17:47:04+00:00

Played By: Dave A. Jonathan D. Mike M. Patrick H. Winton L.

A strange game we rarely play. It's hard to wrap your head around the strategies - moreso because... we never play it.

Patrick was just getting all the right sets, allowing him to win at Klunker without really trying. Dave and I agreed that the game is too short to smooth out the luck. I'd like to play again for three rounds, but I think it will be hard to get interest in it for awhile.

Thread: Session Report

batman — 2003-12-25T15:54:36+00:00

To fill some time I pulled out Klunker. Dustin replaced David to make our foursome. Everyone but me was new to the game, which is a big advantage because the game has some non-intuitive parts to it that take some time to adjust to. The game is a hand management/set collecting card game. All the players are jewelry salesmen/collectors and the cards represent different types of jewels. Three phases rule the game. Phase one is where all players can display the jewelry from their hand that they are offering for sale to other players. Phase two is when the players place the jewelry that they are collecting into their safe. The final phase is when the players take turns buying jewelry from each other of removing the jewelry from their own window. All of the purchased jewelry must go into a person’s safe whether they want it to or not. If a person gets a set of four of one type of jewelry in their safe they can then sell them. They receive money based on how many different types of jewelry they are collecting. If they only have the one type of jewelry they are selling they can turn over all four of their cards and get four dollars (the back of the cards double as currency.) The value is reduced by one for every additional type of jewelry in your safe down to a minimum of one dollar for each set. The only exception in the necklace which will always garner four dollars when you turn them in.

I was lucky enough to get a set of necklaces early in the game and build up my bank. George turned in the other necklace set later for his four dollars. After turning in the necklaces I made sure to keep only two kinds of jewelry in my safe at anytime. I put jewelry in my shop window that was attractive to the other players so that they were sure to buy what I had. This was crucial because if you have an empty shop window when it’s your turn to purchase jewelry you aren’t required to buy anything. This can keep you from being forced to put a lot of jewelry you don’t want in your safe and devaluing all of the other sets you are collecting. My strategy worked well because I was also getting a good enough hand of cards to build up sets in my safe without needing to purchase other cards. This worked well enough in the game to come out ahead of Danny by three dollars for the win. I think everyone enjoyed the game.

Thread: Session Report

BoardGameGeek — 2002-09-12T14:15:29+00:00

KLUNKER
*Polly*, Elaine, Ching, Antkam

This was, by far, the toughest game to learn/teach on this day. I had to explain the rules 3 times, and still no one had any clue about strategy going in, and we all bumbled around pretty much the whole game. Polly won by drawing many good cards and throwing the rest in her shop window, and then buying them herself when they accumulated to 6 or 7 cards. In retrospect, we should have countered her strategy by forcing her to buy her own junk prematurely, but somehow the purchase round always ended before she would be forced to buy. I ended up dead last while having absolutely no more clue than when I started. Using Robert Abbott's term, this game has no "clarity" for me. So what's a spielfriek to do? Read hints on the geek of course! Which I did today, and now I am eager to try this again.

Polly had the most interesting feedback: "This game is like Bohnanza but more relaxing as you dont have to haggle all the time!"

Thread: General Comment

BoardGameGeek — 2002-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

I think Klunker is a very good game but one that is a little subtle to play "properly". As I see it the key to the game is the choice of items you place in your shop window. This also seems to be the part of the game that most people play poorly. More often than not players will fill their windows with crap, or more accurately, have an item or two of interest to someone but then spoil it by throwing in something useless. I think it is a FAR better strategy to fill your window with a collection that another player REALLY wants. This has several benefits:

- It makes it far more likely that you'll sell your items. For some reason people seem to "devalue" this $1. Its worth just as much as the dollar you get from selling a $1 set but for some psychological reason my group doesn't seem to see it this way. (Actually its even more valuable as its coming from another player rather than the bank.)

- Assuming your window items are purchased before your purchase phase (a likely occurrence if you're offering up some beauties) you won't be forced to buy someone else's crap. Instead you can end the round by purchasing nothing.

Poor placement of items in your windows usually leads to a
situation where no one really wants anyone else's items and the game devolves into the situation most describe: Whoever gets luckiest with the card draws wins the game.

Another aspect of the game I think people play incorrectly is the purchase of someone else's window. I don't know if its just my group or not but on several occasions I've seen players purchase someone else's items all so that they could cash in for $1! Why? All you're doing is giving the seller $1 with no profit for yourself! If you're not going to make at least $2 by purchasing items DON'T DO IT (given the choice anyway).

Also, I think that people tend to try and cycle through items too quickly. I'd much rather cash in every 3 rounds for $4 than every round for $1. Especially if it also meant that I was collecting $1 from selling to other players while paying nothing for my own.

Thread: General Comment

BoardGameGeek — 2002-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

I like this game quite a bit, particularly since it's an unusual design that forces you to play differently
than you might intuitively expect. I'm still working out its subtleties and am enjoying doing so.
In a game session of this recently posted by Pat Brennan, I saw that "Andrew" agreed with these
sentiments. But he also mentioned he really liked the "beautifully designed cards"? Are you
kidding me? This game has got to have the worst physical design of any German game I've
ever seen. The illustrations are distasteful (some would even say repulsive) in a style that is
not at all to my liking, the colors are too muted and not always distinguishable, the card indices
are (needlessly) marked only on the top, and the cards themselves are too big, making it hard
to play on a small table. I play this game in spite of the graphic design, not because of it.

Thread: General Comment

BoardGameGeek — 2002-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

I think any "problem" this game may have is just the same as Bohnanza. In Bohnanza, if everybody else is paranoiacally giving away their cards for free, then the player who luckily gets the most cards given to him will be the winner, and you can't change that with whatever skillful trading you can do.
In Klunker, it is the same: if everybody else is throwing their entire hand into their shop windows and/or their safe every turn, there is nothing you can do except to follow suit. BUT, if only a subset of the players are doing that, the other players can gain an edge over them by playing 'properly': as long as you have one or two other sensible players to 'trade' with, you should be able to do better than the random card droppers. Just like in Bohnanza, if only a small subset of players are giving away cards freely while the others are trading properly, the players who give away cards for free can't win.

Thread: Session Report

PBrennan — 2001-12-01T06:19:57+00:00

We had 20 minutes to fill until Capitol finished. The choice was obvious. The highlight was David taking his Full Vault strategy to a new level ... he had all 7 suits displayed and going at once! There were some particularly pus-y moves in this outing, taking perhaps less than optimal cards to stick people with an even worse collection in their vault. I broke my recent losing streak through a lucky final hand that saw me take a late 4 gold.

Scores: Pat 17, Silvia 15, David 14, Andrew 13

A rating of 9 after 46 games. Klunker Klub reigns.

Thread: Session Report

PBrennan — 2001-08-20T00:00:16+00:00

3 games of our perennial closer in which a pecking order was established up front and remained unaltered. David proved the new Klunker King on the block. New blood at the table introduced the slap them all down strategy and
force everyone to take their own or risk unprofitable purchases. Sometimes it works, sometimes it crap(s). It's all in the cards, lads, and the counting - and not getting stuck, and ...

Scores:
David 25, Pat 23, Rick 14
David 14, Pat 13, Rick 11
David 20, Pat 14, Rick 11

A rating of 9 after 22 plays; an excellent game that stands repeated playings.

Thread: Session Report

PBrennan — 2001-07-07T04:45:32+00:00

Rick and I slugged it out to the end in our favourite closer. First time out for Nick with 3 players - the strategies are a bit different from 5 player playings so experience helped.

Scores: Pat 27, Rick 26, Nick 11

Let's crank up the rating a notch ... a rating of 9 after 18 plays; excellent game, often want to play it, stands repeated playings with good depth. 3 or 4 players only though.

Thread: Session Report

derk — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

Tim, John, Ken, Derk

We weren’t sure when (or if) more than four players would show up, so John suggested this card game. He ran through the rules for Ken and me and we began collecting jewelry. This game is kind of like a different version of Bohnanza with some interesting trading/buying thrown in. I’ve heard mixed reviews of this game, so I decided not to expect much. The game began haltingly and we placed a bunch of cards for little gain. As we headed into the second part of the game, the scoring started to add up. I got some really good cards and scored fairly well, while the rest of the guys only got mediocre scores. Things were starting to even up when I got another nice bunch of cards worth three and four point each. The game wound to a close soon after, and the scores were fairly predictable.

Derk: 19, John: 13, Tim: 12, Ken: 9

I liked the game on the whole. I can see why others have said that your performance is based mostly on the cards that you draw. But I can also see how there are lots of good decisions to be made during the game. I don’t know what to think about it. The one thing I do know: I wouldn’t mind playing the game again.

Thread: Session Report

BoardGameGeek — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

George, Tim, John

With time running out before I had to honor my cultural obligations, we tossed out this light little (trick-taking?) game. I'm pretty sure everyone in the group has played this one, so I won't bother to explain the gist. This, however, was George's first time playing, and he adopted an interesting strategy - put everything in your hand that doesn't match into your shop window! After two turns, he had something like eight cards in there, and I just couldn't resist. I bought a fair amount of junk, but netted seven or eight points right away. As the game progressed, George picked up some of the nuances of what the put in the window, when to start a new set in your bank, etc. By the end, it actually seemed like a fairly normal game. And I won't criticize George's opening strategy too much - after all, he did finish second.

John: 21, George: 16, Tim: 14

Of course, the real winners were our taste buds and stomachs. George and Tim ordered chicken tikka masala, while I had the mixed veggie curry and we all had bread - naan for george; onion kulcha for Tim and I. And don't forget the delicious basmati rice with spices and the complimentary kheer for dessert. Final score:

Taj Mahal: 45.35
Tim/George/John: Stopped counting after first bite

Thread: Session Report

gschloesser — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

How does Uwe Rosenberg do it? He followed up his incredibly successful and enjoyable Bohnanza with both Mamma Mia (which is a simple, yet wonderful card game of filling pizza orders) with Klunker, another light, yet immensely fun card game of selling and saving jewelry.

Like many games, this one takes playing once or twice before one gets the hang of the mechanics. During a player's turn, one must offer one or more articles of jewelry for sale in his 'Schaufenster' (Show Window). After everyone has offered up a few items for display to tempt their opponents, players then begin placing cards into their bank. The idea is to collect four of an item ... preferably only one item at a time. For once a player has collected four of an item, he sells them for $4 and banks the money (which is represented by turning over these four cards into his bank .. they are double printed, as in Bohnanza). Problem is that it is difficult to collect only one set at a time. Each additional item of jewelry in one's bank reduces the monetary take of a set of four by $1. Thus, if a player managed to acquire a set of 4 tongue studs (yes, tongue studs), but also had one gold tooth (yes, gold tooth) and one earring, then one's take would only be $2 (4 - 2) for the set of tongue rings.

Once a player finished placing items in his safe, he may grab the #1 card, which will give him the first option to purchase jewelry from a player's window that turn. Players can continue to place items in their safe, or grab another 'purchase' card. Once all players have grabbed a purchase card, the buying begins.

Beginning with the player who scooped purchase card #1, he MUST purchase for $1 ALL of the items in one player's window. Items purchased are promptly placed in his safe. If a set is completed, it is immediately sold in the manner described above. If a player doesn't wish to purchase anything from an opponent, he then purchases the items in his own window, but it costs nothing. These, too, are added to his safe.

The only time a player does not have to purchase items is IF his own shop window is empty (which means an opponent already purchased the items from him). Then, a player may pass, which immediately ends the purchase round. Thus, several players may find themselves without the opportunity to purchase items that round. Ouch.

Each player then refills his hand to six cards and the cycle is repeated. The game continues in the same manner until the jewelry deck is depleted, at which time players add up the money they have collected. The player with the highest total is the victor.

I like this game. I really like this game. It is light, family fun, but there is some nice things to think about and do during the course of the game. It's not quite in the same league as Bohnanza, but it is fun nonetheless. I do wish the artwork could have been better, though. My wife could have drawn better pictures. The art is of poor quality and appears to have been drawn by a brother-in-law that needed some extra money. Not up to the usual Rosenberg standards.

In spite of the artwork, the game is on my 'Will Purchase' list. Future releases by Rosenberg will now be eagerly awaited.

In our game of this, Ty Douds and I seemed to be doing the best as jewelry salesmen and collectors. Jay Ouzts seemed to be a bit out of it, as did Jonathan Degann. On what turned out to be the final transaction of the game, Jonathan purchased some jewelry from my window, paying me $1 for the transaction. That turned out to be my margin of victory, much to Ty's disgust!

Greg 19, Ty 18, Jay 11, Jonathan 10

Ratings: Greg 7, Ty 6 (this has gone up since due to another playing), Jonathan 5

Thread: Session Report

gschloesser — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

With about 1/2 remaining and the Merchant of Venus game concluding, I convinced Eric Alleman, Trevor Antczak and John Moore to remain for one more game ... Klunker. This game from Uwe Rosenberg, designer of Bohnanza, Schaeppchen Jagd and Mamma Mia, is addicting. It seems that it takes more than one or two playings to really get the hang of the game and see how best to optimize one's turn AND how best to hose your opponents. After one 'sees' the possibilities, this is an excellent game.

It is a bit difficult to convey the intricacies without demonstrating and playing the game, so I'll simply give a brief description here. Players are attempting to gather sets of four... preferably only one set at a time ... of jewelry. There are seven different types of jewelry in the deck, ranging from the traditional necklaces and earrings to the more unsettling tongue studs and gold teeth. If one collects a set of four in his safe, WITHOUT having any other types of jewelry in the safe ... then he converts all four of the cards into dollars. However, if there are any other types of jewelry in his safe at the time, he deducts $1 for each additional TYPE of jewelry in his safe. Thus, if a player collected four tongue studs, but also had an earring and a necklace in his safe, he could only convert two tongue studs into dollars. The other two tongue studs would be re-shuffled into the deck at the end of the round.

So how does one collect jewelry? By purchasing the cards from other players show windows. Each turn, players place items for sale in their window. These are usually items the player is trying not to collect and is offering as an enticement to his opponents who are trying to collect them. During the buying round, players may pay $1 to buy the wares from one opponent, but MUST buy ALL of the cards in his window. These are immediately placed in his safe, which often results in having more types of jewelry than the desired one set only optimum.

The really, really fun part however is determining the order of buying. After players place cards in their show window, the next phase is placing items in one's own safe. Players begin by placing one card at a time into their safe. This continues around the table as long as needed. If a player elects not to add any more cards to his safe, he grabs the first 'buy' number (1 - 5 are available). This means he will have the first option to buy during the 'buy' phase. This often sets off a panic feeling in the remaining players, who then must decide whether to keep placing cards in their safe and risk getting a late 'buy' number, or going ahead and grabbing a low 'buy' number so they can hopefully purchase the wares they have their eye on. This cycle continues until everyone has a 'buy' number.

During the 'buy' phase, as mentioned above, a player MUST make a purchase IF he still has cards in his own show window. Thus, the player who grabbed the '1' card will always make a purchase. He can spend $1 and purchase from an opponent, or simply move the cards in his own window into his safe for free. If a player doesn't have any cards in his own show window (which means someone purchased them during this round), he may elect to pass and not purchase any cards. This ends the round immediately ... NO ONE else can buy that round. This usually is MAJOR hosage for the remaining players. Cruel, yet fun.

Everyone is then dealt back up to six cards and another round ensues. This cycle continues until it is impossible to deal everyone back up to the required six cards. At that time, the player with the most money in their bank is the victor.

There are a few other features (necklaces being worth a bit more money, etc.), but that's it in a nutshell. However, words don't describe how well this game really works. The main problem is most people will learn this game from reading the rules and not being shown by someone who has played. Thus, they won't get the true 'feel' of the game. That's a shame. This is a wonderful gaming experience.

I shot out to an early lead, successfully completing my first three sets of four without having any other types of jewelry in my safe. Trevor kept a close pace, while John and Eric seemed out of it. Poor Eric literally had at least one of each type of jewelry in his safe and we all figured he was out of it. However, he was able to then use whatever he drew and purchase just about anything without hurting himself. This amounted to a good run wherein he almost caught me for the victory.

Finals: Greg 18, Eric 17, Trevor 15, John 9

Ratings: Greg 8, Trevor 7, Eric 6, John 6

Thread: Session Report

dougadamsau — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

Doug Adams writes:

After an enjoyable game of Giganten, we decided to give Klunker it's first playing at Billabong. This game, from the designer who's given us Mamma Mia and Bohnanza, had a bit of expectation hanging off it, given the popularity the other two games have enjoyed at Billabong.

It was an unusual game. Roger read out the rules, while Craig, Bernie and Doug tried to follow along. However the rules didn't seem to flow and we really didn't know what we were doing when we began the game. Perhaps Bernie did...

The theme of the game is each player owns a jeweller shop from which they peddle jewels, store cash, as well as lock valuables away in the hope they will turn to cash. From a hand of six cards, they must/may put jewels into their shop window where they available to for purchase by the other players. Then the players may store jewels into their safe from their hand, the idea being you can cash sets of four-of-a-kind in for cash. The last phase of a turn is to purchase jewellery from other players shop windows, which must go into your safe - so purchases that will aid in the quest for four-of-a-kind are what you are looking for.

Jewels are cashed in from the safe on a 1 jewel for 1 coin basis (flip the jewel card to it's cash side as in Bohnanza to represent cash). So a set of four will turn into four coins in an ideal world, however that it reduced by 1 coin for each other set in the player's safe. Tricky, that.

We blundered through the game, however by the half way point I think the penny was beginning to drop, especially in Bernie's case. Bernie jumped out to an excellent start, with two large conversions of jewels to cash. The subtleties of purchases, or refusing to purchase, became evident as the first refusal to purchase will end the current game turn, and deny players after you the chance to purchase. Nice trade off, that.

For perhaps three quarters of the game Roger was audibly exclaiming he didn't understand what was happening, and it appeared to take half the game before he cashed in a set of jewels. Craig did well, once we cured him of the 'put bought cards in the hand' habit. Bernie, who appeared to have the rules understood from the beginning, played solidly and hence won. Understanding the rules seemed to help, as perhaps it should

Scores:
Bernie: $16
Craig: $13
Doug: $9
Roger: $6

Doug's rating: 6. I thought it was okay, doesn't have that addictive quality Bohnanza and Mamma Mia has, but I'll happily play it now I've understood the rules.

Thread: Session Report

PBrennan — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

A second playing of this Uwe Rosenberg (you may remember him from such card games as Mamma Mia) offering for me, a first for Richard, and the nth for Nick (the game owner). Players compete (what else) to earn money through judicious and timely selling of jewel-encrusted artifacts that come in seven (?) denominations, each one having eight cards (except the cat necklace, which has six and is therefore more valuable). Without rehashing all the rules, there are three phases per round: (1) one addition of any number of items to one's shop window (optional if there's stuff already there), followed by (2) placement of any number of items in one's vault (one at a time, in turn order), then (3) purchase of any player's entire window contents (free from your own window [duh] or for one dollar from another player's window). At any time in phases (2) or (3), sets of four like items in the vault are cashed in, dollars earnt being four minus the number of other item types in the vault (min. value = 1).

CSFs seemed to be:
* buying from your own window whenever possible, to reduce expenditure
* putting attractive things in the window to tempt other players to pay you for them
* not collecting too many types of item in the vault (which devalues all your sets)

Poor Rick (like most newcomers to this game) struggled to keep the unusual mechanics straight in his head. Nick and I shamelessly exploited his difficulties to pull away, with Nick just being pipped at the post by half a head. This game definitely warrants repeat playings by new players, not only because of the beautifully designed cards, but because the unusual mechanics make the strategies difficult to hone and polish. I for one am definitely enjoying learning all the facets of this gem from Mr Rosenberg.

Scores: Andrew 8, Nick 6, Richard 1

(ed. note: I still have trouble remembering the mechanisms after 2 playings. How many "boom boom"s were in that last paragraph btw? Anyway, for me, its a fake diamond so far)

Thread: Session Report

PBrennan — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

This has become the closer of choice for us, with its interesting mechanics still shrouding the luck factor in myst and fog. Just one more tongue stud in the last hand would have had it for me, but alas. Our closest game so far, with Ricky cracking his first victory.

Scores: Rick 14 (1), Pat 14 (5), Kevin 13, Andrew 11

A rating of 8 as a 30 minute closer, up from 7, after 8 plays for 'will never turn down a game' - as its true, I wouldn't.

Thread: Session Report

gamemark — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

Clint: Everybody was complaining of terrible hands. They were so terrible, everybody got hosed evenly. Matter of fact, it was so bad, we resorted to dumping the entire hand in the window to hurry up and end the game... and even then Bob's mall of jewelery in his safe could only cash in on one set for one VP if he had bought Jeff's window of about 9 cards.

Bob: Jeff & I get hosed by the 'Necklace hoarders' & by having 2 of the 4 initial money cards be Necklaces!

Clint 14
Andy 9
Bob 9 (I had 2 necklaces??)
Jeff 6

Thread: Session Report

PBrennan — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

Played 2 games with 5 players, where the game seems to end much more quickly than with 4 players, which seems to be the best number for the game. With 5 it was noticeable in both games that the players with good hands to begin with won handily, not providing enough time for the luck to even out. My jury is still out on how much luck dominates skill in this game, but I'm still enjoying the novel mechanics.

A rating of 7 after 7 plays for 'good game, usually willing to play'. An interesting 30 minute closer.

Thread: Session Report

gamemark — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

This game takes a play or two to wrap your brain around... Jarrod's thundering loss looks good compared to my own first play back in early 1999. In Klunker, you start with one bill in your account - I finished the game with exact same amount I started.

The following is some strategy notes from the Game Central Station website on Klunker:

Strategy Due to it's fluid nature, it's hard to give a "set" strategy for Klunker. What works one game may bomb miserably the next time out. The following points act as weather vanes, giving you direction depending on how the game is going.

What to Put in Your Store Window - You have to be cautious about slapping complete junk into your store window, especially if you pick up a late buying turn number. Your only option may be to stuff the junk in your own window into your safe. - Try putting two of one item in your store window. This increases the likelihood of someone else buying them AND decreases the pain if you have to buy them from yourself. - It's a bad idea to "poison the well" by putting in an extra item of another type to devalue another player's purchase of your store window. If you end up buying late in the round, you could wind up with your own pile of junk. (On the other hand, if you plan to grab an early number, this isn't such a bad idea after all.) - Even the best laid plans of mice & men can go TOTALLY wrong. Often, a careful play of an enticing card(s) is rendered moot as your oppponent has the necessary cards in his hand. But one of the virtues of Klunker is that you are never completely stuck. As in real life you just have to sweeten the deal a bit. If no one wants your card and you don't want it yourself - give them the cards that they want!

Read the rest of it at: http://geocities.com/scareyjo/klunker.html

Results: Dennis Mills 32 (0 cards in safe & window) Mark Jackson 28 (3 cards in safe & window) Jarrod Henry 9 (5 cards in safe & window)

Ratings: This is ALSO a 7 for me (seems like I'm giving out a lot of those tonight). It's also one of the most requested 30 minute games here at Game Central Station.

Thread: Session Report

PBrennan — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

Nick played the 'Start Buyer' strategy throughout, but I think sometimes forsaking better moves to maintain control over it. My sitting to his right unfortunately left me without a buy on a few turns and we both suffered. I
hadn't noticed the effect of 'constant' start player as being this obvious before, so that was interesting and I've notched that little tid-bit away for future playings.

Scores: Andrew 18, Rick 17, Pat 9, Nick 5

A rating of 8 after 14 plays for 'always happy to play it'. It's becoming more obvious though that once all the players are at a certain level, luck of the cards (both received & window'd) will mostly determine it. That doesn't change the fun or the allure of it as a 30 minute closer for us. Probably best with 3, then 4, more chaotic with 5.

Thread: Session Report

PBrennan — 2001-01-01T06:00:00+00:00

I've learnt not to put much stock in 5 player plays of Klunker, as the shafting flies thick and fast around the table. After finishing cursing Tim for taking those two pink things I needed, the funny play to me was watching my window of 2 headbands and 2 tongue studs go unwanted, and then, just after Andrew increased his vault to 2 headbands and 2 tongue studs, eyeing my window avariciously, I added 2 more headbands! Woo-hoo, Andrew's potential haul of 6 gold / Me for 1 turns beautifully into Ricardo's haul of 1 / Me for 1 on the final turn. Love my work. Ricardo is quickly becoming the Master Jeweller though; another quiet haul of quality off-loads whilst utilising the Start Player card to max effect. I really must get me some of that Start Player action.

Scores: Richard 11, Tim & Anne 9, Pat 8, Andrew 6.